"Hold it! Next man makes a move, the 'nigger' gets it!"

*

Today the Standard & Poors "credit rating agency" borrowed a slick comedy move from Bart, Cleavon Little's character in Blazing Saddles. Specifically, S&P made a hollow threat to cut the rating of U.S. Treasury securities this morning---in effect, Wall Street holding a cap gun against its own head---which I assume is supposed to scare the President and the Democrats into doing whatever the right-wing deficit peacocks demand, such as abolishing Medicare and Social Security so rich assholes can have more tax cuts.

Right on cue, naturally, lame duck Senator Joe Lieberman was on my car radio this afternoon spewing turgid nonsense about the existential threat posed by current US debt levels and why it's important to cap federal spending at some absurdly low percentage of Gross Domestic Product. (I can't find a link to this, so you don't have to listen to his putrid, quavering voice here.) Why do I call it "turgid nonsense"? Because like most talk about federal deficits and debt in the corporate media today (including NPR), the somber generalities preached by deficit peacocks immediately break down to gibberish when real macroeconomists insist that the discussion include valid historic data, meaningful contexts, and other scary evidence-based features.

Nobel macroeconomist Paul Krugman, for example, quickly authenticated this S&P stunt as another episode of Wall Street's tiresome Saturday matinee serial entitled Uncle Sam and the Phantom Bond Vigilantes. It's fair to ask why I might put stock in anything Krugman and other neo-Keynesians say. My reason is simple: because his analysis have been consistently correct (i.e., consistently predictive about what would happen to the economy in the future) since I started following his New York Times blog 5 or 6 years ago, around the time he was was warning readers about the runaway US housing bubble and related phenomena. And he always backs his arguments with verifiable economic data and simple numerical models that every economist and most people with a high school diploma can understand.

See how it works?

*
It works like this: Jay Rockefeller denounces Howard Dean as "irresponsible" for suggesting that lousy HCR legislation be scrapped, but he doesn't denounce Joseph Lieberman (King of the United States) as irresponsible for aggressively acting to scrap the HCR legislation unless Rockefeller's public option was removed from the language.

Sure, Jay is upset, he confesses. But that doesn't mean "...I take my football, and run home and sulk, and complain, or hold out for $100 million for something in West Virginia," he assures us. No, he mans up to it all and... blames Howard Dean.

Wherein I have a sissyfight with JMM

*
It should be evident to anyone who reads this that Josh Marshall is my media hero, mainly due to the accomplishments of his TPM investigative reporting unit and his fine capacity both for issuing political ridicule and championing human decency. But today, with this post and a few earlier ones, the lad has disgustipated me. Just like that, both the public option and Medicare buy-in are dead at the hands of the King and Queen of the United States, Joseph and Olympia. But Josh thinks that furious progressives (not to mention the majority of Americans) should bend over and take it for the good of the Democratic Party. I wrote a note to tell Josh, politely, that he's full of shit. Here it is, for what it's worth:

“Ravening masses,” Josh? Really? Pheeewwww!

So many “responsible” liberals, like some who pontificate in your comments threads and sometimes you yourself, always seem ready to provide cover to “serious” politicians like the putative King and Queen of the United States, Lieberman and Snowe, when they bargain in bad faith in order to destroy progressive public policy initiatives that are favored by a majority of Americans. These people enable the erosion of majority rule by lecturing us about how "something is really better than nothing," and that if we threaten to pull our support then we’re “taking our marbles and going home.” We’re engaging in political theater instead of political activism. We need to grow up. Or whatever.

Progressives are authorized by you to speak our piece --- gosh, thanks!!! --- but not to use our own political muscle to sabotage King Joseph’s health care vision for us peasants (which is to say, no meaningful reform whatsoever plus increased costs for many, many working people). Withdrawing support from this ugly policy initiative would be irresponsible of progressives, you say; a “cop out.” Pheeewwww! You rarely reek of sanctimony, but today you sure do.

