Let's All Go To The Carnival...

Just for your viewing pleasure, Bitch | Lab has announced that the 17th Carnival of Feminists is now up at her site.

All sorts of information and goodies for your brain...and that includes the two entries I referenced in my last post on the Feminist BJ Wars. (That would be Rachel's and Black Amazon's posts, BTW.)

And Miz B's not the only one throwing out beads of knowledge, either...Jay Sennett is hosting the second Erase Racism Carnival over at his blog, too. (Big ups to Kevin at Slant Truth for honing me in on that one.)

The Gift That Keeps On Giving: More BJ Kerfuffle Reaction

As much as I would just love to put this really dead horse of The Great Feminist Blowjob Kerfuffle to rest once and for all....two wonderful essayists have decided to add their quarter's worth into the fray; and they are more than worth your attention, I should say:

1) Black Amazon brings fists and fire to smack down the pretentiousness of the anti-bj radfems:

[...]

You're not fucking cute and I'm not amused.


THe BJ brouhah is full of women who go its sex we shouldnt talk about it versus don't take it to seriously shes playing and radical feminism is teh act of


HORSESHIT

THIS IS RADICAL feminism. Heteronormative crtique, random asshattery, and patronizing oh ignore her calm downs.

My problem with this is wheere does this shit end , what is the point .

Oh wait they dont have one. This hasnt been about actually making headway or you kow fighting patriarchy its about one small section of women ONCE A FUCKING GAIN swearing on a stack of theory that an issue can be defined and isolated only using binary terms without any thought to PEOPLE while constantly attacking their PERSONAL choices. This debate was framed in the teh purpose of saying fuck you I can make you dance to a whole group of people while tellinga nother group that their fuck you was implied.

If you suck cock your oppressed and a tool. YEah but what do you want to do about it ? Or do you even care . Riiigh t. You jsut wnat to call us names and be on your way. WHats funny is what pepople got awya with up until THIS . When they came for the Communists...

RADICAL FEMINSIM HAS NO PLACE IN MY BED IF IT DOESNT CARE HOW I GET TO THE POINT OF MAKING IT.

(Excerpted from Having Read The Fine Print: You're not fucking cute and I'm not amused; Double-plus hat tip to Belledame)

2) "Lusty Lady" Rachel Kramer Bussel provides a more intellectual, but no less progressive, POV in her latest blog entry:

[...]

At its heart, not only is the sheer contempt for the very idea of blowjobs anti-male, anti-penis, and anti-sex, it’s judgmental and hypocritical. I agree that sex is political, but that doesn’t mean that there’s a superior way to have sex. Because if we’re gonna say blowjobs are inherently degrading, what’s empowering? Women topping men? I’d be very wary of making some kind of argument that picking up a paddle to whack a guy’s ass furthers feminism in any way, and would not want to be the guy on the receiving end of a “punishment” where he’s taking the rap for all of men’s bad behavior.

[...]

I am as loathe as the next person to further stereotypes, and I honestly don’t care about whether I’m considered “feminist enough” (or feminist at all) or not—we spend so much time playing word games when there’s real life going on—but it seems to me that if you see feminism as being a battle of women vs. men, then yes, anything that praises men or gives them pleasure might be seen as a negative. But if we step back a moment and realize how our highly judgmental sexual culture actually makes many people feel guilty, confused, and ashamed of their sexuality, we see that it’s not just women who are bombarded by messages about how to be sexual. Why I think there’s something to Tucker Max’s defense of being a “man’s man” is that I do see a trend where women are allowed to go on and on and on about our every sexual fantasy, but when guys do it it’s sleazy. But we can’t defend sex work and still be judgmental about those who patronize sex workers.

(Excerpts from Lusty Lady: Feminist blowjobs and other oxymorons)

A visit to both these blogs would be worth your time and effort.

"What 'Cha Gonna Do With All That Junk...": The Radfem Crusade Gets (Dip)Stickier

Oh, WOW.....

So now, the Radicalfeminist Crusade against Patriarchial Sex has turned its wandering eyes to anal sex, I see. Get a load (no pun) of this analysis from P0ny (via Heart's Women's Spaces Blog), relayed through Bitch Lab in comments to my earlier edict:

didja know? anal sex is an invention of the patriarchy so they can fuck women without have to go near a vagina. already, men only want drive-by PV sex anyway. Oh hey, we can call it dipstick sex: in and out. They don't have to do that anymore. They can just bend you over, fuck ya, and feel pure b/c they never had to actually dip it in a pussy. LMAOROTF

Oh, yeah...so much for gay men and the "Bend Over Boyfriend" phonomena, I guess.

