FREAK OF THE WEEK: U.S. Sen. Joe “Can you believe I used to be a Democrat?” Lieberman

File this one under: Still freaky after all these years.

Hard to believe that Sen. Joe Lieberman was once the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential candidate back in 2000. But the years have not been kind to Lieberman. And in return, Lieberman has not been kind back.

Things really came to a head in 2006, when Democratic primary voters in his home state of Connecticut gave him the heave-ho, choosing the much more liberal Ned Lamont over the incumbent. But Lieberman did not go gentle into that good night. Instead, after losing, he launched an independent campaign – and won (with much Republican support).

Democrats were willing to play nice, however, and allowed Lieberman to keep his seniority as long as Lieberman caucused with the Democrats, becoming an “Independent Democrat” (whatever that means).

Then what did he do? Endorse Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama last year, even speaking at the GOP convention.

And yet, he still wanted to be welcomed back in the Democratic fold.

Now …. oops, he’s done it again.

Lieberman announced this past week that he would break ranks with the Democrats and not try to stop a Republican filibuster of health care reform if said reform included a so-called “public option.” (His support is particularly important since the Democrats need the entire 60-member caucus to block a filibuster.)

Strangely, his latest decision comes after years of voicing support for health care reform, including universal coverage. He has even called health care reforms “centrist” (a favorite buzzword of his).

Now, Lieberman argues that the public option is a bad idea because it would raise the deficit and increase taxes (which is false, but that’s a whole other issue).

Of course, Lieberman hails from the state that is the insurance capital of the country. So he was willing to say he supported health care reforms when it wasn’t a reality, but now that push is coming to shove, he is backing down and undermining the principle of universal coverage.

Nice to know that the older Lieberman gets, the freakier he becomes.

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Joe “You Lie” Wilson, Carrie “Opposite Marriage” Prejean, and Jack “Hypocrite” Layton

After a week off to attend the annual convention of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention in

Montreal, the FredBlog is back with a bag full o’ freaks. So let’s get the party started as the FredBlog shines its freaklight on this week’s Freaks of the Week:

1. Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina

Joe Wilson was freaky enough for shouting out “You lie” during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress. But piling freakiness upon freakiness is this past week’s revelation that Wilson, um, LIED!

If you recall, Wilson raised the roof during Obama’s healthcare address over the issue of illegal immigration. And what makes him such as expert on the issue? Here’s how he explained it during a press conference: “I’m for immigration, legal immigration. I’m an immigration attorney.”

However, as revealed by the website TPMmuckraker, he is nothing of the sort. In fact, he is a real estate lawyer. It even says so on his own website.

TPMmuckraker interviewed a number of South Carolina attorneys as well the American Immigration Lawyers Association. No one knows Wilson as anything but a real estate attorney.

So please join the FredBlog in shouting out to Mr. Wilson, “You lie!”

2. Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean is full of catchphrases. First, she made headlines by giving props to “opposite marriage.” Now, it’s all about, “God chose me.”

You see, this past week Prejean spoke at the right-wing Family Research Council’s so-called Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. (Sarah Palin wasn’t available, so they went with someone who I’m guessing can’t even find Russia on a map!)

In her speech to the Value (if hate is a value) Voters, Prejean discussed her pageant moment when celebrity judge Perez Hilton asked her about same-sex marriage. She told the crowd, “As I saw my goals and aspirations flash by me, I knew God had a plan for me. … He chose me for that moment.”

Yes, Ms. Prejean, of all the people in the world, God chose a dumbass beauty queen. Donald Trump may have chosen you, but God certainly did not.

3. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada

Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s far-left party, has made a career of bashing the center-left Liberal Party over the head for not voting down the ruling Conservative Party and its Bush-alike leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In fact, in the last election campaign, Layton puffed himself up as the only true opposition leader. And Layton’s disdain for Harper goes so deep that he didn’t even bother reading the last Conservative budget before deciding his party would vote against it.

But finally, the Liberals have had enough. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff announced this past week that his party would indeed vote to bring down the Conservatives, forcing a federal election.

Oh, but wait, the polls don’t look good for Layton and the New Democrats. So instead of siding with the Liberals, something he has been waiting for, Layton engineered a reason to prop up the Conservatives. Worse yet, Layton says he will continue to support the Conservatives on a number of upcoming confidence motions.

So on a dime, Layton has switched from damning the Liberals for propping up the Conservatives to doing it himself. Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe Layton’s freakiness.

