A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE. Each person who opposes Joe Lieberman has their own theory of when the tide started to turn against him, and why, but I date it to the speech he gave at the National Press Club on August 4, 2003. Lieberman in 2003 pioneered a raft of negative criticisms later used by Republicans against Democratic candidates, including John Kerry, at a time when the G.O.P. had not yet begun to publicly fight the '04 race. So he did not merely mouth Republican talking points -- something he's been frequently accused of doing in recent months -- but actually actively helped write them. And he laid most of them out that day at the Press Club, in a whalloping blast of a speech.
GROVERPALOOZA.Transcript yesterday, audiotoday. Unfortunately, the sound quality at times isn�t great, but, in two installments, you can hear Grover discussing his views on the current political landscape. Tell us what you think.
JUST POSTED ON TAP ONLINE: PUNISHING THE PRI. An explosive teachers' strike, a heated national election, and the eclipse of the once-mighty PRI in one of its last strongholds -- Rachel Blustain and Jennifer De Barrosreport from Oaxaca, Mexico.
WHY LAMONT? In answer to Matt, the pro-Lamont forces (Lamonties? Lamounties? Lamonters?) wax indignant when you attribute their anger to Lieberman's war views because Iraq, for better or for worse, isn't what really pisses them off. It's becoming quasi-trite to say this, but Lieberman's votes really don't substantively diverge from those of a variety of other moderate senators. Yet the netroots are trying to save the Nelsons and eject Holy Joe. Why?
The Washington Post had an interesting piece about whether it still makes sense for the government to mint pennies, given how much they cost to make relative to their value. The article might have asked the same question about the dollar bill. Coins are in general much cheaper to keep in circulation than bills, and given that a dollar today is worth about as much as a quarter was 35 years ago, it might be time for the switch.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S ENERGY POLICY. Last night on Larry King's show, George W. Bushoffered the most succinct explanation of his approach to global warming yet:
We have done a lot to deal with greenhouse gases by advancing new technologies. I campaigned against Al Gore. I said we're going to spend money for clean coal technologies and we're in the process of doing that and one of these days people are going to look back and say, well, thank goodness the Bush administration made these investments because we'll be able to have electricity from coal that won't pollute.[...]
HOW IT'S DONE. If you missed last night's Lieberman/Lamont steel cage match, you'll find no better blow-by-blow than the Hartford Courant's recounting. Remember when Lieberman delivered the death elbow off the ladder? Or when Lamont dropkicked off the turnbuckle? Me neither. But all of the stuff I do remember is in the Courant piece, a model of informative debate coverage that quickly dispenses with the political positioning to offer a detailed recap of the actual issues at hand and how the two candidates addressed them. It puts the Reuters and Associated Press coverage to shame.
WHAT, INDEED?Alex Massietakes a look at the Connecticut Senate primary and wonders, "What on earth is all this about?" I wonder myself sometimes. I wonder especially why pro-Lamont forces get so indignant whenever someone suggests it's about what it appears to be about -- the war.
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SHUT WINDOW.Nir Rosen on how America missed the window of opportunity when withdrawal might have improved the situation on the ground in Iraq -- and why it should leave, anyway:
I supported a withdrawal certainly until 2005. In my articles, I was saying that an American withdrawal would prevent a civil war from happening and would force Sunnis and Shia to step up and take responsibility and to co-operate. And it would allow Sunnis to participate in the government.