Lieberman – the Independent?
It isn’t hard to question the judgment, motives, and sanity of Joe Lieberman, the so-called independent senator from Connecticut, who has almost single-handedly derailed any meaningful health care reform legislation.
The strange thing is that for years Lieberman has been a strong advocate of universal health care. Campaigning for vice-president in 2000, he first proposed resolving the plight of the uninsured by allowing them to buy into Medicare and Medicaid – a plan he endorsed even in September 2009 in an interview with a Connecticut newspaper.
Yet when that very same plan was added to Senate health care legislation, Lieberman told Majority Leader Harry Reid that he could not support it. He also threatened to invoke the power of a one-man filibuster to prevent the legislation from even coming to a vote on the Senate floor.
It could in part be simple revenge. Ever since being rejected by the Connecticut Democrats in the 2006 primary, and somehow getting re-elected as an Independent, Lieberman’s been itching for payback. He endorsed John McCain for president, campaigned for him practically full-time and even spoke at the Republican National Convention, declaring Barack Obama as unqualified to be president.
For such a petty man and such a big ego, what better way there is to get even than to derail the president’s number one legislative priority, even if it means leaving 47 million Americans without health insurance?
As we always said, there’s no substitute for backbone, decency, honesty and intelligence.
And in closing, a very telling cartoon, by Bob Rogers from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
Thanks to Cher from AskCherlock for pointing it out to us.
Tagged with: backbone • democrats • Health Care reform • Independent • Lieberman • mccain • obama • senate
Filed under: Afghanistan war • Chutzpah • Health care • Iraq War • Just Stupid • Morals • Tastelessness • U.S. Politics • US • greed • obama • politics • presidency • republicans
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I guess the fact that he might think it is a bad bill never entered into your thinking.
I doubt if any intelligent, honest, or decent rationale was part of HIS thinking.
It’s wrong to smear someone based on an assumption.
Lieberman is all about what Joe wants, never mind what the country needs. That would include his penchant for retribution. Health Care may spin into oblivion as the staunch Democrats see no point in pushing for what is left in the watered-down version. His actions have no effect on my health care. I have the Cadillac plan. What about the millions who have none? I cared; Lieberman does not. We will little note, nor long remember Lieberman as anything but self-serving.
Harrison, assumption? Smear? If any smearing has been done, it was by Lieberman himself.
Cher, the way things are setup now, even with a so-called “Cadillac” plan, which I most likely have as well, the costs are just prohibitive. Our entire health care system, along with the health insurance needs urgently to be fixed and very soon. Doesn’t Joe Lieberman realize that?
Yeah that’s not a smear:
“For such a petty man and such a big ego, what better way there is to get even than to derail the president’s number one legislative priority, even if it means leaving 47 million Americans without health insurance?
As we always said, there’s no substitute for backbone, decency, honesty and intelligence.”
Oh yes, the neo-cons have taken an opportunity to demonstrate the lasting value of their obstructionism. They will consider it a “win” if their grandchildren’s pockets are still puffed full of worthless dollars as they slowly choke to death in an America devoid of both oxygen AND hospitals. The point: Lieberman is a neo-con. Yuck.
Of course MeanMesa took a jab at “Old Joe” –
http://meanmesa.blogspot.com/2009/12/30-day-filibuster-and-other-dinosaurs.html
But perhaps the real topic is what do do with this dysfunctional Senate! For MeanMesa’s take on that topic try — “A New Idea: Talk to Me!”
http://meanmesa.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-idea-talk-to-me.html
If we can’t rehabilitate the tradition of statesmanship in the sagging quality of our Senate, we will either have to endure the predictable results or simply get rid of it. There might be a better answer …
Happy Holidays POLITICUS! Be safe, have fun and stay true to your ideals and dreams. It’s been a great year “doing business” with you!
I saw an interview with Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO tonight. Our supposed Cadillac plans would be taxed to the hilt, so I guess we would be impacted. Trumka is vehemently against that and still in the fight. Lieberman must be in bed with the insurance companies. That’s all I can think of. The way things are now, they will go unblemished and have no competition. I am going to do some research. I’m torn between trying to get through the holidays with visiting and entertaining and all the while I am smiling, I am seething in my mind about this health care issue and Lieberman the turncoat.
Chad, of course he’s another slimy neo-con.
And all the best to you Chad. Keep on plugging!
Cher, our “Cadillac” plans are not that great to begin with and to tax them would be another crime. Aren’t most insurance companies headquartered in Connecticut?
Harrison, I guess you must love and appreciate “backbone Joe” Truth sometimes hurts. Doesn’t it? Amazing transformation, from a “Democrat”, to an “Independent”, to a de-facto Republican…to nothing…
Good point about most insurance companies being headquartered in Connecticut, Politicus. They are great at lining the pockets sub rosa and their piper always gets paid.
There was a good editorial cartoon by Rob Rogers in today’s Pittsburgh Post Gazette. In it a child is holding a book and the title of it reads, “How Joe Lieberman Stole Christmas; No Public Option.” The child asks her grandmother, “Is the Grinch a Republican or a Democrat?” The grandmother answers, “Neither…Grinches are only happy when everyone else is miserable.” I hope that Lieberman, the fence-sitter, saw it.
Cher, it sounds like this cartoon says it all. Will look it up. What would Lieberman care about Christmas, anyway?
I guess Lieberman cares about as much for Christmas as he does about the gal whose blog I read last week where she stated that her health insurance coverage had been canceled due to a “pre-existing condition.” She has MS and must take 23 pills a day, with NO health insurance. It is not just the meds that are problematic but the disease is progressing rapidly and she has a multitude of problems which require medical care. I suppose being a ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ makes me care about her dire situation. We certainly would not Conservatives to care about her or to help her obtain health coverage. Well, that would just be Socialism, wouldn’t it?
Cher, a sad situation indeed. Thinking of all the talk about this and that being “Un-American” in many different contexts, how do we define American values?
I, for one, never really considering myself a “bleeding heart Liberal”, would think that our values included decency and at least taking care of our own people. It is possible that some consider corporations as more worthy than the actual people and their well-being.
Maybe Lieberman and his ilk consider the insurance companies as being “too big to fail”? Conservatism, at least in the past often exemplified some of the best in American values and that’s why there was a time, when I voted Republican. But both the times and the so-called conservatives have changed and not for the better.
The POLITICUS view of the “social obligation” might elude the more sanguine site visitors. Happily, there is a workable alternative. The issue can be “reframed” into one of “free market” issues.
1. The citizens want to purchase a better product than the what is available — one which is comparable to products available in the markets of other industrial countries.
2. The availability of the product they want is prohibited from the market place they can access. Normally, when a product is unavailable in a “free market,” it is the result of too high a price or a product which has not yet been manufactured. In both cases, such a product would theoretically be attractive to inventors and “improvers” wishing to exploit a new or improved market opportunity.
3. The obstacle we face is not one of waiting for invention or improvement, but an almost entirely artificially imposed prohibition based on the collective power of those who oppose its introduction, a situation which can hardly be described as “competitive.”
The “competition” which leaves the desired product off the market is between the monetary value of prohibiting it to those in positions of power (the Senate) and the intent and determination of the consumers who wish to make it available. This is a clear distortion of the prevailing system.
“Boiled down to the bones,” the question becomes: Is the abstract, fundamental energy of a dollar which wishes to purchase competitive health care more or less than the same fundamental value of a dollar given to a Senator as a “campaign contribution?”
So far, the Senator’s “war chest” dollar seems to be “worth” more than the consumer’s “market” dollar trying to purchase a desired product.
Throughout the history of our “free market,” such anomalies tend to be “self-correcting.” Maybe the Blue Dogs should consider the ultimate “worth” of these dollars they have “elevated” to such an artificially high value simply because they are in their pockets (purchased loyalty to their interests) instead of ours (anxious to purchase on an open market).
I am so happy you found the Rob Rogers cartoon! I knew you would like it. Cheers to you, Politicus, and Happy Holidays.
And I am happy that you pointed it out to me. Happy Holidays and all the best in the New Year!