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins, and (yet again) Stephen Harper

It was another week full o’ freaks on both sides of the border, with a repeat performance by Canadian Prime Minister to top it all off. So this week, the FredBlog turns its freaklight on a freak trifecta aka a “freak-fecta.”

1. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist

If you’ve seen the documentary “Outrage,” you already know that this Republican closet case has earned his freak stripes. But he added more freak merit points this past week when he said that the reason Florida hasn’t been hit by major hurricanes since 2007 is that God likes him.

Crist reportedly told a group of real estate agents, “In 2007, I took my first trade mission. Do you know where I went?” He went to Israel, where he placed a written request in the cracks of the Western Wall that read, “Dear God, please protect our Florida from storms and other difficulties. Charlie.” Crist then implied that God read the note and followed through to the gov’s request. “Time goes on – May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December – no hurricanes.”

Maybe Gov. Crist needs to realize that his last name does not have an “h” between the “C” and the “r.”

2. Kansas Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Lynn Jenkins is either incredibly stupid, racist or both.

While speaking to her constituents at a town hall meeting last week, Jenkins said, “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope” to go up against President Barack Obama.

Here’s the problem: The phrase “great white hope” is a racist term dating back to the early 20^th century. It came into general usage after boxer Jack Johnson, who was black, won the heavyweight title – a victory that didn’t sit well with whites. So many then worked to find a white fighter – a “great white hope” – who could snatch the title away from Johnson. And the phrase is certainly not obscure. Johnson’s story inspired both a play and a movie – both called “The Great White Hope,” both starring James Earl Jones.

So according to Jenkins, the Republican Party is looking for a “great white hope” to take on America’s first black president.

Ms. Jenkins, would you like a hood with that?

3. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

The leader of Canada’s Conservative government just can’t keep himself away from freakville. This time, it’s due to a grand case of hypocrisy (Harpocrisy?).

First, the background: Canadian senators are not elected, but appointed by the prime minister of the day (without even hearings like they have for Supreme Court justices in the United States). And senators serve until they are 75 and are currently paid an annual salary of $132,000. The Senate, therefore, is ripe for political patronage.

To Harper’s credit – yes, the FredBlog does give credit where credit is due – he ran on a platform of changing the Senate so that it would be more accountable to voters. And he promised – repeatedly – that he would not appoint senators not directly elected by voters.

In fact, during the 2006 election, Harper’s party promised: “A Conservative government will not appoint to the Senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.” And in 2004, before becoming Prime Minister, he blasted the Senate as “a dumping ground for the favored cronies of the Prime Minister.”

So what did Harper do last week? He appointed nine – count ‘em – nine new unelected, unaccountable senators. That’s after appointing 18 unelected, unaccountable senators only days before last Christmas (so no one would notice).

And who did Harper appoint? The latest group includes the party’s director of political operations (Doug Finley), a former Harper leadership campaign co-chair (Judith Seidman), the president of the Conservative Party (Don Plett) and the director of strategic communication for Harper’s office who also once served as Harper’s press secretary (Carolyn Stewart-Olsen).

So glad Harper isn’t in a favor of political patronage and cronyism.

FREAKS OF THE WEEKS: Sarah Palin, Beer Summit-ers and senators against mermaids

The FredBlog is back from vacation – hey, even a blog deserves some rest and relaxation – and the freaks have been piling up. So let’s shine that freaklight where it is most needed.

Now-former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

In her resignation speech at the end of last month, Palin’s freakiness was on full display, but here are some of the FredBlog’s favorite passages:

·     “In the wintertime, … the cold though, doesn’t it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs?” (How about splitting the Pumpernickels from the Sourdoughs?)

·     “Our new governor has a very nice family too, so leave his kids alone.” (Thanks, Sarah, for putting the new gov’s kids in the spotlight as well.)

·     “Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefore we hunt.” (Yeah, ‘cuz no one gets their food from a supermarket anymore.)

·     “Democracy depends on you [the media], that’s why our troops are willing to do for you. So, how ‘bout in honor of the American soldier, ya quit makin’ things up.” (Um, what!??!?!)

Vice President Joe Biden

He wasn’t supposed to be part of the so-called Beer Summit planned for President Barack Obama, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley. But Biden, who just happened to be in the neighborhood, managed to take part anyway. (Is beer the reason Biden keeps putting his foot in his mouth?)

Obama, Gates and Crowley

The Beer Summit was supposed to be part of a “teachable moment” about racism. In the end, it was a mere photo op – we couldn’t even hear what they were saying. It was just pretty pictures to make Obama et al look like they are doing something proactive.

