You are viewing saramerica

Taking new roads in the search for heroes

Uncle Sam
One of my favorite singer/songwriters, Jill Sobule, has a song named "Heroes," to which, I've mused, she'll have to add a few verses as I watch yet another of Tiger Woods' mistresses come out of the woodwork: "Why are all our heroes so imperfect? Why do they always bring me down?"

From Woods to John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Steve Phillips, David Letterman, Nevada Sen. John Ensign and Mel Gibson, guys who have been held up as role models and who have often pontificated about the sins of others (yes, I'm looking at you, Sanford, Spitzer, Gibson and Ensign) have turned out to have ... er ... feet ... of clay, just like the rest of us.

Perhaps it's just the fulfillment of Lord Acton's dictum that "power corrupts," be it by being unable to keep your John Thomas in your trousers or by having amnesia about the issues that were important to you when you were elected to office.

Take Joe Lieberman. I'm happy he's a man of principle. I just hope for Hanukkah he receives the gift of being able to identify those principles and stick to them -- like on the filibuster, for example. On Nov. 22, 1994, back when he was a Democrat and still relatively new to the halls of power, Lieberman held a news conference with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. Saying it was time to bury "a dinosaur," they announced legislation to curtail the power of the filibuster.

"(People) are fed up .... frustrated and fed up and angry about the way in which our government does not work, about the way in which we come down here and get into a lot of political games and ... partisan tugs of war and forget why we're here, which is to serve the American people. And I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here, but it also a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today," said youthful Joe.

Who's the dinosaur now? I guess 15 years of political games and pharmaceutical and health insurance company donations take their toll on one's principles, 'cause these days Joe is wielding that same filibuster like a drunken sailor in a barroom brawl. But it's not a political game now. No, after two decades in Washington, that same filibuster has become a "right."

"I have no other choice," Lieberman told reporters on Capitol Hill last month. "I've got to use the right I have as a senator to stop something that I think is going to be terrible for our future, which is the public option."

Perhaps this constant disappointment with politicians and celebrities is why I'm a strong believer in StoryCorps. I first became involved in 2003, when my sister and I interviewed Dad for Father's Day. In 2006, I took my son, and he interviewed me as part of our "one-on-one" day in New York. Part of that clip was played on NPR's "Morning Edition," and subsequently was made into an award-winning short by Rauch Brothers Animation, "Q & A." Friday mornings on NPR, instead of being subjected to the latest infidelity or political flip-flop, one hears stories of incalculable worth, straight from the hearts of Americans. Interviewees receive a CD, and an archive recording is kept at the Folklife Center at the Library of Congress, thus creating a rich audio tapestry of American life.

Facebook users can help support StoryCorps by voting today for the organization to win $25,000 from Chase Community Giving. It's worth doing, because after listening to even one of these recordings you'll realize there's no such thing as an "ordinary" American.

Lieberman selling us out on healthcare

Uncle Sam
"I have long supported the goal of universal health care" ­-- Senator Joseph Lieberman, September 2006.

"I can`t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company "¦ It`s just asking for trouble." -- Senator Joseph Lieberman, October 2009.

Will the real Joe Lieberman please stand up? Well, I think he has. Because despite his lip service to universal health care when he was in a tough re-election fight, history has shown that whenever there`s a chance to pass health care reform, you count on Joe to vote against it.

On Tuesday, Lieberman announced that he`ll support a GOP-led filibuster of any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program -- even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out.

Lieberman has been on the record as opposing the use of a filibuster on legislation he plans to oppose. So why is he now in favor of using such a procedure to hold the health care reform process hostage?

It`s not as if Sen. Lieberman is representing the views of the majority of the nation`s citizens or of his constituents. The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found firm support for a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. Other surveys have found similar results. In fact, respondents in the NYT/CBS poll were overwhelmingly in favor of a Medicare-type public plan (65 percent in favor, 26 percent opposed and 9 percent offering no opinion), which goes beyond what is proposed in any of the current bills.

Here in the Nutmeg State, residents support giving people the option to buy health insurance from a government plan by a 64-30 majority, according to a September 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

So why is Lieberman acting in direct opposition to his constituents` wishes?

The senator told Politico that he "very much" wants to vote for health care reform but that he`s worried about stifling "the economic recovery we`re in" or adding to the federal debt. He added that he`d vote against the public option plan "even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Say what? The Senate proposal calls for a public health insurance entity that would compete against privately run plans. It would be financed by the premiums paid by its customers just as private plans are, not subsidized by taxpayers. What taxpayers would pay for are the subsidies to help lower-income people pay for coverage -- these would be available to pay for private coverage too, and would be in the bill with or without the public option. The goal of the public option is to provide choice. And for those of us who are self-insured with the option of one insurer to whom we pay exorbitant rates increasing by 18-20 percent a year, that`s a good thing.

Given this, Lieberman`s complaint that a public option would create an expensive new "entitlement" seems "¦ irrational.

What`s the real issue? Well, Connecticut is home to several big insurance companies, who don`t want competition. One of Lieberman`s top 10 campaign contributors in the 2006 election was Aetna. Another was Purdue Pharma. Yet Connecticut`s other senator, Chris Dodd, has been a firm supporter of the public option.

Sen. Lieberman should respect his constituents` wishes and vote for the public option plan instead of being a roadblock to reform. He said he was for universal health care before the 2006 election. It`s time he votes that way, instead of just paying lip service to the idea when he`s up for re-election.

Lieberman's 'party' may backfire on him

Uncle Sam
As I mailed my check off to Uncle Sam, I drew a pie chart in my head of how much the government was spending on the things that are important to me (education, health care, homeland security) vs. the continuing drain on our nation’s resources otherwise known as the War in Iraq. No one is happy when mailing that check to the IRS, but when I know so much of what I’m paying is going to fund a war that was entered on false pretenses, for which we have no clear exit strategy, a conflict whose cost has wrought havoc with our economy; well, it makes me downright livid.

It got me thinking about Connecticut’s greatest cheerleader for the war, Senator Joe Lieberman and a conversation I had last week with the newly elected chairman of the party that bears his name, Dr. John Mertens.

The saga of the fictitious party created by Lieberman to enable his Senate run after being defeated in the Democratic primary by Ned Lamont in 2006 is the stuff of which political theater (not to mention a Wikipedia battle) is made.

When Senator Lieberman won his re-election battle but despite pre-election promises neglected to join his own party (nor did all of the twenty-five signatories to his petition), Dr. John Orman, a professor of politics at Fairfield University and outspoken Lieberman critic, changed his party registration to CT for Lieberman on November 15th, 2006. On December 21st of that year Orman filed a set of party rules with the Secretary of State.

In January 2007, Stuart Korchin filed a different set of party rules with the Secretary of State. Orman called an organizational meeting of the party in January 2007 at which Korchin appeared and said there would be a different meeting in August. Orman was nonetheless elected Chairman by those present; however, Korchin continued to claim that he was Chairman of the party.

Mertens stands behind John Orman as the legitimate Chairman. “I’d gotten copies of the paperwork that they’d both filed with the Secretary of state’s office and it was clear that Korchin didn’t understand what a democracy was.”

Not only that, but when, Mertens asked Korchin about the details of the August meeting, Korchin refused to provide them – even to a lawyer on the behalf of the other party members. What’s more Korchin filed no paperwork with the secretary of state about the meeting. “That’s not the way a democracy works. In the United States, every voter is entitled to join any party they wish, and they have a right to go to party meetings,” Mertens said.”

Party shenanigans aside, in the summer of 2007 Mertens approached Orman: “I think we need to use this party to do something real. Let’s turn it into an anti-war party, let’s use it to promote responsible government.”
At a statewide party caucus held on March 6th in Hartford with more than 50% of the party members in the state in attendance, Mertens was elected chair by unanimous vote. Members passed new party rules, and have nominated five candidates for state representative (see

Part of what motivates Mertens are the roadblocks put up by the Secretary of State’s office to his own Independent bid for Senate in 2006. “I’ve got two motivations: to counteract Joe Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war – he misrepresented his position on the war prior to the elections in 2006, running a commercial the day before the election that said ‘vote for Joe Lieberman, he’ll bring our troops home…’ We should use his party to point out that his position on the war is not the position of the majority of people of CT…I also want to use the party to run people for office the way we were denied doing in 2006. I want people to understand that we live in a democracy and what that means –that people should have ballot access and are free to join any party they want and participate in that party. I’m doing this to prove it. I can’t imagine any American being against what I’m doing. That’s the way America’s supposed to work.”

Wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic if the vanity party created by Senator Lieberman to keep himself in power ended up being a truly independent voice for the voters of Connecticut?

Bush again using fear to trump rule of law

Uncle Sam
This week's GT/Advocate column

Last week, the Senate passed a bill revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, one that included retroactive immunity for telecom companies that released customer information to government agencies without a warrant.

What disturbs me about the way the debate has been framed by those who are in favor of the bill is that, once again, they are using the bullying tactics of the Bush White House to try to scare us into blatant disregard for the rule of law.

This is not, as some try to frame it, a matter of "being concerned about the civil liberties of overseas terrorists." It's about being able to trust that the president will perform both of his constitutionally mandated duties: keeping the country safe and upholding the law.

The title of hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee last October sums up the key point of this debate to my mind: "Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism." No one, least of all me, denies that there is a real terrorist threat. But unlike some, I refuse to accept that, as citizens of this great democracy, we should accept unlawful behavior on the part of our government or anyone else in order to wage that fight.

When the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, testified in front of the Judiciary Committee, he reiterated why we have laws governing intelligence and interrogations and the importance of respecting them:

"They are designed to prevent the extraordinary abuses committed by the intelligence community in the 1950s and 1960s when the community was largely unregulated by law and ignored by Congress ... they ensure that the executive branch channels its wartime efforts in ways that maximize military effectiveness and minimize unnecessary harm. Compliance with these laws -- and more generally with the rule of law in wartime -- is critical to both domestic legitimacy and to the task of winning hearts and minds that is so central in modern warfare."

In that hearing, Goldsmith was asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont: "Is it fair to say in your opinion the warrantless wiretapping program or at least significant parts of it were illegal or without legal basis?"

"It was a legal mess," Goldsmith replied. "It was the biggest legal mess I encountered there ... I will say there were certain aspects of programs related to the [terrorist surveillance program] that I could not find legal support for."

Once again, President Bush is saying he will veto any measure that doesn't include retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, and what's more, he has been refusing to sign another extension to the existing bill that expired Feb. 15, trying in doing so to blame Democrats for placing national security at risk. But I hope that after years of prevarications and clear attempts by this administration to bypass existing law, the electorate sees that this act is not just about safety from terrorists -- it's about being able to trust the executive branch to uphold the laws of this country. It's also about having the confidence that should the executive branch deviate from upholding the law, Congress will play its constitutionally mandated oversight role. Clearly, this is not something we can count on from Senate Republicans, or the 18 Democrats and Sen. Joe Lieberman who voted with them.

Now it's up to the House. Energy Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., along with Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a letter to their colleagues warning them not to make the same mistake:

"It is beyond dispute that the Government must be able to protect its citizens from terrorist threats. But before Congress should consider the extraordinary notion of telling a Federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit pending before him, Congress has a duty to find out what happened and develop an adequate legislative record to justify such unusual interference with the normal practice of a co-equal branch of Government -- the Judiciary."

The telcoms have apparently responded to committee inquiries by saying that the administration has "gagged and threatened them with prosecution" if they respond to congressional inquiries. It doesn't exactly inspire one with confidence, does it?

Kudos to Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut for being such an outspoken defender of the rule of law. Shame on Connecticut Sen. Lieberman, an independent, for voting in favor of telecom immunity.

And this surprises you why?

Uncle Sam
This from Nancy DiNardo, Chairwoman of the CT Dems, regarding Joe Lieberman's CT appearance campaigning with John McCain tomorrow:

“I continue to be disappointed beyond words with Joe Lieberman, as are a lot of Connecticut Democrats -- saddened, surprised, and truly disheartened by just how completely he has abandoned the Democratic principles that have guided him over the years and the Party whose members have supported him and helped him achieve his goals. As recently as 18 months ago, Senator Lieberman was telling us Democrats that he shares our values, and with the exception of Iraq, that he agrees with us on the issues we care so much about -- critically important issues like a woman’s right to choose, tax and economic policies, healthcare and education. Moreover, in July of 2006, Senator Lieberman even stated that he intended to work to help a Democrat get into the White House in 2008. His endorsement of Senator McCain means he either doesn’t care about the issues noted above, or he’s putting politics ahead of people. If you look at Senator McCain’s voting record, and campaign platform – on these, and many other issues we care about – you’ll understand why I am saying this. This is a man, Senator McCain, who proudly says he was a “foot soldier” in the Reagan Revolution. Senator McCain is wrong on the issues we Democrats care so much about—and he’s wrong by a lot. I am proud to stand with my fellow Democrats and announce that we as a Party will grow stronger and do everything in our power to make sure a Democrat is elected in November. “

Well, knock me down with a feather...Nancy DiNardo has finally woken up to smell the coffee! About bloody time.

As recently as 18 months ago, Senator Lieberman was telling us Democrats that he shares our values, and with the exception of Iraq, that he agrees with us on the issues we care so much about -- critically important issues like a woman’s right to choose, tax and economic policies, healthcare and education. Moreover, in July of 2006, Senator Lieberman even stated that he intended to work to help a Democrat get into the White House in 2008. His endorsement of Senator McCain means he either doesn’t care about the issues noted above, or he’s putting politics ahead of people.

Actually, Nancy, it means HE LIED. And you were stupid enough to buy into his lies and support him instead of the candidate that the voters of the party of which you are the chairwoman elected to be our candidate. If you were a thinking person, the name of the fictitious party he created to run, "CT for Lieberman" would have tipped you off...if Joe was about something other than putting politics ahead of people, he would have named it "Lieberman for CT."

Face it, Nancy. You were used. And you've got no-one but yourself to blame.
Uncle Sam
All work and no play makes Saramerica a dull girl. So today, for your reading and procrastinating pleasure, here's my annual Time Wasting on the Internet column:

With the presidential elections looming in November, it’s going to be a very long year, fraught with attack ads and other forms of political acrimony. If you’re anything like me, there’ll be times when you just need to get away from the mudslinging and empty rhetoric. So what better way to start off this election year than my annual survey of ways to waste time on the Internet?

I started off my “research” with folks guaranteed to know a thing or two about procrastination – my author friends.

One of the more popular sites amongst the literati is freerice, where you take a vocabulary quiz and for each word you define correctly, 20 grains of rice are donated to the United Nations World Food program. As author Tracy Barrett explains, “This way you can say you’re actually performing a charitable act rather than playing, so you can procrastinate even longer.”

Socially conscious procrastination – now there’s a cause I can throw myself behind. As a wordsmith, I could spend hours on this site. (Actually, I have, but don’t tell my agent.) I’ve also wasted a goodly bit of time wondering which poor sucker has to waste their time counting out grains of rice.

I learned some interesting things about my author friends from the sites they emailed me. Awful Plastic Surgery? Who knew! And one friend’s hubby calls Petfinder her “porn” site because so wants to get a dog.

I probably didn’t need a quiz to tell me this, but over at Lifescript I found out that I am Addicted to Blog: “Not only are you addicted to reading other people's blogs and taking blog quizzes, but you are addicted to sharing your world with the rest of the world by blogging. You may have multiple blogs of your own and you are actively involved in the blogging community. Some of your best friends are bloggers”.

Somehow, I doubt that last sentence would apply to Joe Lieberman.

Over at Tickle you’ll find a plethora of ridiculous quizzes. I started off with “Who were you in a Past Life?” I liked the answer: “A Famous Actor - With your bold spirit and magnetic aura, you're sure to brighten up any room and leave your adoring fans spellbound and begging for more”. Yeah, well, except for those “fans” who send letters accusing me of destroying Western Civilization in 720 words a fortnight.

I also found out that my American Idol persona is Kelly Clarkson, although you (and my children) will be pleased that I’ve decided to spare you my shower practiced rendition of “Since U’ve Been Gone”.

Other facts you (and I) might not know about me: If I were an umbrella drink, I’d be a Margarita, my perfect hairstyle is “Flirty” (note to self: call stylist), my ideal celebrity soulmate would be someone funny, (“A celeb who's good looking and good at enjoying life like Owen Wilson is just right for the role…” Owen Wilson? Didn’t he just try to kill himself? I hope it’s not from the thought of being my celebrity soulmate), and most perturbing of all, that I can expect to live only another 11800 more days, meaning that I’ll kick the bucket around 77. This last I found out by doing the survey over at Peter Russell's site, where one can find all sorts of interesting statistics in addition to the projected date of one’s demise.
I’ve wanted to be a writer since high school. But just in case, I took Tickle’s “What’s your Dream Job?” quiz. You’ll be surprised by the result: Sarah, your dream job is to be President.

Wait - I thought my dream job was to write columns criticizing the President!

Can't you just picture it? Being in charge and making the really important decisions? Changing the world each and every day?

Actually, that does sound pretty cool. But I’m not sure I could hack running for office. Fortunately Tickle tells me: “ you don't have to come in first at the polls to succeed.” (Especially if it’s 2000 and you have Daddy’s Supreme Court appointees behind you.) “As long as you remember to keep asking questions and demanding change, your vision can still help make the world a better place.”

Readers, as a columnist my campaign promise to you for 2008 is to continue doing just that.

Meet the McCainiacs!

Uncle Sam
The brilliant and mysterious Scarce over at MLN (who watches Faux News, so I don't have to - well, except for at the gym, where the people on the surrounding elliptical machines seem to be addicted) has just produced this great vid starring CT's (in fact, possibly the country's) Least Favorite Senator.

I laughed! I puked!


Saramerica's 2008 political wish list*

Uncle Sam
*(at least, as many wishes as I could fit in a 720 word column)

As 2007 draws to a close with the Presidential election process already in full swing (can you spell V-O-T-E-R F-A-T-I-G-U-E?) I’ve put together my wish list for the 2008 political season.

1) That Congress will extend the reach of the Do-Not-Call register to those incredibly annoying and often misleading political robo-calls, which were used with such malicious intent by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) in the 2006 elections. Fortunately, Congressional Quarterly reports that Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), chairwoman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, may try to add such a provision to a pending bill (HR 1383). In recent hearings, Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL), testified that the NRCC spent roughly $60,000 to place more than 1 million robo-calls in her district in October and November 2006, calls designed to mislead voters into thinking they were Bean’s campaign.

Messages began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about Melissa Bean. Like me, many voters hang up without listening to the entire message, which in this case eventually identified the NRCC as the sponsor.

Irate voters called Rep. Bean’s office, describing “ how the calls woke up their babies, interrupted their dinner, kept leaving them messages on their cell phones that were received late at night or forced them to run to grab the phone, and all they would hear is ‘Hello, I am calling with information about Melissa Bean,’ for the second, third, fourth time a day,” Bean told the subcommittee.

Why shouldn’t we be able to protect our precious home life from robot politicians as well as telemarketers?

2) That our town’s governing bodies will pass legislation that requires political parties to pay for the additional security needed if a noted figure requiring that security comes to town for fundraising purposes.
When George Bush came to Greenwich in September 2006 for a $15,000 a couple fundraising lunch, we taxpayers had to fork out $22,000, for his security. Now if the President of the United States comes to town to open a hospital or visit a school or some other reason that provides some measure of public good, I would consider it only right and proper that the town contribute to his safety. But for a $15,000 a couple fundraiser that raised $600,000 for GOP coffers? Not so much – in fact, not at all. As I wrote to then First Selectman Jim Lash at the time, if someone is coming for political fundraising purposes then the cost for his or her security should come from the funds raised, not the public purse. I’m not being partisan. No security costs should be paid by taxpayers for any political fundraiser, for either party. Period.

3) That the mainstream media will hereby refrain from calling Joe Lieberman an “Independent Democrat.” I know many registered Republicans who display more core Democratic values than Senator Lieberman. The guy who beat Lieberman in CT’s Democratic primary, Ned Lamont said it much better than I can in this statement after Lieberman’s recent endorsement of Senator John McCain for president: “During our debate last year, Senator Lieberman intoned that he wanted to "elect a Democratic President in 2008," and that my election would "frustrate and defeat our hope of doing that." With his endorsement of John McCain… it is now clear that Joe Lieberman is the one working to defeat our hopes. Last year, Senator Lieberman pleaded with voters to consider his full-throated support for the invasion of Iraq as merely a "single issue" in the context of an otherwise progressive agenda. His endorsement of Senator McCain reminds us that the war in Iraq is actually Lieberman's predominant issue, trumping all else.”

