Hey, That’s My Line!
Posted on December 14th, 2009 in Uncategorized | 17 Comments »
“Joe Lieberman really is the most appalling human being.”
—Gawker, “Just When You Thought Joe Lieberman Couldn’t Get Any Worse,” on Lieberman’s latest plea/ploy for attention.
17 Responses
12/14/2009 9:55 am
Because we all want an expansion of the fiscally sound medicare program.
12/14/2009 10:06 am
Puh-leeze, it’s not about where you stand on the issue, it’s about Lieberman’s total lack of principle and boundless need for attention. He may be on your side this time…but he’d betray that position in a heartbeat if doing so would get his name in the papers. The man is pathological.
12/14/2009 10:39 am
Rich,
It is about where YOU stand on the issue. I like to poke fun at your posts about Joe Lieberman because you seem to get way more upset about his political posturing than you do about anyone else’s (with the possible exception of Sarah Palin). I usually make reference to the esteemed other Sen. from CT or your crook of a Congressman from zip 10025. Oh, you might have made a post or two about Rangel and Dodd, but you pretty much don’t care about Charlie and Chris. My guess is that’s because they play ball with the Democratic leadership (actually, they are part of the Democratic leadership), so their political positions don’t bother you too much.
Joe, however, doesn’t always toe the Democratic line, and that really sticks in your craw. Unless, of course you just get more upset about his “lack of principle” than you do about the fact that your Congressman is a crook and the other Senator from your home state is “ethically challenged”.
12/14/2009 11:03 am
Dodd is not a crook. And Richard has indeed posted about Rangel.
Let’s be clear: Lieberman is threatening to FILIBUSTER (not vote against — FILIBUSTER) this enormous historic bill because of a provision that was central to HIS OWN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN PLATFORM. All the circuits in every federal B.S. meter are overloaded and destroyed. The guy is indisputably an egomaniac and his behavior is inexcusable.
SE
12/14/2009 11:05 am
Besides, what makes you think Richard cares about the ‘Democratic party line’? Richard barely pays attention to electoral politics except for interesting personality storylines (no offense, Richard, but you’re hardly a partisan).
These days (i.e., since 2003) I think opposing Republicanism is the most important job any American voter has. Lieberman is an utter failure as an American.
12/14/2009 11:06 am
So let’s see, he’s unprincipled because he held firm to his conviction that we should see a tremendously unpopular war through to a successful conclusion? Wouldn’t it have been easier to go with the tide and say it was a bad idea and that now we should get out. You know something along the lines of “I was for the war before I was against it”. When it was clear his party was against it and when there were a group of 427 types (MoveOn specifically) that were targeting him as an apostate who must be defeated at all costs? Seems like the easy and unprincipled thing to do would be to pull a John Kerry and decide you were now against the war and save your ass in the election.
Instead he stuck to his guns and when he was defeated in the primary ran as an indepedent. The fact that he managed to win without any of the infrastructure of the party supporting him suggests that quite a few voters much approve of his decision to stick to his convictions. So, I’m sorry, help me understand his lack of principles.
I believe a review of his comments about the health plan conveys a very consistent concern with its costs and what that will do to the already unimaginable deficits that we will be borrowing to finance, or the taxes that will be needed to finance this health monstrosity that will do nothing to control costs and very little to improve coverage at the end of the day.
12/14/2009 12:27 pm
“I believe a review of his comments about the health plan conveys a very consistent concern with its costs.”
You are wrong.
Most recently, he just came out against the newest compromise WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE CBO SCORE, which would have said whether it would be expensive or not (it would be LESS expensive than most anything proposed so far).
More significantly, he has consistently said that things would be expensive which would IN FACT constitute a SAVINGS for the government.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/liebermans_principles_or_lack.html
SE
12/14/2009 12:31 pm
Assuming the previous post has gone through and is in the works, here’s another, also with a link.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/joe-lieberman-not-the-man-he-used-to-be-on-medicare-buy-in.php?ref=fpblg
12/14/2009 12:33 pm
And just in case, here’s the money quote from the last link:
In a ****Sept. 8, 2009***** interview with the Connecticut Post, Lieberman outlined his opposition to a public option but suggested a way coverage could be expanded without one:
“As to how 47 million uninsured will afford coverage, Lieberman said only 12 million don’t have insurance because they cannot afford it.
“By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.”
12/14/2009 3:58 pm
Puh-leeze, I’m no fan of Rangel, but there’s not much to say about him. The guy’s just a crook. I do like Dodd generally, and think that on the whole he has been a good senator for Connecticut, though this recent financial wrongdoing is really a shame. That’s what happens if you stick around too long.
But Lieberman is a special case. Neither Dodd nor Rangel pass themselves off as statesmanlike, above the fray, holier-than-thou (literally and metaphorically, as Lieberman does). Ever since he used nasty attack ads to defeat Lowell Weicker, who was a far better senator than Lieberman ever was (and more representative of his state), Lieberman has wanted to have it both ways: to win by playing gutterball while presenting himself as St. Joe. That’s why I dislike him so deeply—that combination of sleaze and sanctimony. Rangel and Dodd, flawed though they are, don’t pretend to be other than what they are. Lieberman is a hypocrite and a liar (to himself and everyone else) and just a terrible person.
12/14/2009 4:06 pm
SE,
Rich has posted time and time again about Lieberman and not just in regards to the health care bill. His posts about Rangel have been few and far between and even then were probably in response to my prodding. And I didn’t use the word “crook” in regards to Dodd. I called him “ethically challenged”. You don’t really want to have to defend his relationship with Countrywide and his fantastic real estate deal in Ireland, do you?
My point is that Rich gets bent out of shape by Joe Lieberman because Joe stands against him on the issues. Rich’s excuses about Joe’s “lack of principle” don’t ring true with me, especially when Joe’s “lack of principle” pales in comparison to the transgressions of Dodd and Rangel.
Lastly SE, while I doubt Rich is fond of labels, his political viewpoint is fairly left. I’d say “progressive” would probably be the appropriate classification. So when I say Rich cares about the Democratic party line, I don’t mean it in an overtly electoral sense, but on an issues basis. That being said, I doubt Rich is as electorally indifferent as you make him out to be.
12/14/2009 4:15 pm
puh-lease, I think our comments crossed in the ether, but hopefully mine gives you a better understanding of my anti-Lieberman animus.
12/14/2009 4:16 pm
Rich,
My last post was written before I read your comment at 3:58 PM. I’ll just say that I think that almost all politicians are liars and hypocrites. And I think it’s much worse to have a crook as head of House Ways and Means than it is to have an Independent Senator who is sanctimonious. And given that Rangel is a crook and the Dems all know it but are afraid to do anything about it because of the Congressional Black Caucus, I think a few more posts about Charlie the crook might be in order.
12/14/2009 4:19 pm
It is your blog, however, so feel free to write about Lieberman as often as you want.
12/14/2009 4:24 pm
My impression of politicians is not that negative; I think most of them at least start with good intentions. And while Rangel is a crook, his level of graft seems pretty small-time stuff-it’s not like he’s giving multi-million dollar Pentagon contracts away in exchange for a night with a hooker or something. Anyway, it’s an old story, and will end up with Rangel diminished, as it should.
Lieberman, however, is sui generis. For all of Rangel’s faults, he won’t stand in the way of health insurance for millions solely because he wants attention.
12/14/2009 5:18 pm
Here’s the video from just three months ago of Lieberman endorsing precisely the same expansion of Medicare that he decided over the weekend needs to be filibustered: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/lieberman-hearts-medicare-buy-in.php
It seems to me, puh-lease, that your defense of Lieberman is driven far more by issues than is Richard’s attacks on him.
12/14/2009 5:57 pm
Anon 5:18,
Where do I defend Joe Lieberman? I have never defended Joe’s integrity or claimed that his opposition to the plan is principled. I’d be surprised if it was. He’s a politician.