Sens. Sam Brownback and Mary Landrieu

The Kansas Republican and Louisiana Democrat came together to introduce a bill to prohibit the creation of human-animal hybrids, including – yes – mermaids. (They obviously didn’t like the movie “Splash.”) Good thing they are working on such burning issues as mermaids and mermen instead of things like the economy, health care and the job market.

Congressman Todd Tiahart

The Kansas Republican, as part of his anti-abortion rhetoric, ruminated on the House floor what life would be like if President Obama’s mother had had an abortion. Now that’s classy.

Tennessee state Sen. Paul Stanley

Believe it or not, another anti-gay socially conservative Republican has been caught having an extramarital affair. Stanley finally admitted not only to having the affair with an intern, but also taking explicit photos of her. Stanley – who recently introduced a bill to bar unmarried couples, both gay and straight, from adopting children – has since resigned.

Conservative Party of Canada

At the last minute, the ruling Conservatives denied $155,000 in federal economic-stimulus funding to Divers/Cité, the group behind one of Montreal’s gay pride festivals, forcing the cancellation of a number of high-profile events. This move came soon after a similar decision was made regarding Pride Toronto, all because the federal tourism minister had her picture taken with drag queens. The Conservatives just need to grow up.

New Democratic Party of Canada

The far-left party is considering dropping the “new” and changing its name to the Democratic Party of Canada. That’s all well and good, except something gets lost in translation. You see, in French – Canada’s other official language – Democratic Party translates as “Parti démocrate,” making its initials PD. However, PD sounds like “pédé,” which is a slang term for gays in French. Best to stick with the name as it is. 

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: The anti-Obama Birthers

This past week was so chock full o’ freaks that it was all I could do to keep up with all the freakiness. But by far, the biggest freaks were the so-called Birthers. These are the people on the far right fringe of the Republican Party who believe – despite all evidence to the contrary – that Barack Obama is not an American citizen.

This anti-Obama talk started during last year’s campaign, promoted by the same conservatives who cheered Sarah Palin when she said Obama was “paling around with terrorists.”

Despite making public the documents showing that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii – which, if you recall, is a state – the Birthers roared back with a vengeance at the same time Obama is promoting those “socialist” health care reforms. (Can you say “diversionary tactic”? I knew that you could.)

The rebirth of the Birthers occurred during a recent town hall meeting held by moderate Republican Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware. An angry citizen – reminiscent of the elderly woman who insisted to John McCain that Obama is an Arab – stood up waving around an American flag and her own birth certificate, demanding to see Obama’s.

“He is not an American citizen. He is a citizen of Kenya,” she shrieked, adding that her father fought in World War II (because, you know, that’s relevant). “I don’t want this flag to change. I want my country back,” she added while the audience cheered and whistled in approval. When Castle said that Obama is indeed an American citizen, he was booed. (See for yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwgzYkTDsmQ.)

The movement gained more traction last week when California Congressman John Campbell went on MSNBC’s “Hardball” to promote his bill requiring presidential candidates to show copies of their birth certificates.

This interview didn’t go well for Campbell, with host Chris Matthews pressing him on whether or not he thought Obama was an American citizen. Campbell finally said, “As far as I know, yes.”

Still, the bill feeds the Birthers, whose ranks go as high as CNN’s Lou Dobbs and whose cause has been taken up by Dick Cheney daughter Liz.

What makes absolutely no sense is that the Birthers keep demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate when it’s already out there as part of the public record. So, the conversation goes something like this:

Crazy Birther: I want to see Obama’s birth certificate!

Sane person: OK, here it is.

Crazy Birther: But I want to see Obama’s birth certificate!

Sane person: I just showed it to you.

Crazy Birther: Yeah, but I want to see Obama’s birth certificate!

And on and on.

Funny how these crazy right-wingers never made an issue of any other politician’s status as an American citizen. So what’s going on?

Here it is, and it’s disgusting. There are Americans who just can’t accept, won’t accept, that a black man is president of the United States. Worse than that, he’s a black man with the “un-American” name Barack Hussein Obama. He was born in Hawaii (barely a state, although all of a sudden Alaska is the most American of states), and he lived part of his childhood in Indonesia. Given all that, Obama is seen by some as less than a real, red-blooded American.

During the campaign, Palin talked about how some places in the United States were more American than others. This Birthers movement is part of the fallout from that kind of divisive rhetoric.

It’s racist, it’s ugly, and it’s an evil eating away at the heart of the nation.

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Republican members of U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

This past week, there was a whole Senate hearing-room full of freakiness as the Judiciary Committee grilled Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court. As one pundit put it, these spoiled white guys were treating her as if she were the cleaning lady.

Firstly, when asking Sotomayor – who is currently a circuit court judge – about the so-called New Haven firefighters case, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama took issue with the nominee for not voting the same way as another circuit judge of Puerto Rican descent did.

Sessions said, “Had you voted with Judge [José] Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could’ve changed that case.” What the heck does Cabranes’ ancestry – Puerto Rican or otherwise – have to do with his vote? No, Sen. Sessions, Puerto Ricans don’t all think alike.

Thankfully, not all Southern white guys think alike. Then again …

Not to be outdone, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma invoked a Latino stereotype during the hearing. In a bizarre exchange about Sotomayor hypothetically attacking Coburn, he said she would “have a lot of ’splainin’ to do!” That, of course, is a reference to the “I Love Lucy” character of Ricky Ricardo, a Cuban-American famously played by Desi Arnaz. Given the racial undercurrents of the hearing, why in the world would Coburn say this? Then again, in his mind, is there even a difference between Cubans and Puerto Ricans?

And then for some, Puerto Ricans are like any other “immigrants.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, in stating that he would be voting against Sotomayor’s confirmation, compared her to his wife – former Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao – because she, too, is an immigrant. As a way of excusing his no vote, he said, “I myself am married to an immigrant who came to this country not speaking a word of English and ended up on the president's Cabinet.”

Um, Mr. McConnell, I hate to break this to you, but, um, Sotomayor is not an immigrant! She’s from Puerto Rico – which has been part of the United States since 1898! I know, is it’s only been 111 years, so it’s easy to forget.

The freakiness, sadly, was not limited to the U.S. Senate. Rush Limbaugh made a direct reference to Sotomayor as cleaning lady: "I think I'm going to send Sotomayor, and her club, a bunch of vacuum cleaners to help them clean up after their meetings." What a classy guy that Rush is.

Clinton “evolution” points to Obama hypocrisy

Former Bill Clinton – the man who gave us the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) back in 1996 – now supports marriage equality for same-sex couples.

This is a stunning reversal for Clinton. DOMA, after all, blocks the federal government from recognizing legally wed same-sex couples in states where it is permitted. The legislation also allows a state not to recognize a legal same-sex marriage performed in another state, a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s full-faith-and-credit clause.

Clinton made the declaration in response to a question at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 8, and reported by The Nation magazine’s website.

“I think all these states that [legalize same-sex marriage], should do it,” Clinton said, according to The Nation. When asked about his personal feelings on the subject, he said, “I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it’s wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that.”

This comes after he told an audience at Toronto’s Convention Centre this past spring that his position on same-sex marriage was “evolving.”

Evolving, indeed.

Of course, it’s somewhat safe for Clinton to say all this now, nine years removed from office. Clinton won’t suffer any of the political consequences he faced back when he was in the Oval Office.

At the same time, however, same-sex marriage was merely an idea then – not the reality that began in 2004 in Massachusetts. So it was much easier in the ‘90s to oppose marriage equality – and the tide continues to turn.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of Democrats favor equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.

The current president not only opposes same-sex marriage (opting for separate-but-not-really-equal civil unions), but his Justice Department filed a vile brief in support of DOMA despite once promising to repeal the legislation. (See FredBlog entry “Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite,” June 18, 2009.)

Other high profile Democrats have recently come down on the side of marriage equality, including Howard Dean, who signed the nation’s first civil unions law back in 2000 as governor of Vermont.

Interestingly, Vermont’s new law allowing same-sex couples to marry goes into effect on Sept. 1. Other states joining the marriage equality club this year are Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Iowa.

That’s a lot of evolving. President Obama, the ball is now in your court.

Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite

Many gay and lesbian Americans feel double-crossed by President Barack Obama – and rightly so. After all, it was Obama’s clear stance against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that led many to side with him over Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton.

Let’s travel back to the summer of 2007, a time when no one was expecting the battle royale to come between Clinton and Obama. In fact, Clinton was all but assumed to be the next president.

Logo, the gay cable network, held a gay-focused presidential primary debate along with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay civil rights organization. Inevitably, the issue of marriage for same-sex couples came up.

While both Obama and Clinton agreed on separate-but-equal civil unions over full marriage equality, they differed on DOMA. That legislation, infamously signed into the law under dark of night by then-President Bill Clinton, does two critical things:

1.   It says the federal government does not have to recognize a legally wed same-sex couple, even if they are legally wed in their home state.

2.   It says that other states don’t have to recognize a couple legally wed in their home state. (This is clearly unconstitutional because of the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which means – among other things – that if a straight couple elopes to Vegas, when they go home to Idaho, their Nevada marriage must be recognized.)

At the Logo debate, Clinton – ever the pragmatist – said that as president, she would advocate repealing part of DOMA, but not the portion dealing with full faith and credit. She explained that it would not be politically feasible to repeal DOMA fully over the next presidential term.

Obama, however, went all in. He not only called for the full repeal of DOMA, but also noted that this has been his position since he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

After that exchange, many LGBT Americans took a second look at the race – and while many still sided with Clinton, more and more jumped to Obama.

DOMA, therefore, was a decisive issue for a large number of gays and lesbians looking at the presidential race.

It’s no wonder so many are angry with Obama right now.

Not only is he dragging his heels on high-priority LGBT issues such as repealing DOMA and the military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which he promised to overturn), but his administration’s recent defense of DOMA is nothing but despicable.

In a brief submitted in the case of Smelt v. U.S. challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is a “cautious policy of federal neutrality.” What!?!?! During the campaign, Obama called DOMA “abhorrent.”

As pointed out by the New York Times in a June 16 editorial, this “neutrality” argument is “an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits – such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns – that heterosexual married couples receive.”

Then there’s the brief’s comparison of same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. As the Times put it, “The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the ‘traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.’ In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s ‘full faith and credit’ clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.”

And to top it all off, the brief argues that DOMA does not discriminate against gays; it merely limits federal benefits to those in opposite-sex marriages. So the Obama administration is saying that a gay man isn’t being discriminated by DOMA because he could go off and marry a woman to get the benefits!

This is twisted and shows ignorance and the kind of wedge-issue politics that Obama spoke out so strongly against during the campaign.

Then after all this odious offense, Obama has the nerve to throw crumbs in the form of partner benefits for federal employees only.

This is hypocrisy and anti-gay demagoguery worthy of George W. Bush. Is this really the change we can believe in that a majority of Americans voted for?

FREAK OF THE WEEK: 

Republican Jewish Coalition leader Matthew Brooks

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a man who, when it comes to Middle East peace, lives in a parallel universe where playing fair is considered unfair.

Truth be told, there was much freakiness reacting to President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech this past week, in which he tried to strike the right balance between power and contrition.

But no one’s freakiness was more succinct than that of Matthew Brooks. In response to the speech, Brooks issued a statement that included this oxymoronic gem:

“President Barack Obama, in his major speech in Cairo this morning, struck a balanced tone with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that's what was wrong with this speech.

“American policy should not be balanced – it should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.”

Where to begin with how wrongheaded this is?

Firstly, a balanced tone is EXACTLY what is needed right now. If the U.S. – and other Western democracies – want peace in the Middle East, they must play fair. They cannot be seen as always siding with Israel, especially when Israel breaks the rules.

In fact, just this week we learned that the Dubya Administration was saying one thing to Israel in public about settlements in the West Bank, but privately sending a message allowing Israel to continue expanding those settlements. If the goal is peace, such one-sided duplicity cannot continue.

Secondly, Brooks paints both sides with very broad brushes. He implies that all Israelis are peace-seeking freedom lovers, and all Palestinians are terror-toting evildoers. That’s as helpful as the rest of the world hating all Americans because they disagreed with the policies of George W. Bush. Many Americans disagreed vehemently with Bush and his brethren, and the same can be said for Middle East residents and their respective leaders.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for one, will not endorse the so-called “two-state solution” backed, in writing, by previous Israeli governments. And yet many Israelis have no problem with a solution that creates a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel. (Officials in Netanyahu’s government also voiced their concern this week that Obama will no longer allow Bush’s two-faced duplicity, but that’s a whole other issue.)

As for Palestinians, characterizing all of them as terrorists – or too weak to fight terrorism – is counterproductive. Americans didn’t like being called evil by those around the world who disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, so why would average Palestinians tolerate it?

And if there are those who want to fight terrorism, but are too weak to do so, let’s help them – not insult them.

The truth is that people like Brooks aren’t interested in peace in the Middle East. They are only interested in what they believe to be biblical prophecy, which disregards current political boundaries, secularism, 21^st century multiculturalism and the goal of global cooperation.

People like Brooks are stuck in the past – sometimes an ancient past – that will not lead to harmony in the Middle East. Obama, to his credit, is advocating a peaceful vision for the future.