November 17, 2006

What Is Wrong With Carol Platt Liebau?

Hatched by Dafydd

I tuned in to Hugh Hewitt to hear Liebau, whom I don't think I've heard subbing for Hugh before, though I understand she does so with some frequency. She was going on about Sen. Trent Lott (R-MI, 91%), of whom I am not fond, to say the least. (In fact, didn't I just note his ultimately successful bid for the minority whip position and ask, "is this Trent necessary?")

But I'm also not fond of unfairness and bad argument... and Liebau is either a dope or a typical, smarmy lawyer playing stereotypically smarmy lawyer tricks. Looking at her bio on Wikipedia (which she clearly wrote herself -- yeesh!), it's clear she's not a dope.

First, evidently Lott said in an interview that he would have fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld right after the 2004 election. I think that's an asinine thing to say, especially as Lott says in practically the next breath that he doesn't serve on the Armed Services Committee and doesn't know much of anything about the military. (Then what makes you think you have the right to an opinion on Rumsfeld's competence, you buffoon?)

But then she played another clip from that same interview, in which Lott makes a series of points:

  • He states that he favors some series of benchmarks or milestones for Iraq to achieve before the U.S. does this or that -- I think he means before we hand over any more provinces;
  • He vehemently objects when the interviewer (didn't catch his name, sorry, but it sounded like either Chris Matthews on Hardball or Tim Russert on Meet the Press) characterizes this as supporting a timetable: the interviewer asks whether this is inconsistent with Gen. Abizaid, who opposes a timetable, and Lott distinguishes between milestones and a timetable and says he is totally opposed to the latter;
  • Then he adds that we cannot pull out immediately, and we should not even have a "phased withdrawal."
  • Finally, he mentions that he was just talking with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ, 80%) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY, 100%) last night on the floor... and they were discussing ways to "move forward in Iraq."

Now each of these points is news. But Liebau's characterization of them was actually more of a caricature, and a sarcastic one at that. First, in a voice dripping with condescension, she says, 'so Lott says he's for milestones but against timetables, or for timetables and against milestones, or something like that.' (The single-quotes are my memory of what she said; I wasn't taking notes while driving.) And she riffs of that for several minutes, the thrust of which is that Lott (she claims) was incoherent and babbling.

She brings up the commment about talking with McCain and Clinton... but by now, it has morphed into 'now Lott is taking his Iraq talking points from Hillary Clinton.' In fact, what he said was that Hillary was talking about ways to "move forward" in Iraq -- not pull out but move forward. Isn't that an important point that Liebau should have noticed?

In fact, everything Lott said in the clip that I heard (which didn't include the part about Rumsfeld) was coherent, sensible, and a good sign for the incoming whip: I would be stunned if our number 2 leader in the Senate were in favor of phased withdrawal or a timetable, for example... but he emphatically rejected both.

As I said, Liebau's Wikipedia entry -- which is actually her job resume -- makes clear she's not simply a doofus like Rosie O'Donnell or Barbra Streisand. I can only conclude she did understand what Lott was saying... but for reasons of Liebau's own, she decided to pretend that it was just bibble-babble, and that this portended dire catastrophe for the GOP.

This sort of unjust caricature really offends me. I haven't heard her before, and I'm loathe to judge someone on just one segment on one day. Maybe she woke up on th wrong side of the tracks this morning. But for those of you who have seen her more frequently, is she usually sarcastic, unfair, and snide? Or did I just catch her on a bad hair day?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 17, 2006, at the time of 6:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: nk

I have only read her blog but I think of her as a very thoughtful and judicious person. (You already know her impressive resume).

Don't forget, there's a lot of resentment against Lott for the deal he made with Daschle during Clinton's impeachment essentially making the trial in the Senate an excercise in rhetoric. Later, many conservatives, including the President, were very happy to see him put his foot in his mouth with the Strom Thurmond remarks and he dug himself even deeper when he went on Tavis Smiley and renounced just about every conservative principle.

Even so ...

"I am no sage that I can answer such questions. That she is anxious is obvious .... But who can mark the limits of night ... [o]r the moods of a woman?" [With apologies to Roger Zelazny, "Lord of Light", Avon $1.50 edition, bought in 1975]

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 6:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Hmmm... I've never heard her, or OF her... yet I've seen this before. Often.

It's the problem with Talk Radio: Dead Air Is Not Allowed! Thus, many otherwise intelligent Radio Hosts will go on the air with insufficient research or understanding and proceed to pontificate in such a way as to rile up the audience enough to call in and discuss it live on the air.