It’s about time we give up the pretense. Lieberman is no Democrat. Let’s refer to him as he was elected – as CT for Lieberman, the party that he pledged to join if elected, but hasn’t, or the way he’s voted consistently in recent times – Republican.

3) That Republicans will stop their insulting and incorrect use of the term “Democrat” party. Party founder Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave. It’s the Democratic Party, dudes!

But enough of politics. Please join me in raising a glass of seasonal refreshment to toast the New Year, 2008. It promises to be a long one...

Ms. Coulter - your roots are showing...

Uncle Sam
The Coultergeist is at it again. The latest pronouncement from the Wicked Witch of the Right is that we should all be Christians.

Not only that, we Jews, in particular, need to be "perfected". As if saramerica isn't already perfect enough. Sheesh! The noive of the woman!!

It doesn't take much to set Coulter on her loony, offensive way. CNBC The Big Idea host Donny Deutsch asked her what her ideal U.S. would look like.

"It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like...the Democratic Party would look like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], the Republican Party would look like [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA]...take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America..."

At this point Deutsch, himself a Jew, calls her on her brazen offensiveness:

DEUTSCH: So we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?


DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?


But wait, as they say in infomercials...that's not all!

I can't even begin to paraphrase Coulter's next bit of insanity, so I'm going to give you the transcript (provided by MediaMatters) verbatim:

COULTER: the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express.
You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally.

Yeah, me too, Donny. I wonder how Annie's good friend, Joe Lieberman feels about being held up as the poster boy of Democratic politics by a woman has so little respect for everything he supposedly believes in that she'd publicly state that he and all of the rest of us Hebes need to get on the Federal Express track to redemption so we, like she, can be "perfected".

After all, it's not a month ago that Joe was "looking forward" to sharing a stage with her at Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert on 9/11.

This is why I don't get all of my co-religionists who vote Republican while the GOP is under the sway of the Evangelical Right. Don't you get it? They only support Israel because there has to BE in Israel so all of us Hebes can be ingathered and convert (oops sorry, be "perfected") before the Rapture. I don't buy that you hold your nose and take a pragmatic approach because you care about the Holy Land. Because you get in bed with drek like Coulter, you're going to end up smelling like drek yourself. Look at Joe Lieberman.

Coulter grew up New Canaan, a town not exactly known for its synagogues, if you know what I mean. Her roots are showing.

I've been Coronated!

Uncle Sam
So I was having a bit of a stressful day today when this fabulouso email winged its way into my inbox from Sue Henshaw, secretary of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, which as you might recall was fictitious party Lieberman set up so he could run against the democratically elected Democratic candidate in the 2006 Senate race here in the Nutmeg State, and which, in a delicious display of irony, has been taken over by long-time Lieberman critic, Fairfield University political science professor John Orman, Sue, and of course, Sue's um...well, not sure of the exact relationship there, but I won't go as far as Boy-flower-toy...Lorenzo Sunflower.

Saramerica and Lorenzo Sunflower

(Saramerica and Lorenzo at the Jim Himes Blograiser in Stamford)

But I digress. I do that when I've had a stressful day. In fact, even when I haven't. So anyway, I'm in my basement lair feeling all stressed out and miserable when I get Sue's e-mail saying that because I've been dissing the Lieber-man in my recent columns that she's "coronating" me as honorary secretary of the CT for Lieberman party!

Readers, if you were ever in any doubt that saramerica has now officially made it, doubt ye no more :-)

But what the Enquiring Mind in Me really wants to know is: since I've been coronated does that mean I get to wear my tiara to meetings?

Cause I just happen to have one on hand:


John and Sue will be attending the November 29th Greenwich DTC meeting to talk about the need for electoral reform here in the State of CT so sore losers like Joe Lieberman can't pull the "I'm going to create a fictitious party so I can run even though I lost the primary" stunt ever again. saramerica plans to attend - in her tiara, of course.


Uncle Sam


RSS Atom