takethemud's takeonlife

After the 2000 election and the related fiasco in Florida, there appeared bumperstickers reading "Sore-Loserman, 2000" in a parody of the "Gore-Lieberman, 2000" bumpersticker. (This was pretty funny one that ranks right up there with my favorite from 2004, "Bush-Kerry, 2004", with another example here). Well, now it appears that one-half of the less-than-dynamic duo, Joe Lieberman, is up to his old tricks once again and his recent actions just might warrant the printing of a new bumpersticker reading "Sore Loserman, 2006" (without the hyphen, because it's just him this time; and the year updated).

"takethemud," you are probably thinking, "Why are you calling Joe Lieberman a sore loser LOL?"

Because Mr. Lieberman is bolting away from the Democratic Party, his party, faster than Joltin' Joe DiMaggio ran the bases. Hummmm, how about this for a Lieberman nickname: Boltin' Joe?!?!? Going once, going twice, sold!!! Boltin' Joe it is.

So let's dig a little deeper and get just a little background ole Boltin' Joe. He's been a democrat since at least 1970, when he ran for the Connecticut state senate. Since then, he served as a CT State Senator, the CT Attorney General, and a US Senator. He was also the Dem's nominee for Vice President in 2000 and one of the candidates for the Dem's presidential nomination in 2004. To me, that sounds like a real party man, somebody with loyalty who's going to stick with his party. And right up until tonight, that's what Boltin' Joe did.

See, earlier tonight, things changed for Boltin' Joe. In a come-from-behind victory, Joe lost the democratic primary (and consequently the party's nomination for US Senator) to Ned Lamont, a businessman turned politician who campaigned on an anti-war platform and defeated Mr. Lieberman by won the party's nomination. Mr. Lamont really overtook Lieberman these last few months. Observe what the polls were saying:

• On May 2, 2006, Lieberman was up by 46 points over Mr. Lamont in a poll.
  
• In June, Lieberman was up 46% - 29% over Lamont in polls.
• On July 20, 2006, Lieberman was in a "statistical tie" with Mr. Lamont, with a slight edge of 51% - 47%.
• On August 3, 2006, Lamont was up by 13 points over Lieberman in a poll. (A lot can change in 3 months)
• On August 8, votes were cast and Lamont defeated Lieberman 52% - 48%.

(FYI: I will not be discussing whether Ned Lamont is a viable candidate or how this will affect the Democrat's and Republican's chances of victory in November. I am concerned with the integrity of the political process, how it affects democracy in America, and what it says about Boltin' Joe & the Party System.

But he didn't choose to stick with his party and respect the wishes of the party faithful, which is what you'd hope you'd see from somebody like Lieberman, who has given and taken so much from the Dems. Instead, Boltin' Joe, ever the sore loser, got the hell out of Dodge and formed the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party." Now he says he's gonna run as an independent.

Now is it just me, or does it not make sense to run as an independent after you already ran as a Democrat? I mean, if Boltin' Joe started off as an independent, I'd be singing praises to the heavens, being the perpetual third-party lover that I am. (More on that later)

See, when you start off as a Democrat for the primaries, you're kinda saying to everybody: "I cast my lot with this party and this process. I'm going to take part in these primaries. If I win, I reap the rewards and will run for President with the machinery of one of the two big parties behind me. But if I lose, I will concede defeat and throw my weight behind the victor."

But what Sore Loserman was saying was something entirely different: "I'm going to get in on this Democratic primary thing because, you know, I'm entitled to the nomination on account of having been a senator for so damned long. If I win, well, it's what I was entitled to. But if I lose, then it's a perversion of the party nominating process and contrary to the will of my state, so I'll run as an independent."

It's almost like somebody running for a Presidential election, then, when they lose, violently overthrowing the government to become President. Not exactly a tame analogy, but the principle is the same: somebody tries to get what they want through the established means of getting it and then, when they lose, they take steps outside of the system they implicitly endorsed by getting involved in that system's established processes.

And to add another twist in the process, Boltin' Joe said that if even if he lost his party's nomination, he'd be Boltin' home to the Democratic Party, continuing to present himself as a "petitioning Democrat" (FN1) and vowing to sit as a Democrat in the senate (FN2). (News Flash Joe: You get to be a Democrat if your party nominates you to represent it. Yours picked Ned Lamont!)

It sounds to me like Joe was determined to have his cake and eat it too; that is to say, take part in the Dem's primaries and run for the Senate regardless of the outcome. Maybe Boltin Joe's just plain ol' hungry to spend another 6 cushy years in the upper house of the US Congress, making lots of money, enjoying the spoils of political office. Being the 3-term senator that he is, maybe he thinks it's somehow his birthright to go back to Washington.

If that were the case, it'd be awfully aristocratic. And aristocracy is always awful. There's nothing is worse for this country than an aristocratic class of any kind, be they aristocrats who derive their sense of nobility through the fortune of their good birth or aristocrats of the self-annoited variety who derive their sense of nobility from the institutions they pass through and persons they know. America is about people earning what they get through their labors mixed with good fortune, never as a spoil of privilege. Perhaps that is why the US Constitution forbids the United States from bestowing a title of nobility upon anybody (See Here).

But whatever the reason for his bolt from the party that provided fuel for his political machine all these years, the fact is that Boltin Joe dipped out. On principle, I just can't say that's a good thing.

Now, I said earlier that if Boltin' Joe were a third party candidate from the beginning, I'd be singing his praises. And that's the true. I think third party candidates are necessary for democracy to progress. The more third parties are able to take part in the political process, the more our public discourse will resemble the ideal of the public square. Instead of political discourse being like a rowdy and boorish game of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, with two little kids pounding on buttons trying to injure the opponent, it would be become something more sophisticated, strategic, and representative. With more voices and parties vying for votes, our political discourse might elevate itself to the level of, say, Hungry Hungry Hippoes, with four little kids working away to get as many of us into their camp as they could. In all seriousness, it's tough to decide what's better for the American system - Mr. Lamont winning as an outsider or Mr. Lieberman running as a third party candidate.

• On the one hand, there is a legitimate third party candidate running, which should broaden the discourse. Who knows, maybe it will get people talking about the importance of minority voices to maintaining the health of the political process, the potential for expanded democracy made possible by Instant Runoff Voting, and other issues relevant to increasing the viability of third parties. Not likely, but I hold out hope.
  
• On the other hand, Mr. Lamont was a political outside who won the nomination of a major party to a pretty serious office. This in itself is a big deal. Outsiders have the greatest potential to shake things up and that's a good thing. At the very least, challenging the accepted ways of doing things makes it necessary for the guardians of the status quo to defend their methodology. If a single weakness is exposed and the process become stronger, then there were gains to be had. So, I'm always happy when I see an outsider win or run for something, anything - think: Arnold for Governor, Ralph Nader for President, Ned Lamont for Democratic Senate Candidate, John Q Independent for Local School Board Seat #3.
  

Only time can tell whether Boltin' Joe's big jump to an independent candidacy will pay off for the democratic process. Until then, we should be content with knowing that people want to be Senators so badly they'll eschew common sense and their own principles just to take a shot at it. Or maybe that knowledge should make us discontent.

Posted by takethemud at 1:24 AM | Permalink | Comments

As everybody knows, Samuel Clemens became Mark Twain. The reason for this is that his original name couldn't possibly contain him in all of his awesomeness. Adopting a pen name helped ease the burden by allowing Mark Twain to shoulder some of the load.

Here are some of the facts about Mark Twain that illustrate why his awesomeness was so large it needed two named to be contained:

(1) Mark Twain once challenged somebody to a duel.

When he was living in Nevada, Mr Twain challenged a rival newspaper editor to a duel. Mr Twain's second exaggerated his prowess with a pistol and the rival backed out of the match. Mr Twain subsequently left town. Now, offering to duel will make it so you can't practice law in Kentucky (FN1), but it certainly doesn't diminish how awesome you are. Quite the opposite - it increases it ten-fold.

(2) Mark Twain once walked 75 miles to accept a job.

I can't find anything on the internet to corroborate this. But, the anecdote is in a published book that my fiancee used for a journalism class in college. He was offered a position at a newspaper and he was such a stand-up guy that he walked 75 miles to tell them he accepted. How many of you would do that nowadays? None. You would all write emails, make phone calls, drive a car there. . . . anything but walk. Score a few more points for Mr Twain.

(3) Mark Twain was funny - funnier than you & everybody else.

Mr Twain is widely regarded as the best humorist of the nineteenth century. You aren't. Mr Twain has a humor prize named after him that's given out by the Kennedy Center annually (FN2). And do you? No, I didn't think so. And if you think present-day comics are funnier than Mr Twain, then ask yourself this: Why are present-day comics given the "Mark Twain" award? Mr Twain never got the "Richard Pryor Award" or the "Steve Martin Award". The reason is obvious, Mr Twain was funnier than they'll ever be.

Posted by takethemud at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

I hereby formally denounce Will Ferrell.

Posted by takethemud at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments

I hereby formally denounce M. Night Shyamalan.

Note: I have issued this denouncement elsewhere. This is a reissue of the denouncement.

Posted by takethemud at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments

What does it mean to be denounced?

Throughout history, no shortage of people have been denounced. It seems that at one time or another, even the best of us have suffered denouncements.

