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.

Technorati Tags: backbone, democrats, Health Care reform, Independent, Lieberman, mccain, obama, senate

Democrats united Saturday night to push the health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama.

The Republican’s position does indeed appear to be a continuation of the campaign to defeat the president’s initiatives, rather than proposing anything constructive and helpful to the American people. The desire to “show him” seems stronger than the desire to actually achieve something that’s needed and at least in the long run – beneficial. That’s nothing new, of course. Just listen to the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other conservative blabbermouths. There is no doubt that the interest of the country as a whole has been put on the back burner, in favor of hurting, or even destroying anything that Barack Obama is doing.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who do not have it, control insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care.

Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Republicans of trying to prevent a historic debate that the nation needed.

“Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities the right to vote, those who disagreed had muted discussion and killed any vote,” he said.

The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell said the vote was anything but procedural – describing it as a referendum on the bill itself, which he said would raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a “massive and unsustainable debt.”

The fate of the Saturday night showdown had been sealed hours earlier, when two final Democratic holdouts, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced they would join in clearing the way for a full debate.

We will be watching the upcoming debate, although we do not intend to waste our time in hearing the usual, vicious opinions of the conservative pundits.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying the president was gratified by the vote, which he says “brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it.”

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who cannot afford it. Large companies could incur penalties if they do not provide coverage to their workforce. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Congressional budget analysts put the legislation’s cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.

In relation to the health-care reform debate and to the Republican (and Joe Lieberman’s) opposition to it, it might be worthwhile to quote a letter by George Washington to his nephew supporting adoption of the Constitution, to which there was considerable opposition as well..

General Washington castigated critics of the Constitution and stated that they seek to “rouse the apprehensions of the ignorant & unthinking . . . [with] objections . . . better calculated to alarm the fears, than to convince the judgement of their readers.”

These comments seem equally applicable to those Republican senators opposed to health-care reform.

______________________________________________________________________________________

And since the new mammography recommendations seem to have brought outrage from both sides of the aisle, we would like to present another incisive cartoon on the subject from Washington Post’s Tom Toles.

Technorati Tags: bill, Clears, democrats, Health care, Hurdle, insurance industry, reform, republicans, senate

As everybody knows by now Mississippi Senator Trent Lott – yes, one of the politicos, with that perfectly blow-dried coiffure – announced his departure from the U.S. Senate.

By resigning before the end of 2007, Mr. Lott would beat the effective date for new ethics rules that double to two years the of time former Senators must wait before they can join a firm to lobby their former colleagues. Lott is the sixth Senate Republican to announce his retirement this year.

So, (almost) former Senator Lott will be able to join possibly one of Washington’s K Street lobbying firms in just over a year. This is the place, remember, where the likes of Jack Abramoff, the now disgraced and finally convicted lobbyist ply their shady trade.

We are talking big bucks. A multi-term senator will certainly make quite a bit more as a lobbyist, than now when the poor man is restricted to live on a measly congressional salary of under 200k.

U.S. newspapers have published an excellent and really funny cartoon recently, with Lott, dressed as a quintessential hooker, standing under a street lamp and a K Street sign. Need I say more?

I won’t be the first one to compare politics with whoring, but the penchant of our political figures to translate a few years of privilege in Congress – commonly referred to as “public service”, into lucrative, multi-million-dollar lobbying deals is so sickeningly transparent and shameless that I wonder why does it still remain legal.

If prostitution is deemed to be illegal in practically every jurisdiction, why is lobbying, being potentially a heck of a lot more serious and damaging than straight whoring, remain legal? There is of course no way to separate some influence peddling from politics, but I do see quite a serious difference between some relatively benign, low key and not too frequent whispering in some official ear and a rich, official and REGISTERED lobbying firm, with a huge budget, sumptuous offices and a mega million-dollar payroll. This of course is particularly crass in the case of firms employing recently retired congressmen, cabinet secretaries and other officials.

But these are the most effective lobbyists, you might say. Of course they would be. These people have the contacts, the experience and the know -how. The point it is: how moral is this practice and how is it affecting our “democracy”, or republic and the entire political scene?

Personally, I feel that reigning in the lobbyists would be a meaningful step towards cleaning up our filthy political system, but who’s going to do anything about it, with many congressmen and congresswomen already eying their financial rewards on K Street?

Technorati Tags: congress, firms, k street, lobbying, senate, trent lott, whoring