Joe Lieberman Walks the Valley of the Shadow

by Smitty

VotS picks up the parliamentary angle of yesterday's For Want of a Minute incident.

The meta-joke here is that the reason for the brusque treatment is that there is no slack left in the schedule. In treating our collective bottom like a stocking, the fascistsProgressives pretend to watch every minute, in the name of getting the whole suppository wrapped in time to get to the mantlepiece and jam the bill where it ought not go.

---

Senator Lieberman may as well have been a man pleading for prostate cancer treatment. The presence of Senator Smalley foreshadows the coming Death Panel saying "Sorry, no budget for you. We can give you Ibuprofin."

"Thanks, no offense taken," replies a morose Joe in this hypothetical scene, "but I was taxed at a rather high rate my whole life in order to pay for this kind of thing. How is it that I've followed the rules all along, yet still come up short?"

Smalley takes on a expression blending boredom with sadness. "You know the four stages:

1. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
2. If everyone else couldn't have it, it was/is immoral to let you have it.
3. You had, therefore you must have stolen.
4. Since you were classified a thief, it was morally correct to separate you from your ill-gotten gains.

Thus, you should thank the State for having kept your foul capitalism in check these years. I shall accept your gratitude, as a representative of the State."

Lieberman, dejected: "Thanks"

Smalley, beaming: "You're welcome."

---

In all surreality, though, that minute matters not. As the recent Sanders Incident demonstrates, the Progressives care not fig #1 for anything like rules, tradition, or decorum when such do not support their foul agenda. Dingy Harry is going to plant that stocking stuffer, come hell or a Milli Vanilli record.

And it's time for me to head to work. Might as well enjoy having the job enjoy me while it lasts. But I'm blegging for FMJRA input. Spam me, ye linkers. That includes any slack-jawed crypto-Marxists who don't agree with the this blog's traditional American stance on matters. If you're one of these hate-America-first weenies that's going to go see Avatar tonight, by way of getting your masochistic fix, stop on by. Offering infantile Al Gore apologists a boot to the head is just another service we offer.

Peace, out.

Update: And, just as I Tweet this post, here is Fausta with a related offering.

Franken's other Senate Judiciary appearance

by Smitty (h/t The Corner)

Kathryn Jean Lopez at the NRO Online links an SNL sketch transcript of the junior Senator from Minnesota's initial appearance in a Senate Judiciary Committee setting.
As a full-service blog, it is our pleasure to dig up the clip over on Hulu for those with an Attention Defici--I think I'll make some coffee.
At the time, Al Franken played Paul Simon (D-IL) and comes in at 5:00 to talk about a woman at Criminal Justice, and whether Thomas thought Franken had any chance with this famous "Sandy".

Can't figure out if the number of gasbags present in this sketch who are still cluttering public office is a bug or feature.
OK, enough of the Sotomayor spin: they're bugs.

The Senate will rock

by Smitty

Much has been made of the SNL career of Al Franken, but what about his early rock'n'roll career?

(OK, that may not be him...)

Franken and the future

by Smitty

NTCNews notes the Minnesota Supreme Court results adding another superstar of Roland Burris proportions to the US Senate.
The Minnesota blog of record, PowerLine, has the sober, mature review. A less sober, immature view of situtations like this is to be found here, [NSFW]:

What to do? Thoughts include:

• Tea Party participation. Got plans?
• Supporting Republican gubernatorial candidates in NJ and VA.
• Going Galt on the economy.
• Venting on effingconservatives as required. Unload your Tourettes impulses there in the comments with us.
• Make Congresscritters sick of hearing from me.

I submit that there will never be a more critical period, and few equals, as the next 18 months of US history. Since we've now crossed the imaginary legislation horizon, we've a sewage-like stream of liberal nightmares moving towards us. That which we do or fail to do is going to have grave consequences. I submit that the seemingly empathetic twist with which shenanigans in Iran and Honduras are viewed by this administration may be a hound of ill omen for our own future.

Senator Al Franken

Get used to saying it:

DFLer Al Franken won an impressive share Saturday of what may be the last ballots tallied in the U.S. Senate recount, boosting his unofficial lead over Sen. Norm Coleman to 225 votes heading into a Monday meeting where the state Canvassing Board will certify the final result of the race.
At least two things, however, still stand in the way of Franken becoming Minnesota's newest U.S. senator: the possibility of a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court that more wrongly rejected absentee ballots should be counted, and a legal contest that Coleman attorneys all but promised should Franken prevail.

Americans ought to be ashamed that it has come to this. And why did it come to this? Norm Coleman voted yes on S.B. 1629. His NumbersUSA grade is C. So while I am mortified that Al Franken will be a member of the U.S. Senate, I am at least comforted that Norm Coleman can no longer disgrace the Republican Party by voting for open borders.

Hasta la vista, Norm.

UPDATE: A couple of commenters have leapt to Coleman's defense, with one saying:

I think there is never a good reason to vote for a Liberal...especially this clown.

Well, friends don't let friends vote Democrat, but that's not the point. The fact that Coleman was unable to command even a plurality in a three-way race demonstrates, to my mind, the folly of open-borders Republicanism.

An open-borders position won't win you any extra "swing" votes, while utterly alienating the conservative base. By contrast, a strong border-security position might win over some blue-collar voters who otherwise would either stay home or vote Democrat. So even apart from ideological or moral considerations, border-security is a political winner for Republicans.

Therefore, every defeat of an open-borders Republican like Norm Coleman (or Mike DeWine or John McCain) demonstrates that there is no advantage for the GOP in the pro-amnesty position. It's not that I want Democrats to win, but if these Republicans don't want Democrats to win, maybe they shouldn't have voted for open borders.