As a Californian, I feel compelled to say...

[tjwash]

...Right Freaking ON! to Tom Tomorrow.

In regards to this article in the LA Times. Registration required, so here is the jist...

Democratic voters in Connecticut have the right to nominate the candidate of their choice. But it is more than a little disturbing for the longtime popular senator (and the party’s 2000 nominee for vice president) to be targeted for defeat by national fundraisers based on his foreign policy views. There were principled people on both sides of the debate to go to war in Iraq. This page did not support the war, but it cannot cheer on liberal activists who run the risk of being guilty of the same sort of insistence on ideological purity that they deplore in Republicans.

The Democratic Party — the party of Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy — is a big enough tent to include voices on the conservative end of national security policy. Lieberman’s views shouldn’t trigger a nationwide jihad against him.

Tom's response has to be one of the best I have seen thus far on this subject.

Speaking as a Connecticut voter, I’m just awfully sorry to learn that these delicate Angelenos find it disturbing to witness democracy in action. The fact of the matter is, Lieberman is a pisspoor excuse for a Democrat, and that’s saying a lot given that the Democrats themselves are mostly a pisspoor excuse for an opposition party. We sure as hell don’t need a Democrat who plays kissy-face with the President, supporting everything from the nomination of Torturin’ Al Gonzales (”I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt”), to this misbegotten war. A Democrat who suggests that rape victims who can’t get proper medical care simply take a “short hike” to another hospital. Etc., etc. Look, I was prematurely anti-Lieberman — I was appalled when Gore chose him as a running mate in 2000, for chrissakes. This is absolutely not about a “single issue” for me — but even if it were, well, the war’s a pretty goddamn big issue isn’t it? Pretty much the defining issue of the day. And the Democratic voters of Connecticut have every right to say, this man simply does not represent my values — and to work to try to replace him. (afterthought: if that resonates on a national level, great. But the decision is ultimately up to the voters of Connecticut, “nationwide jihad” notwithstanding.)

Anyway — and I say this with great affection, as a former longtime Californian — I’m not sure Connecticut voters really need to be lectured about appropriate political behavior by residents of a state in which a legitimately-elected governor was recalled and then replaced — out a field of candidates that also included a porn star, a down-on-his-luck former child actor, and Arianna Huffington — with an actor best known for playing a killer robot from the future.

He negelects to mention that "oh-so-liberal" California (as my cousin in Pennsylvania refers to us), also produces the likes of Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson, and Richard Nixon as well.

An excellent rant.

[calico1]

1. As a CT resident, I especially like

the last paragraph. I don't need anyone from CA or any other State "educating" me on who to pick in the primary or how to vote. Great response!

[mike_c]

2. this californian salutes Tom Tomorrow!

:toast: :rofl: Excellent rant!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. As an ex-Californian, I'm with Tom.

As I recall, the LA Times endorsed both Nixon and Reagan.

[tjwash]

5. Their op-ed page is frightening at times as well.

There are a hell of a lot of knuckle draggers living in LA that seem to get their RW talking points published again, and again, and again...

[Spazito]

4. ROFL, I particularly like this paragraph...

"Anyway — and I say this with great affection, as a former longtime Californian — I’m not sure Connecticut voters really need to be lectured about appropriate political behavior by residents of a state in which a legitimately-elected governor was recalled and then replaced — out a field of candidates that also included a porn star, a down-on-his-luck former child actor, and Arianna Huffington — with an actor best known for playing a killer robot from the future."

Says it all.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Yeah, well, the LA Times also gave the world that asshat Mike Ramirez.

Don't indict our entire state on the basis of that rag.

[tjwash]

7. Yeah, but when you add to the LAT, the SD-UT...

...who went on a two day long front page gloat-fest after Bilbray won down here, it does tend to make us all in So-Cal look pretty freaking sad.

[TahitiNut]

8. Lieberman's despicable abuse of "benefit of the doubt" is emblematic

... of what makes him so nauseating to non-partisan liberals. To corruptly rationalize his support for placing Gonzales in a position of high public trust based on some specious "benefit of the doubt" more aptly portrays Joe's attitudes of entitlement for the wealthy and powerful than almost anything else.

Lest it not be clear to the reader of this post, a liberal society affords the "benefit of the doubt" to people accused of wrong-doing, placing a higher standard of proof on the state than mere allegation or circumstantial evidence. This is in recognition of the inalienable rights of people, not some elitist entitlement to some greater degree of power and authority. When corrupted in this fashion, we truly see a bipedal pig advocating the notion that "all of the animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

Where's Joe in affording prisoners at Gitmo the "benefit of the doubt"?? Where was Joe in granting the "benefit of the doubt" in not waging war against Iraq?

The "benefit of the doubt" was more justly tallied on the side of the people whose trust has been abused by Gonzales in waging his war on the Constitution. Joe's fucked up!

[gratuitous]

9. On "benefit of the doubt"

A standard more appropriate to picking your gardener than the Attorney General. I've gone to bat for junkies, convicts, and other assorted fuck-ups in my day, because if a person is going to get right with society again, he or she often needs someone to be an advocate. I've gotten burned a few times, I've been more or less successful a few times. Most of the time, I don't have any idea how it turned out, but I hope it was well.

But when someone is called to head up the Department of Justice and enforce the nation's laws, I would hope that someone of impeccable credentials, the highest standards of professionalism, and a demonstrated track record of resistance to the winds of political vagaries would be the nominee. "Benefit of the doubt" isn't the standard I'm going to measure such a nominee by.