Joe Lieberman, with constant backroom assistance from Rahm Emanuel in the White House and the entire GOP as a pom pom squad, blocks and scuttles majority rule in this country, and “responsible” liberals cluck a pretty good game about it. But in the final analysis, betrayed progressives are expected to STFU, accede to King Joseph’s proclamations, and “improve it” later. Tell me: what makes you believe that it will be feasible to “improve it” later if King Joseph and Queen Olympia do not wish it to be improved? Seriously: what makes you think that is a possibility?

This situation represents an epic failure of Democratic leadership, especially by Obama, who is supposed to be, um, a leader after all. Since you are a “political junkie,” I will direct your attention to Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” Machiavelli’s contribution to political science was not his prescriptions for achieving ends by any means, but by describing what successful leaders from history *did* to achieve their ends. And, as you’re fond of saying, it wasn’t through bean bag. I’m not suggesting that President Obama lead his adversaries to their demise behind a velvet curtain, Caesar Borgia style. But geez: RTFM! For starters, you don’t invite a Fifth Columnist from the other side into your tent, at least not if you expect to keep your own counsel. Next, you do use your charm, your guile, and your muscle to compel people (particularly opportunists) to get with your program. Neither Obama nor Harry Reid seem to have any idea whatsoever about how to get anything done, except on behalf of King Joseph and Queen Olympia. Step back and ask yourself, what is really going on here? If Obama really believes he’s playing 11-dimensional chess, as Atrios likes to joke, then he’s stalemated in half of the dimensions and checkmated in the rest.

If this useless HCR legislation represents a “responsible” liberal’s idea of the best the Democratic Party can do to help our constitutional democracy start clawing its way out of the hole after 30 years of Reagan Revolution, then you can have it. It makes zero real-world difference if policy wonks see some advantages to passing the current legislation: there’s nothing in it for me or anyone I know. It makes zero difference to me that scuttling this version of HCR would be an embarrassment and a 2010 electoral disaster: they deserve it.

To be more specific, the “responsible” Democratic Party does not deserve the support of progressives as it has “progressively” been undermining our interests since the day Ronald Reagan smirked his way into the Oval Office and tore out the solar panels. I totally advocate that progressives should “pick up our marbles and go home.” They’re *our* marbles! And you can’t succeed without them any more than you can succeed without Lieberman’s marbles. Politics ain't bean bag. So go ahead, “responsible” liberals: call us “cop outs.” Cluck about us from now until the inauguration of President Lieberman and Vice President Snowe. Maybe that will be change you can believe in. But not me.

So then, Josh wrote back:

"[StuporMundi], You might want to adjust your sensor for facetious post titles."

And then, my tit for a tat (and I'm done, because basically he's a mensch):

Maybe my sensor does need adjusting, Josh. But judging by the body of your post, the title doesn't seem facetious at all. Your point appears to be that the ravening masses need to get with the Lieberman/Snowe/Landrieu program because it provides "monumental gains" relative to something or other. And that progressives who want to use Lieberman's tactics to scuttle the legislation are irresponsible "cop-outs." So maybe the title of your post is facetious in your eyes only, but actually an accurate indicator of your intended meaning. (Incidentally, there was something more to my note than the throwaway comment about the title of your post. Maybe there was some substance, maybe not.)

Judging from what you wrote, it seems that in your view this HCR legislation must clear the Senate *not* because it's good for U.S. citizens, but because it would be an electoral disaster for the Democrats to come away empty handed. If that's the case, so be it. If the Republicans are going to continue dictating regressive national policy through people like Lieberman and Snowe (and helpmeets like Rahm Emanuel), then let's allow the GOP to directly control the levers of government so they can be fully held to account when all the chickens come to roost. Today Krugman said, not ironically, that this nation is well on its way to failed-state status. I agree, and am not sanguine about that.

That's all. A bunch of recycled words about my hissy fit in the blogosphere today. This Lieberman/Snowe agenda is pretty much what I've been expecting the Senate to come up with. We've been treated to 6 months of political theater: Garfield Goose on the Little Theater Screen. My political contributions for the foreseeable future will be routed to progressive Democrats challenging apparatchiks like Harry Reid and Claire McCaskill and Max Baucus in primaries.

Update before I'm done: JMM and I had one more exchange but it's not worth reporting because I need to log off and download some more purple booze into my gullet.

The King of the United States; or What We Can Learn About Current Events from The Little Theater Screen and William Shakespeare

When I was growing up in Chicago, the must-see after-school show for kids of a certain age range was Garfield Goose and Friends. See, Gar was the self-appointed King of the United States. His Prime Minister and "mouthpiece" was one Frazier Thomas (not pictured in the photo at the left, which, incidentally is being reproduced in compliance with the Fair Use Doctrine for purposes of education and social commentary). Nobody except Frazier could understand Gar's furious declamations, which consisted of the clattering together of a two-piece fiberglass bill, signifying nothing. Frazier also used his good offices as the official interpreter for all the other mute puppets on the show. By "interpreter" I mean that Frazier basically put words in their mouths because any sound that issued was incomprehensible to the viewer. Frazier Thomas served as the affable, long-suffering Enabler In Chief for a delusional Monarch.

Joe Lieberman, our current King of the United States, is similar to Garfield Goose in that he is operated by an unknown puppeteer with a hand way up his ass, and the sounds he makes are insanely grating on the ear. The corporate media, our current Royal Enablers, are similar to Frazier Thomas in that they presume to tell us exactly what Joe Lieberman's sociopathic performance art piece means by putting words in his mouth for us to hear. Unlike Joe Lieberman, Garfield Goose never did anyone harm when off camera. And unlike our corporate media, Frazier Thomas would often challenge The King's intelligence, motives, and ethics, and the substance of these challenges would be borne out in the end as Gar got his comeuppance about this thing or that. And he'd also show us Clutch Cargo cartoons on The Little Theater Screen.

I am utterly dumbfounded, even as I and so many others have fully expected it, that our constitutional democracy has come to this: the triumph of minority rule as ceded by the representatives of the true majority to the party of know-nothings, bigots, Wall Street, tea-baggers, and no doubt more than a handful of holocaust deniers.

It's pointless to blame Joe Lieberman, a known serpent who is behaving exactly like a serpent. I blame Barack "Othello" Obama and his lieutenant, Rahm "Iago" Emanuel. Evidently Iago's machinations have the Moor of Hawaii utterly unable to lead the nation or his own congressional majority, and so suspicious of his own Mandate For Change that he's getting ready to smother the life out of it like Desdemona in her chambers.

Afterword: This current disgusting healthcare reform episode, plus the concurrent military escalation in "The Stans," compels me to dust off the Petraeus-Lieberman Dream Ticket Theory for 2010. Not my dream, you understand; just my theory. Most Democrats deserve to have their asses handed to them for this travesty, but not mine and yours as well.

Joementum III: the owning

*
Up a little late tonight, insomnia blogging, so I'll share what I'm thinking about Joe The Lieberman. Here it is:

I'm not concerned about Joe Lieberman getting off with a wrist slap, and don't care about his advisor punking "the left" in a way that has Jane Hamsher all tied up in knots. Howard Dean thinks it's a smooth move by Obama, and Dean's logic makes sense to me. Joe can strut and fret his hour on the stage, if he likes, but Obama owns him. Basically Joe has a 2-year probation, and his only hope of even a whiff of relevance is to do exactly as Obama's crew directs him. Without Joe, Dems don't have a chance at a filibuster-proof majority; with him, they do. But there is an election in 2 years. If the Dems pick up the 60-seat majority then, Joe is irrelevant no matter what. If he goes off the reservation, though, Obama's' crew has no reason not to throw him to the wolves --- heave him out of the caucus at a well selected time. If that happens, Lieberman has no chance whatsoever of being re-elected in 2012. So I suspect Obama has Lieberman at quite the disadvantage, despite what the knee-jerk lefties think.

Back to you, Oil Can Harry.

Another way to solve the Democrats' Lieberman problem

*
I addressed this problem yesterday in a post where I shared a letter that I wrote to Senator Durbin about stripping "Tailgunner Joe" Lieberman of his Senate Homeland Security Committee chairmanship. But just now, after a night of no sleep, I had an even better idea: Obama should nominate Lieberman to be Ambassador to Israel. Then appoint a strong, knowledgeable Obama favorite to be Joe's highest-ranking deputy ambassador in order both to keep an eye on him and to be involved in all substantive matters.

This solution would be a three-fer for Barack: he could make a show of personal forgiveness and "reaching out" (which could, as an option, actually be genuine); he could delight both the Israelis and AIPAC by sending them our very own little Little Knesset Man (as the other BO calls him); and most importantly, he could finally rid the Sentate of this pathetic, creepy pest.

Bonus "fer": if Joe had not succeeded in bringing the Israelis along toward moderation and a netotiation framework after about a year, the President could tell the li'l fella his services were no longer required and then ceremoniously exterminate him altogether.

Writed a letter

*
I wrote this one to the only Senator I have left for the moment, Dick Durbin. Let's join me now as I express my opinion to him on an issue of the day:

Senator Durbin,

This evening I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee. It is my understanding that Senator Lieberman may petition the Committee for the privilege of retaining his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. If he does, I urge you to do everything in your power as a committee member to reject Senator Lieberman's request.

I believe that President Elect Obama's ability to provide leadership in the area of national security will be encumbered or undermined if Senator Lieberman is permitted to retain his committee chairmanship. My conclusion seems self-evident as Mr. Lieberman has actively worked with the Bush/Cheney administration and the McCain campaign to thwart the will of most U.S. citizens as well as your party on critical security and constitutional issues within the purview of his committee.

Again, I urge you to do everything you can to remove Mr. Lieberman from this important committee chairmanship and act to replace him with a Senator whose views and objectives complement and harmonize with Mr. Obama's.

Thank you.

You weigh in on this issue with your own voice, if you like, or sign the electronic petition available here. Personally, I don't care for web petitions, so I rolled my own for Senator Durbin to put in his pipe and smoke, if he likes. Notice the fancy way I expressed my concern to my Senator in terms of national security rather than pure "partisan bickering." Watch and learn, my impressionable disciples.

I know that if Lieberman defects to the GOP when stripped of his Democratic chairmanship, the Democrats will be one vote further away from a filibuster-proof majority. Too bad: he can't be trusted so he has to go. Furthermore, he has to be punished as an example to any Blue Dogs who may want to push back against the better intentions of President Obama. Democrats quickly need to relearn the homespun skills of arm-twisting and/or persuasion --- Tip O'Neill style, maybe --- for use on so-called "moderate" Republicans to break filibusters on Obama's SCOTUS nominations (for one example). True, there really are no "moderate" Republicans --- only ones who pretend to be moderate for the consumption of their home constituencies. But I'm betting those phony creatures might wise up a bit now as Bush heads for his Poppy's basement in Kennebunkport, Cheney heads for Arkham Asylum, McCain heads for well earned oblivion, and Palin heads for the political equivalent of a shallow grave. Lieberman can launch a U.S. Likkud Party for all I care.

As seen on dansolomon.com [updated]

*
Last night I responded to an open invitation for guest posts issued by my blog-world friend Dan Solomon, who is busy resettling back in the U.S.S.A. after living in teh England. I offered Dan a StuporMundi Exclusive looking back on my Petraeus/Lieberman '08 fugue, and why I believe the principles behind my strategy would have been sound for Republicans. I'm very gratified that he posted it, and I thank him. Take a look if you like.

Update: Go read my post on dansolomon.com, goddamit!!!

Palin "shock"

*
Will Thomas wrote a brief post on TPM remarking on two under-reported aspects of McCain's selection of Palin for his VP running mate. The second one is of high interest to this blog:

"Shock. The pick caught everyone by surprise, including the Obama camp...."

Just imagine how "shocked" the "Obama camp" would be if, in a week or two, they found that Barack was running against Dave Petraeus. That has been my point all along for repeatedly writing about the unlikely Petraeus/Lieberman '08 Republican strategy: if you're going to shake things up with a so-called "hail Mary pass", it needs to be one that really could change the game. As opposed to pulling the stupidest political stunt ever executed since my brain was first fully developed.

And don't rule out Lieberman yet, either. Josh Marshall makes my point with this one word post: "Eagleton"? If Palin bails or is forced to withdraw, doesn't it seem likely that the petulant McCain would return to his first choice?

Maverick tactics

*
Brilliant: trying to upstage one of the finest nights in the history of American political theater by doing something astonishingly stupid. Nice job of vetting the running mate, Maverick.

I believe McCain did this in an unscripted petulant frenzy because his advisors bullied him out of listening to StuporMundi.

My friends, I don't think we've heard the last of this daring strategic plan yet.

Final GOP VP comment before selection [updated]

*
Here's one last reason I think McCain is more likely to choose Lieberman as his running mate: Joe's physique and appearance will not upstage the allegedly petty and petulant McCain.

Next to Romney, McCain would look exceptionally short, cadaverous, and "a little thin up there." Wouldn't it be deluxe if McCain, standing next to Romney in the sun, suddenly melted down forever: "At least I don't slather on the mousse like a trollop, you cunt!"

Update: Upon McCain's choice of the foxy Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, several thoughts occur to me. First, McCain will still look exceptionally cadaverous and "a little thin up there" next to Governor Palin. (He may look short next to her also, but I don't know how tall she is out of spikes.) Second, McCain's selection of a governor with only 2 years of state-level administrative experience indicates how desperately and deeply he had to reach into the Republican bench to find a running mate who doesn't threaten his ego and has no established PR negatives on the "national stage." Third, Governor Palin hails from what is probably the most politically corrupt state, per capita, in the nation ("google" Senator Ted Stevens and U.S. Rep. Don Young, for example, then google any other name mentioned as indicted or a person of interest in an investigation). So not surprisingly, she already has her own share of baggage to talk about. Fourth, and finally: what Atrios says: Palin's name has barely surfaced in the corporate media over the past month as a prospective McCain VP choice. Although her selection has apparently doomed my Petraeus/Lieberman '08 nightmare ticket, and with it my future as even a second-tier national blogger, I was closer to being right than the bona fide pundits and lefty bloggers were: McCain selected a longshot with at least some history of making social policy in contravention to the right-wing company line (as seen on TPM).

As an aside, I see that there are lots of references on the web to Governor Palin being a "GILF". I wonder what that means.

VP Joe Lieberman: where have I heard that idea before?

*
Oh dear. Is it possible that Joe Lieberman might have a place on the Republican ticket this fall? Can't be, because neither Tim Russert nor Tony Snow told us it could happen before they each went off to wait at the Gates of Hell for John McCain's torturers to show up.

But wait a minute: there was one observer who suggested way, way back in December 2007 that everybody be on the lookout for this development. Who could it have been? Oh, now I remember.

I'll cop to modifying The Most Awesome Political Prediction Ever later, as more recent events have prudent. My original premise still holds, though: that no one who has been considered Republican presidential timber by the serous media would be strong enough or even untainted enough to win the general election against a strong Democrat. At that time I felt Lieberman might jump his party early to settle in as a Republican, but he didn't. Instead, he spent his time laying groundwork for jumping the party in September. Furthermore, back in December I felt that Petraeus might effectively play the strongman role as Lieberman's VP, in a reprise of the Imperial Vice Presidency. For the past few weeks, though, I've suggested that there is no need for such a role reversal, and that Petraeus/Lieberman '08 would be a stronger ticket for the Republicans. I still believe that.

The only objection I've gotten to my P/L '08 scenario that even begins to hold water, in my view, was from a blogger named Dan Solomon. He raised a technical issue related to the legalities and tradition of military retirements relating to whether Petraeus would be eligible to run for President in September. My original reply to Solomon was that an Executive Branch that gets away with launching wars that are illegal in the view of many unbiased experts, breaking U.S. treaties (impeachable offense, by the way), etc., can certainly find a way to finesse the legalities of a general's retirement... when the Justice Department and the Supreme Court have been thoroughly politicized. My secondary reply, offered now, is that McCain could still make it into the general election cycle in September and not be there in October. Abracadabra.

Again, for any slow learners out there, I'm not suggesting this scenario as something that any sentient citizen of a democracy would like to see. I'm suggesting it because it's as plausible as what we're looking at right now --- a morally and mentally bankrupt former war hero with no real constituency running the high ground against an up-by-the-bootstraps, relatively conservative young black family man. My overall point is that Obama would be prudent to have a coupla people in his boiler room working on a plan for shifting strategic gears if he found himself running against a freshly retired Four-Star General. I may be wrong, though, because Steve Benen, Josh Marshall, and Bob Cesca all have failed to reply to my email on the topic. I'm not bona fide, you see.

Revisiting Petraeus/Lieberman '08

*
On 16 December 2007, in an early blog post characterized by mediocre writing, I presented my reasons for predicting that a brokered Republican National Convention would result in a ticket of Joe Lieberman and General David Petraeus. I'm sure everybody thought this was quite cute.

Today, with John McCain becoming an object of open scorn for some members of the elite Washington media, and even Paris Hilton's mother, I'm afraid (scared to death, actually) I'm going to have to "double down" on my prediction. Forget the stupid polls that say McCain has a nominal lead over Obama --- Zogby's polls have been wrong about pretty much everything all year. I am convinced that John McCain will not be running for President in October 2008.

First, the Republicans cannot afford to cede the Executive Branch and all the law enforcement and judicial appointment power that comes with it. The Republicans will not lose this election without trying tricks that aren't even in the book yet (outside of this blog). Everyone knows that McCain will lose against Obama no matter what pollsters or pundits say. Want proof? Just think about it for a moment. War, economy, energy: nobody on earth really thinks John McCain has any idea what the problems are, let alone the solutions.

Second, the Republicans have literally no one to run for President who is both well known and untainted by scandal, historical incompetence, etc. That is why McCain is the nominal candidate. But the GOP needs a real candidate and a off-the-scales strategy for winning the November election.

I believe they have that strategy.

Right now, John McCain's bigoted, incompetent campaign serves two Republican purposes. One is that Rove and his proteges are damaging Obama with the standard GOP bigotry and smears; the other is that Republicans are desperate for anyone to deliver them from the disaster of a McCain candidacy. They need someone who will unite the militarists, the corporate interests, the fundamentalists, and low-information "independent voters."

McCain's purpose --- damaging Obama --- will run its course soon, let's say around Labor Day, during the GOP convention, when it is finally time to start the real election campaign they've been planning along. Now imagine this: an "asymmetric" political strategy that begins with McCain dropping out at or shortly before the convention. Maybe he becomes unable to continue his campaign, ostensibly (or in fact) for health reasons.

National drama! The Republicans will have to rally around someone fast --- a devil we don't know, so to speak. The convention ensures maximal prime time viewing for all us suckers out here in TV land. What to do? Draft the only prominent Republican personage who no one would dare to criticize: Dave Petraeus. During the run-up to our annual September 11 fetish, The Architect Of The Surge, a telegenic general who both Republicans and the corporate media love, rides in on his White Horse.

There would be a month-long love affair by the press just because of the novelty of it all. Obama's campaign strategy, whatever it is, would be null. His message and voice would be drowned out for weeks on end. His strategists would be in disarray over how to handle the General. Anyone who wants an excuse to vote against Obama would have one. And Barack, to paraphrase what Hunter Thompson once said of Hubert Humphrey after being stabbed in the back, would look like he'd been sprayed in the face with shitmist.

As a side note, consider that Petraeus recently promoted to head CENTCOM, which Time correctly calls "the core of the U.S. military's current operations". No General in DoD has more power. And, unlike even McCain and Bush, General Petraeus will hear none of this "timetable" crap.

Of course Petraeus will need an inoffensive running mate, perhaps a moralistic, comparatively clean nebbish who is nominally a Democrat. One whose name begins with "Lie". One to whom the General can "reach across the aisle" to construct the Dream Unity '08 Ticket.

This idea truly frightens me. I have to come back later and edit this mess when I'm not feeling sick.

Awesome prediciton revisited

First, cross-reference this. Now fast-forward to this. The author of the former was me, here, on 16 December 2007. The author of the latter was bigshot wingnut and Iraq War advocate Michael Ledeen at National Review Online, a wretched hive of scum and villainy, on 25 January 2008. I don't know much about Ledeen, but evidently he's a right-wing insider, and people of that type pay attention to him. The Republican Party overflows with them.

Think of it: Joementum 2008 -- Lieberman and Petraeus as the Republican standard-bearers. A "national unity" ticket for the celebrity DC pundits and journalists to fetish. I don't think regular voters would see much of a difference between that ticket and a Hillary Clinton/Wes Clark Democratic alternative. Except I'm guessing that more of them would vote for Joe and Dave because Hillary is too cold, or too emotional, or is humorless, or cackles too much, or something. So how do you like them apples? I know Big Otis hates them and thinks they're make-believe.

Most awesome political prediction ever

Several days ago Steven Benen wrote a piece for TalkingPointsMemo in which he kicked around the possibility that no Republican presidential candidate will be able to win a majority of convention delegates next summer. His point was that they may end up with a brokered convention in which one of the nominees is shoved down the party's throat by the likes of Cheney and Big Business (for example), or else a so-called unity candidate might be shoved down that same orifice or perhaps the one south of the border.

I sent an email to Benen with a bold yet completely logical prediction: after the Republican candidates destroy each other and themselves, as is happening apace every day, the party will turn to two saviors who are completely beneath the radar at the moment. By comparison to the current crew, they will look clean and serious. I'm talking about Sen. Joe Lieberman (Ind-CT) for President and Gen. Dave Petraeus for VP. Benen did not reply, probably on the theory that I'm an ignorant crackpot.

A Lieberman/Petraeus Republican ticket would be the political equivalent of asymmetric warfare, and it would have Democratic leadership perplexed for weeks. They'll never see it coming and won't be able to decide how to respond. They'd be pre-out-triangulated.

Think about it: Lieberman gambled his career last year by snuggling up to despised Republicans to prove his "national security" qualifications, and he won. He has no future in a progressive Democratic Party, if such a thing should ever emerge. And now it is even being reported that he will endorse a Republican (McCain) for President, so Lieberman has pretty much already abandoned the Democrats and slipped them a green weenie besides.

Yes, Lieberman is Jewish, which the Cracker-Industrial Complex tends not to like. But I'm sure Republican propagandists could sell Joe to the party base as a "good Jew" to serve their current purposes. And for many "middle of the road" voters, who Republicans will need to dupe once again to keep the White house in 2008, Lieberman's nonstandard religion will not be an issue; it will even give those voters a reason to feel all proud of themselves for being "tolerant." And anyway, Joe would be balanced on the ticket by Petraeus, who is a soldier with name recognition, goddammit, and one who is associated with the Christian "brand."

Now don't forget where you first read this awesome prediction; later you can share my 1.5 minutes of fame by proxy.