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: 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 OF THE WEEK: Alaska Gov.-for-not-that-much-longer Sarah Palin

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight once again on Sarah Palin, this time for her rambling press conference during which she announced that she will not only refrain from running for re-election, but will leave office by the end of the month.

First, let’s look at the timing of the press conference – Friday afternoon on July 3 (late afternoon on the East Coast). Not only is Friday afternoon the usual dumping ground for releasing information you don’t want people paying attention to, but this was the day before the July 4 holiday – and a day that many people had off anyway.

So it would seem that Palin wanted to leave office without anyone noticing. What, did she think no one would wonder what happened once she left? Was she planning on just disappearing like South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford?

Speaking of Sanford, did Palin take press conference tips from him? Just like Sanford’s public freakiness when he admitted to his Argentinean love affair, Palin’s speech was – as described by CBS News – “rambling and sometimes confusing.” (Just like Palin herself.)

We the listening and viewing public had to hear about the history of Alaska, a long list of her administration’s “accomplishments,” her time since being tapped by John McCain as his running mate and a metaphor about fishing before we ever heard Palin say the words, “I will not seek re-election as governor.” (There was also a basketball analogy, but that came later, as did her final line quoting General MacArthur. She’s so folksy, ya know? You betcha!)

In deciding to step down on July 26, Palin said she did not want to be a “lame duck.” She said, “I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks, ... travel around the state, to the Lower 48, overseas on international trade, as so many politicians do. And then I thought, that's what's wrong. Many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and milk it. I'm not putting Alaska through that. I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!”

I’ll leave it up to Alaskans to decide whether or not it’s a good thing Palin is leaving early, but this lame duck stuff makes no sense. Using her logic, George W. Bush should have left office as soon as he was elected to a second term because he was a lame duck. Ronald Reagan should have resigned as well. Actually, yes, we all would have been better off if they left office early, but does Palin really think Reagan and Dubya were inefficient and ineffective just because they served out their second terms as lame ducks?

Palin, per usual, makes so little sense that she might as well be speaking in tongues. For months, she has sounded like she is making it up as she goes along.

For those who are left scratching your head, Palin said, “All I can ask is that you trust me with this decision.” Oh, like you asked McCain to trust that you would be an intelligent running mate?

EXTREME RIGHT-WING FREAKINESS

For those who are unaware of the Rev. Fred Phelps and his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, just check out their most prominent website, www.godhatesfags.com. These people are truly sick.

Phelps and his clan began making headlines in 1998, when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered. Their pickets spread from there, targeting almost anyone and anything that does not spread their message of hate – including such “pro-gay liberals” as Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham as well as the funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq. (Why the military? Because, as they would put it, God hates America, because America loves fags.)

The church’s latest freakiness is its plan to picket the public memorial service for Michael Jackson slated for Tuesday, July 7, at the Staples Center in L.A.

Here’s the announcement from the church’s website: “Michael 'Wacko Jacko' Jackson is in hell! [Westboro Baptist Church] will be there to remind you to stop worshiping the dead. We will be there to tell you to Thank God for the death of this filthy, adulterous, idolatrous, gender-confused, nationality-confused, unthankful brute beast. We will be there to remind you that God Killed Wacko Jacko. There is a God, and a Day of Judgment. For you to wallow and murmur against God for his righteous Judgments is sin and will cause YOU to join Michael in hell."

To call them freaks is too kind.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Vice President Dick Cheney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who slithered out of his secret undisclosed location to frighten the American people into opposing President Obama.

I know, Dick Cheney is an easier target than a friend’s face while duck hunting. But his national security speech this past week was nothing more than a desperate and transparent attempt to rescue his flagging image by using 9/11 imagery to scare Americans into submission.

Dick used his speech to defend Bush administration policies that even George W. Bush isn’t defending anymore. He rehashed all the failed arguments of the past administration, but puts them forward as factual and credible.

Dick warns of weapons of mass destruction. You know, the ones that were famously never found.

Dick warns about the dangers in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. In truth, going into Iraq only emboldened the terrorists and created a power vacuum that allowed Al Qaida to flourish there.

Dick talks of the abuses of power at Abu Ghraib as a problem of only “a few sadistic prison guards [who] abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation and simple decency.” Again with the “few bad apples” defense? This kind of abuse is a systemic problem and those who were prosecuted were pawns in a greater game that goes far up the chain of command and needs to be investigated. But also Dick, if the military shouldn’t be violating American law, military regulation and simple decency, why is it that you continue to defend torture?

Worse, Dick promotes the practice of waterboarding/torturing alleged detainees, even though it doesn’t work. Even sensible Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree that waterboarding is torture. Conservative radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller even allowed himself to be waterboarded, thinking the exercise would prove that waterboarding is not torture. Instead, he lasted only six seconds and concluded, “It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke. It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back. … It was instantaneous, … and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Most notably, Dick said the country is less safe today because of Obama’s policies.