Since America is the best country in the world, we should look to ourselves for awesome people who may have been denounced. And what better place to look for these exceptional people than to our currency, the thing that America has more of than any other country. (FN1). But how to narrow it down? Now, I don't know about you, but to me, appearing on either a coin or a bill is no small feat - JFK, RFK, FDR, Ike, Franklin, US Grant, Hamilton, Jackson, Susan B. Anthony, Sacagawea, the Liberty Bell, and Lady Liberty have all done that at one time or another. And starting in 2007, every (deceased) President will be eventually featured on a dollar coin. (FN2). I'll admit, a lot of those people and objects are pretty cool, but I just can't honestly say that being on a single piece of US currency is that big of a deal anymore. I just can't.

But only three have been and continue to be featured on both a coin and a bill. That's an exclusive club whose members are Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. And let's not forget, those are three of the four Presidents whose faces adorn Mt. Rushmore (the other is Teddy Roosevelt). (FN3). These are also three of the four Presidents with major memorials or monuments in Washington D.C. (the other being Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Albert Einstein also has a memorial in D.C.) (FN4). If you aren't persuaded yet, then all is lost.

Now, since I promised I'd talk about denouncements, that's what I'm going to do. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln were all great folks who all happened to be denounced at one time or another.

George Washington, who appears on the Dollar Bill and the Quarter, was denounced as being aristocratic (FN5). Thomas Jefferson, who appears on the Two Dollar Bill and the Nickel, was denounced for completing the Louisiana Purchase (FN4) and for being an atheiest (FN5) and infidel (FN6). Even Abraham Lincoln, who appears on the Five Dollar Bill and the Penny, was denounced in 1864 for vetoing the Wade-Davis Bill. (FN7). But Honest Abe (who reportedly earned this nickname for being an honest judge of cockfights FN8, FN9, FN10) also did some denouncing of his own, denouncing the Mexican-American War while he was a member of Congress in the 1840s. (FN11) This, of course, earned him some denoucements, where he was denounced as a traitor. (FN12)

Let's stick with Abe for the time being. My point is, just because Abe Lincoln was a great person who happened to be denounced a few times, it doesn't mean everyone who is denounced is really a great person. . . or even a good person. No, many people who are denounced are denounced for good or even great reasons. Especially where my denouncements are concerned. I only denouce those who are deserving of such a harsh rebuke - like Britney Spears.

Let's compare Honest Abe and Britney Spears for a minute. Honest Abe and Britney Spears are worlds apart.

Let's start with their names. Abraham Lincoln and Britney Spears. Abraham was the founding patriarch of the Israelites, who God chose to bless out of all the families on earth, and is considered a major Christian, Jewish, and Muslim figure (FN13). Britney is a misspelling of Brittany and it sounds like 'brat'.

Then, you've got their nicknames. Honest Abe and Britney. Come on. And if that's not convincing enough, Abe was also known as "The Great Emancipator" and "The Rail Splitter". (FN14). Any normal person would be content with one of these three nicknames. The fact that Abe had all three is a testament to his heroic nature.

Let's delve deeper. One saved the Union of these United States (FN15), the other can't even take care of her own baby - she drops him (FN16), allegedly lets him fall out of bed (FN17) lets nanies watch him . . . who also drop him (FN18) - leaving me to think she taught the nanny how to drop the baby; plus, drives with the baby on her lap contrary to what common sense would dictate (FN19), and God knows what else.

Abraham Lincoln has a monument in Washington, D.C. (FN20), his picture on the penny (FN21) and $5 bill (FN22), and the picture of his monument on the back of those denominations of currency (FN23, FN24). Not to mention the undying thanks of the American people. And Abe is praised abroad, too - during three weeks in spent in Cuba, I saw no less than three busts or statues of Abe Lincoln. And one was in the Museum of the Revolution in Havana - that's like holy land for the Cuban government. Put simply, Abe is so damned awesome everybody likes him, even communists.

All Britney Spears gets is her airbrushed picture on the cover of some crappy no-good magazines like Star (FN25), People (FN26), US Weekly (FN27) and Harpar's Bazaar (FN28), a bizarre statue of her giving birth (You really should see the pictures: FN29, FN30), a tattoo that doesn't mean anything (FN31), a tattoo that means the wrong thing (but 'strange' does seem to describe her) (FN32 FN33), and a visit from child welfare services. (FN34). Sounds like a winner to me!

The differences are clear and the conclusion obvious. Denouncements of Abraham Lincoln are profound errors of judgment. Denouncements of Britney Spears are well-deserved and necessary.

Earlier I posed the question, "What does it mean to be denounced?" The answer is clear. It depends on who is being denounced. Some denouncements are meritless put-downs of another, like denouncements of Abe. Some denouncements are unapologetic and forceful indictments of an individual whose very existence should be a criminal offense. My denouncements all fit into the latter category.

Posted by takethemud at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments

I hereby formally denounce Britney Spears.

Note: I have issued this denouncement elsewhere. This is a reissue of the denouncement.

Posted by takethemud at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments