(Biden == Crazy) while (Dude who calls gun 'baby' == Sane)

Mickey Kaus is about as insightful as a sea otter... and not those cute, holding hands ones either. I'm talking about one of those mean, rabies-filled sea otters.

In his piece about the YouTube Democratic debate, he seems to take issue with Biden speaking his mind:

I agree that the Biden response to the gun-toting You-Tuber was revealing--it showed Biden lacks even moderately calibrated snap judgment--and it was revealing in a way that a) wouldn't have happened with a non-YouTube debate, in which the questioner most likely wouldn't have gotten past security, let alone the screeners, and b) reflected Biden's alleged fatal flaw (or one of his several alleged fatal flaws), namely his cringe-making, unhinged spontaneous reactions.

His "a" part shows exactly why these kinds of debates are so needed, but his "b" part suggests that Kaus want his politicians to dodge and lie in response to questions asked of them. It's possible that he's gotten so used to our Executive branch never giving direct answers, that it scares him when someone actually does. Sadly, Glenn Reynolds, who usually has a decent head about such things, falls in the same camp:

The big news isn't the diminution in Biden's already microscopic chances of becoming President, but the collateral damage to other candidates and the Democrats' brand. It's hard to win swing states if gun owners hate you.

I wonder if anyone of them actually watched the video? The guy isn't holding a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or even a handgun. He's got a (automatic? semiautomatic?) AR-15 built for military use... and he's calling it his "baby". It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, this guy just has a few screws loose - and yes, I realize he was probably just being a tad facetious. Most of the other candidates would've hemmed-and-hawed around the subject, but Biden told you straight out. And it sucks that people like this idiot Kaus think he should be penalized for being honest and forthright.

The other completely stupid thing that Kaus brings up:

Am I crazy or did Barack Obama just get suckered into saying that as President within a year he'd personally meet with Fidel Castro?

I'll answer both questions with a "yes". The arguments against meeting with "enemy" foreign leaders is insane to me. Just because you meet with them doesn't mean you'll be giving out hand-jobs under their desk... it's just meeting!

Imagine if you had a hostage situation at a bank or on an airplane. Is Kaus suggesting that you shouldn't talk to the hostage-takers? Is he saying the police should just ignore them and hope they go away? Of course, that would be bats**t looney to suggest such a thing. But just because you send in a negotiator, doesn't mean you have to give in to their demands. You talk to them, and see if there's a mutually beneficial road to a peaceful solution. As Obama brought out last night, Reagan met with the Soviet leaders, and no one freaked out about that. So what's the problem with meeting with Iran or Syria? The only difference I can see is the religious one. and that's just sad.

The YouTube/CNN Democratic debates weren't totally horrible.

The gimmicky YouTube/CNN Democratic debate last night could've been the S.O.S. (same ole' s**t) but with some Web 2.0 wrapping paper. Surprisingly, only about 50% of it was the S.O.S. The one thing I picked up on is that almost every question said something to the effect of "we need a change". To me, "change" means a new direction, not just veering a few degrees off the present course. And on that stage, only two people were representing true and honest change... and they were relegated to the far corners, and given very little screen time.

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are crazy if they think they actually have a chance of winning the nomination. They both offer NEW ideas and a brand new direction... but while the YouTubers may posture about wanting "real" change, they'll never vote for it. What almost all Americans really want is a slight modification to the current policies, but not so much that it becomes scary. The fact is, we're frightened of change. Clinton is ahead in the Democratic polls, and she's a typical obfuscating politician, just like all the other politicians... how is that change? Just because she has boobs? Maybe she won't suck as a much as President Bush, but has that become our standard for electing the next President?

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I may talk and act just like every other politician in the world, but at least I'm not as bad as Bush."

Don't get me wrong, though. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich or Gravel if they were the only two candidates and a man-eating lion would eat me unless I chose. If they did half the s**t they proposed, it would ruin the country. The same thing goes for the Republican side with Ron Paul. Though, if the choice were voting for Paul or getting eaten by a lion, I'd vote for Paul. How's that for a ringing endorsement?

I really wish people could just be honest. No one want "change", we want "tweaks". And there's nothing wrong with that.

Anatomy of stupid, stupid sign.

Kos himself has hopped on the fake outrage bandwagon. Here's a quote that he quotes in his post (talk about "meta"):

However, when you, as a candidate, hold a sign up, smile, and get your picture taken with a sign comparing Americans to Osama Bin Laden that sends a different message.

No, the sign did NOT compare "Americans to Osama Bin Laden", it was simply a statement of things that this woman says "no" to... and they just happen rhyme. For example, if I were to say:

I hate broccoli, Hitler, and the Dallas Cowboys

Does that mean I'm comparing Hitler to Wade Phillips? Absolutely not. However, if I said Hitler killed millions of Jews... just like the Dallas Cowboys. Now THAT would be a comparison. Of course, the only thing the Cowboys have killed is my love of American Football.

Even so, the only real thing the Republicans have going for themselves these days is comparing Democrats to terrorists. Most Americans don't actually buy into that bulls**t, so why spoil the Republicans fun?

Lieberman? More like Lieber-woman!

I'm not sure what the subject means, I just thought it was amusing...leave me alone.

In a non-too-surprising move, Democrats are pissed because Joe Lieberman has a mind of his own. From Atrios [and CQPolitics]:

Good Job, Democrats
We tried to warn you.

Lately, though, Lieberman has taken his alliance with GOP leaders up a notch. During the abortive debate on the defense authorization bill, he attended daily tactical sessions to help them plan their strategy for combatting anti-war amendments and their rhetorical points for use against the Democrats. And in a fitting symbolic twist, some of those meetings convened just down the hall from the office of Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who essentially owes his 51-seat majority to Lieberman’s continued caucusing with the Democrats.

Interestingly enough, Harry Reid's spokesperson makes the exact point that Atrios and other Democrats can't seem to get through their latte-riddled skulls:

Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, said the majority leader wasn’t aware that Lieberman had been at GOP strategy sessions, but he noted that “it’s up to Sen. Lieberman to decide what he thinks is best based on what he’s hearing from his constituents at home.”

EXACT-FREAKIN'-LY.... it's up to Senator Lieberman! We may only have two main political parties in the country, but that doesn't mean we only have two views on every issue. Yes, Lieberman is an idiot for his beliefs on the Iraq war... but dammit, being an American means you're free to be an idiot if you choose.

Everything I hate is JUST LIKE Hitler

Is there EVER going to be a point where we STOP comparing things to Hitler or the Nazi's? Case in point, Congressman Keith Ellison comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, and his subsequent apology for the reference.

Seriously, it's the most lazy and stupid analogy that anyone can use. Dubya may be a law-breaking dumbass, but at least he hasn't killed millions of Jews (that we know of). And I don't care how pissed-off they make you, illegal wiretaps are NOWHERE NEAR synonymous with the holocaust. Prisoners in Guantanamo, without legal representation but with 3 meals a day and free healthcare, are NOT in concentration camps. Does that stuff really suck? You bet. But the Republicans are NOT Nazis, just as the Democrats are NOT communists. And if think they are, you must be a follower of Mao Tse-tung.