I believe that I'll pass on this one, thank you very much...since Miz B's rebuttal does the trick so much better.

Forget Net Neutrality (Please Don't); THIS Is Why We Should Save The Internet

I thought that we were fighting to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Silly me.

Tip of the paw to Antiprincess of Paleofeminist.

Saudi women unveil opinions online

By Rasheed Abou-Alsamh, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
Mon Jun 19, 4:00 AM ET



In this country where women are forced to completely cover themselves in public, are barred from driving, and need permission to travel abroad, it's small wonder many are embracing the freedom of anonymity on the Internet.

As Internet usage continues to climb here, so do the numbers of women who have started Web logs, or blogs, to express themselves in ways they might never do in public.

"I love blogging because it helps me to express myself and I like to write in English," says Farah Aziz, a translation student at King Saud University in Riyadh who started blogging in January 2005.

The content of Ms. Aziz's blog (http://farahssowaleef.blogspot.com), which chronicles the life of a college student, would probably do little to cause alarm among government censors. But other women bloggers are drawing the attention of the state as well conservative male bloggers who have taken to policing the Internet for bloggers acting in ways that they perceive as inappropriate according to Islam.

Saudi Eve, who regularly writes about her love life and religion, and who declined to be identified by her real name because of the sensitivity of the issue, woke up on June 2 to find that her blog (http://eveksa.blogspot.com) had been blocked.

"Back and blocked," she wrote on her blog on June 2. "I'm temporarily back in Saudi only to find that 'Saudi Eve is officially blocked in Saudi.' "

The closure of her site signals the beginning of a cyber battle between liberal Saudi bloggers and their more conservative counterparts.

Blogging under the name Green Tea (http://www.g-tea.com/), Riyadh law student Mohammed al-Mossaed recently formed a conservative group of Saudi bloggers called the Official Community of Saudi Arabian Bloggers (OCSAB). "I am not responsible for the blocking of any website," says Mr. Mossaed. "OCSAB also has nothing to do with it. Maybe [Saudi Eve] broke [the state's] rules by sometimes talking about God and sex."

Response and sympathy from fellow bloggers was swift, with many urging the Kingdom's Internet watchdog, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), to unblock the site.

Deeply conservative, Saudi Arabia is among the most restrictive countries in regard to Internet access in the world, with most traffic going through a central hub at KACST in Riyadh. The biggest number of sites blocked are pornographic sites, followed by sites that discuss drugs, religion, and terrorism. But KACST itself admits that it sometimes blocks benign sites by mistake.

"The blacklist we use is a combination of an international commercial blacklist and a local blacklist," says Mishaal Al-Kadhi, the head of KACST's Internet Service Unit, in a phone interview from Riyadh. "Ninety-five percent of blocked sites are pornographic. But we do make mistakes sometimes and urge people to e-mail us with their unblock requests."

Saudi Eve, who is in her late 20s, single, and often travels abroad on business, says she was singled out for being female and for daring to write about her love life and God in the same post.

"My blog wasn't blocked because I wrote about romantic escapades, for as you know there are so many blogs on the Internet – both Saudi and non-Saudi – that write/blog about 'romantic escapades' among other Saudi taboos but aren't being blocked in Saudi," she said an e-mail exchange.

"In my opinion, my blog was singled out and blocked because I – a Saudi female – wrote about romantic escapades in Arabic, plus I committed the 'ultimate sin' by mentioning the name of God in those posts," she explained. "To a Saudi male, romance is only allowed if written in English or by a male. It definitely isn't tolerated if it's written by a Saudi female, let alone in Arabic."

Saudi Eve is not the only blogger to feel the wrath of conservative bloggers. Aziz, too, has had her run-ins with OCSAB and Green Tea, saying that they have threatened her in comments left on her site.

"First, they say that a blog cannot disrespect Islam in any way in order for it to be included in OCSAB," says Aziz. "Second, they say that they don't accept blogs that are personal diaries, which is ridiculous as most blogs are just that."

Yet Aziz admitted that OSCAB's aim to spread the culture of blogging among Saudis was working, though perhaps not to her liking.

One female blogger (http://www.classic-diva.blogspot.com/) said that she was stopped from using the Internet at home for several months after her conservative brothers grew suspicious about why she was spending so much time online.

"I've been blogging since April 2005. It's a way to vent out my frustrations and to write," said Jo, who asked only that her first name be used. "My family knows that I have a site, but they don't have a concept of what blogging is."

Jo was forced to sneak out of her house to use the Internet at the house of friends or at a local Starbucks, and still has limited access to the Internet at home. She says that the blocking of Saudi Eve signals a battle that has already started between liberal and conservative bloggers in the Kingdom.

"We have this clash going on between us liberals and the conservatives in the blogosphere. I think that OCSAB is trying to scare us," says Jo.

For her part, Saudi Eve has not decided yet whether she will start a new blog to overcome being blocked in Saudi, or whether she will send KACST a request to unblock her site.

"I haven't decided yet whether to react to this block or just to ignore it. There are readers in the rest of the world you know!" she said in an e-mail shortly before leaving the kingdom on yet another business trip abroad.

Good thing that Riverbend of Baghdad Burning is actually in Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia, since she doesn't have to worry about right-wing fundamentalist censors..what with our liberating their country.

Oh, but not so fast, 'Dog...get a load of this newsflash from ABC News Online:

Iraqi Shia leaders demand sharia law


Senior leaders in Iraq's Shia Muslim community are demanding the country base its laws and new constitution on the principles of Islam.

The main Shia coalition is expected to be the biggest winner out of last month's national election.

A representative of one of Iraq's most powerful Shia leaders, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Fayad, has issued a statement demanding that the Koran be the reference point for all government legislation.

The statement says the national assembly should reject any law contrary to Islam.

A spokesman for the supreme leader of Iraq's Shia, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has told the French news agency AFP that he endorses the statement.

The US administration has reacted cautiously to the demands by the two Shiite leaders.

US Vice-President Dick Cheney says Iraqis will decide their own future.

"This is not going to be an Iraqi version of America, this is going to be Iraqi, it's going to be written by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis, implemented and executed by them, and it's absolutely essential that that be allowed to happen," he said.

Members of Iraq's minority Sunni community fear that the Shia want to see the country turned into an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy.

Hey, hold up a sec, Big Dick....ahhhh, I mean, Mr. Vice President, sir...wasn't one of the reasons we were fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan (well, other than revenge for 9/11 and control of their oil) was to liberate women from the extremes of such Sharia law???

And if so..then how come you aren't recommending the next big invasion to go to Saudi Arabia, rather than Iraq?? And...why aren't you using those forces we have right not to prevent Sistiani's thugs from imposing this theocracy on Sunnis (not to mention the women)??

Oh, I forgot...we're too busy torturing and killing innocent civilians and wiping out whole cities to worry ourselves with spreading some REAL democracy and freedom.

And what about this snooping in on private Internet exchanges and shutting down blogs because women might communicate with them??? Isn't that a bit contrary to conservative doctrine about government interference in private affairs???

Oh, I forgot, again....thanks to President Dubya, we need it for "national security".

And we gotta shut down those evil kiddie pornsters and those terrorists (more like, sexbot sluts, queers, and political opponents of "conservatives") before they become a threat to our divine rule...errrr, to American freedom!! What are 'ya, 'Dog, some kind of Commie fag-loving Moooooslim terrorist???

My guess is that the only opposition that our Christian Right has against this is one of jealousy that the Saudi censors beat them to the punch.

War on Terra?? Looks more like War on Women in my view.

When A Conservative Right-Wing Democrat Is Just A Conservative Plain Old Right-Wing (With Update)

It was people like her who made me an Left Independent to begin with:

Blanco signs abortion ban into law

6/18/2006, 4:30 p.m. CT
The Associated Press


BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed a strict anti-abortion ban into law and a group supporting abortion rights condemned the move as an example of "misplaced priorities of politicians in Louisiana."

The ban has no immediate effect — it will only take effect if the U.S. Constitution is amended to allow states to ban abortion or if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down its own 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that provides for a right to abortion.

Blanco signed the measure on Saturday. Planned Parenthood of Louisiana issued a statement saying the new law "endangers women's health by criminalizing abortion at a time when the state is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and scrambling to prepare for the start of the new hurricane season."

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, includes no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. It would allow abortion only to save the life or the health of the mother.

Doctors found guilty of performing abortions under other circumstances would face up to 10 years in prison and fines of $100,000.

The law is similar to one passed in South Dakota earlier this year that is expected to land before the Supreme Court. A majority of the high court's nine justices has voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in the past.

Let's recap this, Clones:

The act was sponsored by a Democrat, passed in a majority Democratic legislature, and signed into law by a Democrat. It is just as strong as the bill signed in South Dakota which is designed as a trigger to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

So...will we be seeing mass protests from the usual women's groups on this law, and the restriction of women's basic reproductive choices??

Oh, but I forgot...Kathleen Blanco is a DEMOCRAT..and a woman to boot!!! We can't put basic principles above the need to keep women in power...and besides, the Republicans are so much worse!!!

Hey, Kos and the DLC: Is this the kind of "swing voter" Democrat that you want us to "compromise" with???

And they STILL can't make up their damn minds on rebuilding MardiGrasLand.....errrr, New Orleans, or adequately fund our crumbling infrastructure; or provide decent pay raises for teachers and their support staff.

Tell me again about how we have to stay in the party and win these people over, Dr. Dean.....please???

No thank you....I'd rather vote Green and Left than stay in a party that allows this shit.

--------------------------------------------------

Update: R. Francis R. (an Alexandria native) does the best job yet of analysis on the political background behind KittyBlank's (my new gloss for our current neo-Repub governor) betrayal of "progressive? values:

[....] None the less, it is a disturbing move. It reflects a rightward trend for a state that is already so far right that Democrats here would be a Republican in any other state. But Democrats in the state have been a buffer to the more extreme David Duke Lite Louisiana Republican Party. Our Republican US Senator once won the endorsement of David Duke, and our Democratic Senator brags about voting with George Bush the vast majority of the time. But the one thing that kept Louisiana Democrats from morphing from kissing-cousins of Louisiana Republicans into their monozygotic twin siblings, was the overwhelming Democratic constituency in New Orleans. Mary Landrieu, in 1996, won her Senate seat in Louisiana by a mere 10,000 votes, but won New Orleans with 87 percent of the vote. Without New Orleans, Mary Landrieu would never have been elected Senator. In these post-Katrina days, the Louisiana Democratic Party is suddenly recognizing that fact. They acted as if they didn't know that before with their complete neglect of New Orleans.

But now that New Orleans has lost nearly 300,000 of its citizens to the post-Katrina diaspora, the likes of Blanco have realized that without New Orleans there is little chance of being re-elected. So, now she moves rightward (it is hard to believe that someone so conservative needed to move rightward, but such is the case in increasingly white constituency of Louisiana). To be fair, Blanco never said she was pro-choice. But she was more than willing to allow Louisiana progressives to believe she would never sign a sweeping abortion ban into law. She never pretended to be liberal or particularly sympathetic with progressive causes--- she simply allowed us to believe she wouldn't offend us as terribly as right winger Bobby Jindal. But, now she has. And it doesn't matter to her. Blanco never presented herself as anyone with any clear convictions on anything; she just wanted to live in the governor's mansion. She clearly wants to live there another four years.

[...]

The New Louisiana Political Calculus is this--- with fewer African-Americans in the state, Louisianian Democrats can rid themselves of the stigma of being the "black party" or the "New Orleans party". They can now be the white-lite party. Blanco sees this and will now free the Louisiana Democratic Party of any semblance of owing anything to those scalawags [sic] progressives.

(Excerpts from Truth, Justice, and the Progressive Way: Blanco Understands New Louisiana Political Calculus; click on link for full article)

Simply another case of how "lesser evil" candidates merely lead to greater evil than ever....and yet another signal that the post-Clinton (White) Democratic Party of the South will be far closer to David Duke and Jim Rarick (former John Birchite who was a pro-segregationist Congressman during the 60's) than to the delusions of the Daily Kos/Jim Hightower liberal populist crowd.

Makes me glad that I dumped this party 20 years ago.

The Feminist Fellatio Kerfluffle. Part Deux: A Defense Of The Lonely Hummer

OK...enough dilly-dalling. Here's my one-time only thoughts and reflections on the debate on the feminist qualification of the lowly blowjob.

Now...my perspective may be a bit different from that of the ladies who contributed to the smackdowns, beatdowns, and throwdowns that took place throughout the feminist blogosphere, since I happen to be a man with a dick that, for all I know, still works well. That, as well as my stated position as a long time pro-sex radical and a fan of sexy, intellegent women who don't mind giving and recieving sexual pleasure, puts me from the very beginning in the camp of the pro-fellatio crowd. This isn't just because I stand to benefit from the prospect of more women not only doing fellatio, but learning how to do it wel enough to give metheir partners much pleasure....and hopefully, they will reciprocate and return that pleasure back, too.

But even if they don't, I simply don't see the point why a woman who likes giving blowjobs should be treated like she is iliciting rape. It's still her body and her decision, and her choice...and last time I read my Feminism 101 handbook, feminism was about allowing a woman the full option of freedom to express herself in any way she seems fit, without censure from men or other women, as long as there is mutual respect and mutual consent.

But...you ask, "But...but...but, SmackDog (or Anthony..I'm not afraid to out myself)...what about the notion of fellatio amounting to meek acceptance of patriarchy and male rule over women??? Certainly Twisty has a point that feminists should oppose male oppression in all its forms, and if men forcing fellatio on women against their will is a part of patriarchy, then shouldn't we be able to condemn it as a political act without condemning the women for enjoying it??"

Well, You...because I am a sympathizer of feminism, I will cede that point....but only to a point. Yes, there is such a thing as "patriarchy", it is the ideology which states that men should have greater power and resources than women, and that men should use that power to dictate to women what is good, bad, or indifferent. Yes, there are jackass men who abuse that power to impose stuff on individual women that they simply do not want. And HELL yes, women should NOT be required to give hummers to their significant others, or friends, or lovers , or even their husbands, if they are not in the mood for it. That is plain, simple, common-ass sense.

How Eva.....there is a point to which women have to be given the right of free will and consent and the ability to make decisions for themselves without censure....and if a woman actualy likes giving blowjobs to men she trusts, and if the men do treat such a woman with the respect she deserves as a full human being, then that's where the patriarchy smack ends.

Yes, Twisty, Heart, Ginmar, Professor MacKinnon, Elinor, Ms. Levy, Sam, and all you other radicalfeminists out there, you can tune me out and scream "Penis!!!" all you will; but the fact remains that "teh Patriarchy" is not so closed and so overwhelming here in these United States of America (at least, not yet) that women aren't free to make some choices and have them respected. Even choices to have sex with men. As much as some of us may do their best to prove your theories of male rapicity to be true, the overwhelming majority of men, in spite of being granted putative such powers by you to abuse women as a class, politely refuse to take up that offer and do their best to treat women with the utmost respect....even as we do admit to wanting to undress and fuck you in our minds. (At least...most of you.)

Now when a man crosses the line and forces his sexual choices on you against your will, then he is no longer merely a consenting horny guy, he is an attempted sexual harrasser; and if he goes to attempt to lay a hand on you against your stated wishes, then he becomes an attempted rapist; in which you now have my full permission and approval (like you need it) to crack his skull open, kneecap him in the balls, call the police, and/or report his sorry ass. No man with an ounce of decency or a working brain cell will ever deny that right, which has been won by feminists (including the radicalfeminists) with honor and blood and tears; and those who do are the ones who are truly deserving of the scorn and disgust and loathing....and if they happen to be in positions of power, the system that keeps them in positions of power deserves some criticism and reform, if not replacement by a better system that doesn't allow miscreants and misogynists to gain such powers to begin with. THAT. sistas, is the kind of feminism I am proud to be acquainted with and will support to the death.

Compare that, however, to the kind of "feminism" that allows the likes of Twisty Faster to mock, ridicule, and humiliate those who don't share her core views that women who merely like sex with men (or who consume pornography, or who engage in some form of consensual power play or BDSM, or those transgendered people who's only fault is being biologically born with the features of both genders in a world that doesn't allow them the decency to live with what God(dess) gave them) should be rounded up and shipped to the nearest radicalfeminist reeducation camp for "false consciousness"...and their feminist credentials thusly revoked for violating the cardinal laws of the Ten Commandments of Radicalfeminism, as assigned by Duh Goddess Andrea Dworkin (may she finally rest in peace), as passed along by the edicts of St. Catherine II (aka Professor Catherine MacKinnon) through her illustrious cardinals of Duh Faith (Shelia Jeffreys, Ann Simonton, Dorcheen Leidholdt, Judith Bath-Ada [aka Judith Reisman], to name a few).

To justify this entrapment and ambush as simply an attempt to merely "stir things up" or to further the analysis for a "political critique of fellatio" simply will not wash with me. And moaning and gripping that antiporn/radfem analysis is stifled and "censored" and intimidated into submission by the evil forces of Duh Patriarchy which control everything, including and especially "liberal feminism" does nothing to prove your case, either; it simply shows your desparation at reaching for strawpeople to justify putting down real people...and other feminists.

Finally, spending all this time on debating the feminist correctness of giving fellatio is not just a useless waste of resources at a time when basic freedoms for women are under such severe attack (Louisiana just passed another "no exceptions" antiabortion law, becoming the 5th state to do so since South Dakota started the trend); it plays directly into the hands of the forces of darkness and reaction who would certainly love to see feminist women rustle with each other rather than with them. Yes, there are times, as R. Mildred opined, that thrashing out opinions and discussions are good for social movements, and certainly the debate has been entertaining to say the least. But...if there is one thing that makes progressive movements progressive and not just a fake copy of the Right, it is the principle of accepting equality and free will, and mutual respect for the free choices of everyone..whether male of female, Black, White, Brown, yellow, or red (or any shade inbetween; gay, straight, bi. lesbian, male, female, transgendered, polysexual, asexual, or whatever your sexual preference may be. When a group of people calling themselves "progressives" and "radicals" use the label of "feminist" (or any other progressive label, for that matter) as a wedge to overpower and condemn others who don't follow their narrow, totalitarian agenda, and to impose a putatively restrictive, reactionary, and erotophobic agenda that is more appropriate for the Christian Right....then those genuine progressive feminists and progressives and radicals have an obligation to speak openly and loudly against such without fear.

The power is not in the erect dick, ladies. The power is in the institutions that allow the man with the erect dick (and those without erections, too) to ignore his partner's will. Rather than moan and bee-yatch about women who love sucking that dick, save your energy and change the overall system or build a better one.

Besides...if women can complain about men forcing fellatio on then; what can they say about men complaining equally hard about being forced to perform cullingus???
If the gander can complain, why can't the goose???

Oh..but the radfems will find a way to condemn men who like giving head to women, I suppose...they will say that the resulting pleasure binds women to support patriarchy..thus men who acede to eating out women are still just as oppressive as men imposing hummers!!!

Oh, well...you can't please everyone. Better to take the pleasures you can while the getting's good....and to hell with those who would lay pretensious guilt trips on you for that!!

To the women who willingly give pleasure to their male partners, I say, May Goddess bless all of you...and may your lucky partners always return the favor.

And to those women who screech "Patriarchy" at them, I will only say this: "Bite me." (On second thoughts, please don't.)


C'est finis on that one. (Whew!) We now return you to our regularly scheduled smackfest, already in progress...

We Interrupt This Diatribe To Bring You....Joe Lieberman Bears All

I promise, I promise.....I will get to Part 2 of my thoughts on the Great Feminist Blowjob Wars momentarily..but in the internim, get a load of the latest crapola that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman (HDIC*) is throwing at his Democratic primary opponent, Ned Lamont:




If the Flash player doesn't show up, here's a link to the actual ad (using YourTube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jDn4McAXr4

Yep, you Connecticutians are right...that's similar to an "Bear Cub" ad that Lieberman used against incumbent liberal Republican Lowell Weicker to gain the seat to begin with in 1988. Apparantly, this is in response to Weicker endorsing Lamont's campaign to topple Fighting (for the GOP) Joe in the Dem primary come August 6.

I don't know what's funnier: The sixth-grade quality of the actual ad; or the balls of steel that Fightin' (for the GOP) Joe must have in attacking Lamont as a Republican plant...especialy considering Lieberman's proven record of aisle crossing and ass-kissing for Dubya and the GOP!!

Also, this ad was released just after Lamont pledged to be a good Democrat and support Lieberman if he managed to win the Democratic primary. By contrast, Lieberman has been dropping not so subtle hints that if he loses the primary, he would still run as an "independent" (polls are saying that if he did, he would still beat Lamont and Weicker, who is running by default as the Republican candidate).

And, to further the inanity of it all...the chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC), Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) has already pledged that even if Lieberman does go "independent", the DSCC would continue to support and finance his campaign...his GOP crossovers included. (No word on whether the DSCC would do similarly with Lamont.)

Yup....this is the Democratic Party that we are supposed to trust as the opposition to the Republicans. Why am I freakin' surprised...or not???


Memo to Ned Lamont: Please kick Lieberman's ASS....and then, please run as an REAL Independent and stick it to the DLC and DINOs, too.


NOTE on the Gloss:

DINO = Democrat In Name Only (used to describe your typical DLC/Dixiecrat who flaunts his Democrat label while voting with right-wing Republicans most of the time)

HDIC = Head DINO In Charge (used similarly as HNIC (Head Negro In Charge; preferably pronounced with the acronym "H-Dick"....LOL