But even Tom Ridge – the Bush administration’s original Homeland Security Secretary – doesn’t agree. Regarding Cheney’s criticism that Obama’s decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention camp and release the so-called torture memos made the country less safe, Ridge told CNN’s John King, “I disagree with Dick Cheney. Waterboarding is a matter of debate, but it’s no longer an issue. Debate around memos and waterboarding don’t make us less safe.”

In his speech, Dick said, “To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with a far greater homeland security to make the United States a tougher target.” So why is it, Dick, that your first Homeland Security Secretary disagrees with you?

THEM DEMS ARE FREAKY TOO

Dick also lashed out at Obama for wanting to close Guantanamo Bay, “The president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system.” Dick added, “Attorney General [Eric] Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept terrorists here in the homeland.”

There is so much wrong with Dick’s statements, but what’s worse is that many Democrats are buying Dick’s illogic.

First let’s examine what Dick said. He makes it sound like the detainees will be brought to U.S. to carry on with their lives and live among us, like a paroled sex offender. In truth, the detainees would be brought and held in high-security prisons that can indeed handle them. After all, we already incarcerate serial killers, child rapists, and all other evildoers, (to use a word Dick enjoys). Theodore “The Unibomber” Kaczynski, Richard “The Shoe Bomber” Reid, Charles Manson and Oklahoma City bomber co-conspirator Terry Nichols are all adequately housed in American prisons.

Omar Kadhr is one of those being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was captured by American forces at the age of 15 after allegedly throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed a U.S. soldier and has been held there for six years. Does Dick really think American courts and prisons couldn’t handle Kadhr?

Actually, Kadhr’s situation is exactly the reason so many don’t want to bring the detainees to the “homeland” – because the case of them is so flimsy, so many laws were broken in their detainment, and many have not been charged with a crime, that the real fear among Dick and his adherents is that the rationale for Guantanamo Bay will be exposed as a charade and sham.

But for Democrats, the real issue is allowing the fear mongering to take hold. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters this week: “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.” This is cowardly and pathetic.

And then came the vote on Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo. With 90 of the 100 senators voting in opposition, Democrats and Republicans joined together to allow NIMBYism (the sentiment of “not in my backyard”) to rule the day. Democratic senators have been lining up to say they don’t want the detainees brought to their states.

As for Obama, in his speech he said that since some of the detainees haven’t actually committed a crime – but may pose a threat to America – it would be illegal to incarcerate them. So, he wants to make new law that would make prolonged and indefinite detention legal.

Was this really the change we were supposed to believe in?

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, who is neither a plumber nor named Joe, but IS sure how he feels about the “queers.”

Wurzelbacher made a name for himself during last year’s presidential campaign after John McCain and Sarah Palin began using him as a symbol of the average American. Because, you know, the average American has a publicist, a book deal, a record deal, AND a gig as a pseudo-journalist in the Middle East.

But his freakiness hit a new high – or low – this past week when he gave an interview with Christianity Today magazine.

Showing where the social conservative movement is still oddly focused, the second question the magazine put to Wurzelbacher was about marriage equality for same-sex couples. The magazine asked, “In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?”

His answer: “At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary – it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do – what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/mayweb-only/118-13.0.html).

OK, fine. You want to think that being gay is wrong, go right ahead. But at least know what you are talking about if you are going to try to make some sort of point.

In fact, God is NOT explicit about, as you put it, “what man and woman are for.” Please point to any explicit statement by God that says that civil societies should treat gay and lesbian people like second-class citizens.

And if you think you are going to point to anything in the bible for proof of God’s word, then I’m sure you also never wear clothing of mixed fabrics, you approve of slavery, you support the death penalty for adulterers, and you “give to everyone who asks of you.” After all, those rules ARE explicitly stated in the bible.

And some of your best friends are gay. But you won’t let your children near any “queers”? Given all the people your children come into contact with over the course of a day, do you spot check all of them just to make sure your kids don’t catch the gay? (And are these people REALLY friends of yours? If so, I’m not sure why.)

Lastly, you are right, Mr. Wurzelbacher, the word “queer,” in its purest form, means strange and unusual. But what planet do you live on that you don’t know that the word “queer” is used as a slur? You love saying how liberals and Democrats are out of touch – but you have just shown how you and your ilk are the ones who are truly out of touch with reality. Walk into any high school and you tell me how “queer” is not used as a slur.

But if you insist that “queer” is merely a harmless word meaning strange and unusual, then you, Mr. Wurzelbacher, are the queerest of them all.

MORE CONSERVATIVE FREAKINESS

I can’t put it any better than the lead paragraph in a story from The Canadian Press news service: “The United States is in the midst of a devastating recession, mired in two overseas wars and grappling with a swine flu outbreak, but conservative critics are assailing President Barack Obama on another pressing issue: his choice of burger topping” (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/631019).

The latest manufactured controversy even has a name – Dijongate.

You may have seen the video footage this past week of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden going out for a burger at a Washington, D.C., fast-food joint.

One could argue that this was a pointless photo-op. But instead, conservatives are taking offense at Obama’s choice of Dijon mustard as his condiment of choice, calling putting mustard on a burger un-American.

Fox News Channel loudmouth Sean Hannity not only refers to Obama’s lunch as a “fancy burger,” but also alleges that rival network MSNBC purposefully edited out Obama’s Dijon choice in order to save the president from seeming too effete. (Yeah, all MSNBC has to worry about is Obama’s condiments!)

William Jacobson, a conservative blogger, also wrote that Obama’s Dijon ways have “a very John Kerry-ish quality about it.”

Wow, this is desperate stuff. You want to go after Obama for his economic policy? Go ahead. His bailout plan? Be my guest. His ideas on healthcare? You have that right. But his penchant for mustard? Pathetic.

And some wonder why the Republican Party is in such a pickle.

Jindal the Louisiana loser

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is showing himself to be an ideological demagogue who is more interested in playing partisan politics with his state’s economic future than helping the residents of his state.

As if his pathetic Republican response to President Barack Obama’s address the other night wasn’t bad enough, Jindal has said that he will refuse some federal economic stimulus money – funds his state and its residents desperately need.

Worse yet, he is not the only Republican governor who is saying no to Obama’s big stimulus package. Joining Jindal are South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

So why are the governors of these relatively poor states refusing federal money? Well, even though they are denying it, they are all thinking of running for president in 2012. In fact, there are no higher-profile potential Republican contenders than Sarah Palin and Jindal.

In order to run for president as a Republican, you have to have the archconservative right wing of the GOP on your side (John McCain learned that a while back). And the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world see Obama’s economic stimulus – regardless of how popular it is – as a political demon.

So Jindal had a choice to make – take the money to help his state OR refuse the money and help his own political ambition. What a surprise that he chose the latter.

But for Jindal, refusing the money wasn’t enough. He also has to go around lying about what exactly is in the economic stimulus bill. During his Republican response Tuesday night, for example, Jindal said the stimulus bill includes “$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring.’”

First of all, there is nothing at all in the stimulus bill about any high-speed rail project, “magnetic levitation” or otherwise, from Las Vegas to Disneyland. Secondly, why is Jindal dissing what he calls “volcano monitoring”? He said, “Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.” Actually, the federal government should be monitoring volcanoes to prevent deaths and ensure that the government is ready to respond to a natural disaster. Does Jindal not remember Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster that destroyed parts of New Orleans in his own backyard?

Oh wait, he does remember Hurricane Katrina. In his speech Tuesday, he said, “Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts.” So Jindal is pointing to the disastrous response of fellow Republican George W. Bush as an example of why the federal government should just give up on keeping Americans safe.

Interestingly, while Jindal goes around damning the stimulus package and making a big deal about refusing funds, he is indeed silently taking some of the stimulus money. Funny that he’s not making an equally big deal about that.

To their credit, Republican Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have said that they are willing to take whatever money Jindal and his ilk are refusing.

I say, give Crist and the Guvernator all of Jindal’s stimulus funds. Yes, Jindal’s state will be hurt by his dogmatic stupidity, but then hopefully Louisiana voters will wise up and throw him out of office as soon as possible.

Peach State vote is the pits

The results are in and – thanks to Georgia voters – President-elect Barack Obama will not have a filibuster-proof majority to work with in the U.S. Senate. Incumbent archconservative Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss won the Dec. 2 runoff election against Democratic challenger Jim Martin.

Chambliss won his reelection fair and square, and my beef is not with him. My question is for those voters who came out in droves on Election Day last month – to vote for Democrat Obama – and yet stayed home for the Senate runoff.

While Republican John McCain won the state of Georgia last month, he did so only by 5 percentage points – 52 to 47. And only 3 percentage points separated Chambliss and Martin in last month’s election (but neither garnered 50 percent of the vote, which was the reason for the runoff). In total, almost 4 million Georgians voted in last month’s election.

This week, however, was a different story. Only a little over 2 million Georgians voted, and Chambliss won by a whopping 14 points – 57 to 43. So what happened?

In the words of the New York Times, “Many of the Democrats who turned out last month in enthusiastic support of Barack Obama apparently did not show up at the polls on Tuesday.” The Times also quoted Merle Black of Emory University: “For a lot of African-American voters, the real election was last month. The importance of electing the first African-American president in history generated enormous enthusiasm. Everything else was anticlimactic.”

Too many voters just didn’t care issues and policies. They just voted for Obama because he’s black. If these voters cared about Obama getting legislation through the Senate, they would have turned out for Martin this week as they did for Obama.

But for these voters – many of them celebrated by the media for being first-time voters “energized” by Obama – issues and political action just don’t matter. What mattered was voting for a black man.

Not that any of this is surprising. Back when Obama won, there were too many people dancing in the streets, voicing extremely unreasonable expectations. I even heard people talking about how Obama would end the wars in both Iraq AND Afghanistan – oblivious to Obama’s comments that he wants to INCREASE the military’s presence in Afghanistan. They just weren’t paying attention to what Obama was saying, only what he looked like.

So the first opportunity these so-called energized, first-time voters had to cast a ballot after last month’s election, they sat on their hands. Without Obama on the ballot, they just didn’t care. So much for all that energy and enthusiasm.