I always thought it would be fun to block their phones for the middle third of a program just to watch them melt down. The Pros can fill with real material, the pretenders will pull a Medved. Er, I mean a Liebau. Actually, Medved's problem is being too busy behind the Mic, many times I've heard him misunderstand a guest, and then cut them off before they can correct his take.

Unfortunately, they cannot follow the old dictum and "Shut Up"; they have to keep speaking. While it serves well to weed out those who are deep versus those who are shallow (when it comes to On Air skills, at least) it really shows the limitations of the medium. A fan would have called in to correct her, an audience will just reach for the popcorn...

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 7:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

I was the call in who pointed out that her attacking Sen. Lott was inappropriate and was simply falling into dhimmie hands. Myfamily has know Sen. Lott for many years, and while I certainly think he is not ideal, I do also know he is good. I will not let the ideal chase out the good.
Frankly I find this new self-appointed role of the blogosphere as director of Congressional leadership to be very counter productive. When cooler heads prevail in the blogosphere, people will cringe a bit at this latest grab for power.
I said sometime ago that the blogosphere shows many of the same problems as the MSM does: inflated self importance is one of the most strikingly similar. Liebeau's stance is simply a manifestation of that false sense.
With this kind of ego inflating going on, how far are we away from 'false but true'?
Oh yeah, many in the blogosphere achieved that when they falsely claimed the Dubai Port operating agreement was the equivalent of the sale of American ports to terrorists.
What this year has taught me is that it is not the media that is the problem. It is people who sell out their integrity that is the problem. The blogger's bid for power over the structure of Congress is showing many examples of jsut that.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 8:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: CajunKate

While everyone seems to have the gripes, mine is with your "hissing" and "slithering"... Seems a bit childish, like you're not quite ready to play with the big boys; nevertheless, you're one of the few blogs I read several times a day.

Ok, now I'm slithering away...hisssss (I feel so silly)

The above hissed in response by: CajunKate [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 8:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: CayuteKitt

Ever since the 2002 elections I've had increasing reservations about HH and his perceived role as the practically self proclaimed Blogfather of the blogosphere. His outright grabbing of the role of strategist/general to the blogsphere's minion of troop leaders (with us, the conservative voters, as the foot soldiers) made me uneasy as to his motivations.

Over the past few years I've had more and more reasons to question his tactics and motivations as it seemed more important to him to "win" than to earn and keep majority status through conservative principles exercised out from honor and integrity.

Then, the day after the disastrous elections just past, Hugh posted a recap and initial "take" on what happened, and towards the end of it wrote this:

"If the GOP adopts and refines the tactics the Democrats have used for the past four years all will be well two years hence, and perhaps even better than well."

And at last I had confirmation of my suspicions. Hugh Hewitt was not interested in fostering conservative principles so much as he was interested in winning, whatever it took....including a program of tactics used by the Democrats. And we all know how dirty, low down, mean spirited and outrageous they have been in their mindless pursuit of winning back majority status at all costs, including their core principles an any sense of right and wrong.

Carol is simply a less polished or charming or diplomatic version of Hugh.

I won't be following their blogs any longer. They're poison, when it comes down to it. But then, that's strictly my own personal opinion.

The above hissed in response by: CayuteKitt [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 10:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: MJS

CajunKate, read Big Lizards several times a day? I am a big fan of this blog, too. Why, you ask? Well, Dafydd (and his wife, when she occasionally posts, as well) offer incisive and original commentary, usually very well-written, to boot. Don't always agree (I think I was annoyed with his take in a Mel Gibson post of his a few months ago, but not sure at the moment), but great stuff.

But - perhaps because David clearly puts a good deal of time and thought into his posts, or perhaps because he needs to spend time earning money to pay the bills, or for whatever other reason -- I usually only "read" this blog once every day or two, because that is the frequency at which new posts appear.

So unless you're such a big fan that you RE-read this blog and its contents several times a day, me thinks you're not really too familiar with the blog. I could be wrong and not be seeing some other clear explanation which would demonstrate (to me, anyway - burden of proof is probably an unfairly high one: erasing my doubts) that you do, in fact, regularly frequent this blog, as well as only a "few" others, more often than new material is posted. But, I'm sticking with my guess that most likley you're not a very frequent guest in the Lizard Lounge.

Furthermore, as long as I am making assumptions (might as well finish it off and make an ass out of me, too, to borrow from the popular saying about making assumptions), I'm guessing you're proxy for Ms. Liebau, or Carol herself. Why? You are disingenously complimenting David to establish your bona fides, you denigrate the, I'll admit, a bit quirky, theme of the blog (also, as if it were the first time you were made aware of the "'hissing' and 'slithering'" -- again, I say, you read this blog several times a day yet feel it novel to point out the lizards' themed language, a staple of this site since it began?), and you classify one (or perhaps two) commentors out of three others beside your own in this post as a case of "everyone seeming to have the gripes." Seems a bit hyper-sensitive for such a big girl like you, Kate, who feels "so silly" posting here in the first place.

Btw, David, I haven't listened to show (hopefully itll be included on my podcast subscribtion of Hugh's show), so I have gone out on a bit of a limb and accepted your portrayal as an accurate representation of Ms. Liebau's railings today -- but, having read you for a while, I have a feeling that the limb is a fairly sturdy one.

Also, I just remembered why I rarely post comments -- I get way too frickin' into it and 5 lines always turn into 5 paragraphs. Brevity never has been my strong suit. Still, rants like this sure are fun!

The above hissed in response by: MJS [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 11:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: MJS

Sorry, Dafydd, kept referring to you as David...

The above hissed in response by: MJS [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 11:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: MJS


Sadly, I agree...after his patronizing,die-hard, dismissive, and sycophantic Harriet Miers' endorsing, I find I can't take Hugh seriously anymore, though I still enjoy listening to him in the car.

I'm not one who needs "purity," (I'm actually somewhat ambivalent about life issues, but staunchly anti-Roe v Wade -- not an original position, though) but the way he wouldn't even consider reconsidering Miers' bona fides and competence, and then cast aspersions upon anyone who did, really soured me on him. Too bad, credibility flushed down the tiolet is pretty tough to retrieve, and it is very hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt any more.

The above hissed in response by: MJS [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 11:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: MJS

Hunter, nice post. Agreed.

The above hissed in response by: MJS [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2006 11:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


There are two commenters in this thread who have very similar names, but who might or might not be the same person: CajunKate and CayuteKitt.

There are different e-mails and IP addresses associated with them, so I'll assume they're two different people. So far, nobody has confused them; I just want to make sure that continues. I'm just trying to forestall future problems.

So be sure which C___K___ you mean!



The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 12:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I was not upset with Hugh's take on Miers, in fact I thought a lot of people acted really stupid about Miers. They were ugly and offensive and insulting. Coulter's little "in defence of the Ivy League" thingee was so elitist it gagged me. Silly me I thought that when people said the president had a right to pick his nominees and they had a right to an up or down vote, they meant it. They should change that to: the president has a right to his nominee and the nominee has a right to an up or down vote just so long as I like the nominee, otherwise I will call her white trash and make fun of her eye makeup.

But I do agree that a lot of radio talk show people and bloggers are trying to insert themselves here as power brokers when it comes to who gets what jobs in Congress. Considering the fact that overall the talk show people and a lot of the bloggers helped the Republicans lose the election by making issues of things that most people are not that concerned about and alienating a lot of folks in the process maybe a question should be asked: Who cares what they think?

Dafydd has been thoughtful in his posts and a good deal more fair than some people and he always strikes me as a balanced person who understands the practical side of things. He is never overly emotional. Which is more than can be said for some of these folks.

I am not crazy about Trent Lott, but he is competent and was good at his job and right now the Republicans need competent more than they need to kiss up to a bunch of people who probably helped them lose the election.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 4:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

I like that the blogs are injecting themselves as "power brokers." The powers that be don't have to listen but the people speaking up for what they want is good.

Those saying that the blogs injecting themselves into the fracus is bad reminds me of why I dis-like the current crop of Republicans so much. They seem to think they are the elite and to heck with what the people want. (an approximate quote not word for word) "I'm tired of hearing about pork and the people should hush and let us do our thing"-Lott

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 6:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye


Speaking of elite who do these people speak for other than themselves? I remember after Bush gave his speech on immigration reform polls showed that 79% of the people who saw the address liked what they heard. The response over at powerline was that Bush had ruined his entire second term. Why? Because he did not agree with them. Talk about an elite, there is one in the blog world. And they were off the mark this time.

There is nothing wrong with people speaking their minds, however, when they opine that they speak for the rest of us they tend to get a bit big for their britches. And I think that hurt Republicans in this last election.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 6:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

BTW I am kind of tired of hearing about pork myself.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 6:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

Poweline or any other blog doesn't have the ability to make laws that I have to live by at the point of a gun (law enforcement). They can say what they please. The powers in DC do have the authority to make me do things. It is a different standard those true "power brokers" who can make the laws should be held to. They should not be aloud to not listen.

I also understand that I am coming close to crossing the line between a represantive government and a democrocy. A line I do not want to cross.

PS.please excuse my spelling. I am attempting to become more educated at it.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 7:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye


That is right, they do not have the power to establish laws. But I think that in some respects they had the same impact on some lawmakers on the right that Kos did on the other side: they lead those lawmakers to believe that they represented a majority, when in fact the bloggers may not represent a majority opinion of Repbulicans much less the nation. I think that some of the bloggers and some of the politicians forgot that.

The problem with pork is that most people do not think the bridge they drive over every day is a symbol of waste, it is that other guy's bridge that is the problem.

Alaska for instance is full of people living in isolated communities that do not even have regular roads leading to them and the federal government tells them what they can and can not do with their own natural resources and yet people get absolutely beside themselves over a bridge???Who cares? It is the tundra for heaven's sake.

Bush tried to reform the most costly entitlement program out there but people were too busy bitching about Miers or Dubai or Pork to even think about social security. And the blogs were part of that.

Your spelling is fine btw. Don't ever be timid about speaking your mind because of that.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 7:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

"Bush tried to reform the most costly entitlement program out there but people were too busy bitching about Miers or Dubai or Pork to even think about social security. And the blogs were part of that."

Amen to that!

I also love the conservative commentators that spent the last year bitching about Bush's border plan and how they presumed to speak for "the base." These same people, like say Laura Ingraham hammered the president for nearly 2 years and then doesn't understand why the Rebulicans lose the congress? One thing about democrats is that they ALWAYS stick together, no matter how moderate or leftwing, in the end they stick together. Republicans and bloggers spend more time whining about what is "conservative" enough or trying to prove their adherence to principles and holding republican accountable to their interpretation to those principles that we let the no issue Democrats sneak by and win.

If I see another post about how we need to "get back to our principles to win" I am going to puke! Listen, no party that is in defeat wins by getting more extreme. They win by being more centrist and communicating their message more effectively. The latter part is where the Republicans failed. We didn't lose the election because we weren't conservative enough or we got too "Big government." Please. Democrats are as big government as it gets and the vast majority of americans know that, so why'd they elect them? The bottom line is that we cant afford to not be unified in our messaging to the American people with the MSM in the hands of the democrats. This election was decided by independents, not partisans. The polls showed that republican voters voted in high numbers the same as last time around. Dems voted in higher numbers then beefore, but they have higher party ID anyway. It was independents that voted democrat and elected them. Ask any person off the street about the issues of the day, the war, the economy etc and you will be blown away at how ill informed they are. So instead of sniping, we need to come together and get on point if we want to win.

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 9:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

AJ has a good post up on this topic right now.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 10:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: CayuteKitt


Thanks for posting the warning! Indeed we are different people, and in the Conservative blogosphere I have been posting for several years now, although sporadically. It's my policy not to repeat someone else's POV, and only post when I have something different and/or fresh to contribute.

The similarities between our names is notable, although I should point out that her name is "Kate" while my name is "Kitt". Cayute, as in Coyote with a local accent here in the upper midwest/Lake Superior region = Cayute Kitt.

Thanks again!

The above hissed in response by: CayuteKitt [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 2:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

I see. So our wonderful lizard hosts and the other blogs and talk shows should get a copy everyday of the opproved talking points and do a segment or two on those points so as not to rock the boat. Be good little Democrats. errrrr...I meen Repubs.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 2:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye


Just the opposite.

It seems to me that a lot of these bloggers get together and decide what the rest of us are supposed to think. The radio talk show people do the same thing. They are in lockstep when it comes to lots of things like the pork busters campaign or immigration.

But, Americans do not vote for bloggers, they vote for politicians and in the last election the Repbulicans got beat and a lot of the ones who got beat were the Allens and Santorums, hardliners the talk show people and the hard right bloggers like. But the RINOs they are always bitching about won their elections easily. Snowe and Graham are still there. The country did not go right, it went center.

SO I am saying that I am tired of certain bloggers and pundits trying to pick leadership and complaining when they don't get the people they want, when they obviously are not as influential with the voting public as they think they are. In fact if anything they turned a lot of people off.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 3:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


Oops, I didn't even notice that you were Kitt, not Kate. Sorry! I edited my comment to correct the error.



The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 18, 2006 3:46 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved