Lieberman’s current term as Senator from Connecticut is also going to be his last.. No Dem will vote for him next time around and the Repubs won’t have him either, they’ll put a ‘Real’ Republican in the race.
At least he’s more consistent than Countrywide-AIG’s Senatorial darling: Sen. Chris Dodd who’s only chance is pandering to the gay vote that he has so derided in the past.
No, that’s *not *what they said last time….and I think you know that.
The Republican party backed Lieberman to the hilt last time around, even at the expense of their own candidate.
That won’t happen again. This time the Repubs know in advance that Joe won’t get the Dem nomination. And that gives them time to prepare that they didn’t have before.
I wasn’t talking about the Republicans, Simon. I was talking about the Democrats. Many in the Democratic Party wanted him to go away in ‘06. He even publicly stated he would run even if the Dems didn’t endorse him. The Dems rewarded his lack luster loyalty with the endorsement on the grounds he could at least beat the Republican candidate.
They did it last time & they’ll probably do it again. Democrats haven’t shown a lot of back bone in the last 20 years. They usually cave in at the last minute.
I wouldn’t call demanding that the Medicare Buy-In, which he support in 2000 and as recently as 3 months ago, be excluded being consistent as Chris Dodd.
Considering the fact that 150,000 deaths will occur because of Lieberman’s in the next 3 years, I consider this childish act of vengeance against the Democrats proof of Lieberman being a sociopath!
The subsidies for the uninsured will not start until 2014.
Mr. Oliphant has captured the essence of a true political personality me thinks…….. Sadly this caricature could represent any of a large number of our elected representatives. My thought is that this is really about who our elected representatives are really representing; it most assuredly is not the people. For those who think this is about anything other than a little man’s personal power a little light reading:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/10/29/joe_lieberman/index.html
Why are our elected representatives so quick to reject a plan that would give all of us the same healthcare that they will receive for the remainder of their lives, even if they were only in office for four years? Why do the people who risk the most for our freedoms not have that same healthcare (come on, we all know that given the choice the majority of vets would avoid the VA if they could)? This little man has this power because we the people have given it to him. Does anyone out there really believe these millionaires have the slightest interest in the concept government of the people, by the people, for the people (that would mean having to include all of us lowly peasants who are not a corporation, a millionaire or Caucasian)…………
Peace to all in 2010……….
The Administration believes that the public’s widespread anger over joblessness and the bank bailout will be dissipated by the magic bullet of passing a health care reform bill, Healthcare is a valid concern, but It’s still the economy, stupid. Especially since many parts of health care reform, even if it passes, won’t take effect until 2014. To quote an Obama aide: “I don’t particularly expect a boost in the Democrats’ numbers if they pass the bill. The plan has been somewhat unpopular.”
Joe Lieberman has double crossed the Democrats ever since he became John McCain’s side kick. The Democrats should have tossed him out of all those chairmanships immediately. That they did not just shows spinelessness and not wanting to face reality. Lieberman has gone back on his own principals as shown by video clips supporting reform, even as late as 3 months ago. Religion has nothing to do with it.
I seem to recall Obama and McCain both promising to protect the importation of Canadian drugs and from abroad until a recent letter to the FDA cites safety concerns. Come on, Mr. President, you expect us to believe that you are acting out of genuine concern for the safety of your 330 million fellow citizens rather than protecting a $350 bil. industry?
Howard Dean is correct, this bill did not get off to a good start, it should have been much better explained and next time around Democrats stop sucking up to all the senators taking obscene amounts of money to finance their elections.
I’m pretty sure Church is aware enough to understand Dean’s comments.
He just doesn’t want to admit it.
Church knows, just like all the Republicans know, that they, with their Lieberman puppet, have managed to gut the bill to the point of utter ineffectiveness.
To the point that when Obama runs for re-election, they’ll smugly point out that his bill was ineffective.
Unless the bill is rewritten to its original goal…just like Dean is suggesting.
Something that Church and the Republicans can’t allow.
After all, such an act would help millions of Americans, instead of the insurance companies…and we can’t have that.
“gut the constitution” oh sheesh, care to explain that claim?
GOP isn’t supporting the bill even though they’ve succeeded at protecting big insurance, because they’re still trying to protect insurance even more by limiting medical malpractice payouts. They’re also trying to eliminate the rights of all 50 states to regulate insurance, especially those that have passed patient protection laws. GOP stance is why settle for defeating reform if they can agitate to eliminate all patient rights.
^ I think Pelosi’s response was on the money. The govt currently does lots of things not mentioned in the constitution. Was social security mentioned in the Constitution? Was bailing out banks with TARP money mentioned in the constitution? Is regulating air space in the Constitution? How about farm subsidies not to grow/sell food items? or price supports for favored manufacturers?
Both sides of the constitutionality issue have been invoking the Commerce clause more than the General Welfare clause(s), Church…to my surprise, too.
I think the error about constitutionality is that we don’t live directly under the Constitution; we live under the Supreme Court’s various interpretations of it. Makes it far more expansive and inclusive.
^ if you believe many things the federal govt now does is unconstitutional, then I don’t have much reaction to your belief that healthcare reform is unconstitutional, because then you’re being consistent with your beliefs.
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
Stomp him while you have the chance!
Simon_Jester over 14 years ago
Last gasp, in my opinion.
Lieberman’s current term as Senator from Connecticut is also going to be his last.. No Dem will vote for him next time around and the Repubs won’t have him either, they’ll put a ‘Real’ Republican in the race.
Jason Allen over 14 years ago
Yeah, that’s what they said last time.
Lt_Lanier over 14 years ago
At least he’s more consistent than Countrywide-AIG’s Senatorial darling: Sen. Chris Dodd who’s only chance is pandering to the gay vote that he has so derided in the past.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
The Little Despot.
Simon_Jester over 14 years ago
No, that’s *not *what they said last time….and I think you know that.
The Republican party backed Lieberman to the hilt last time around, even at the expense of their own candidate.
That won’t happen again. This time the Repubs know in advance that Joe won’t get the Dem nomination. And that gives them time to prepare that they didn’t have before.
pbarnrob over 14 years ago
So… is it close to time for him to jump on the GOP wagon? He seems to be there already in most things.
Jason Allen over 14 years ago
I wasn’t talking about the Republicans, Simon. I was talking about the Democrats. Many in the Democratic Party wanted him to go away in ‘06. He even publicly stated he would run even if the Dems didn’t endorse him. The Dems rewarded his lack luster loyalty with the endorsement on the grounds he could at least beat the Republican candidate.
They did it last time & they’ll probably do it again. Democrats haven’t shown a lot of back bone in the last 20 years. They usually cave in at the last minute.
hastynote Premium Member over 14 years ago
I wouldn’t call demanding that the Medicare Buy-In, which he support in 2000 and as recently as 3 months ago, be excluded being consistent as Chris Dodd.
Considering the fact that 150,000 deaths will occur because of Lieberman’s in the next 3 years, I consider this childish act of vengeance against the Democrats proof of Lieberman being a sociopath! The subsidies for the uninsured will not start until 2014.
parkersinthehouse over 14 years ago
hey waitaminit
a few years ago i really had some respect for him even though i disagreed with him on every hand
he is an orthodox jew - he even walked to church on the sabbath - he seemed pretty solid then
now he’s turned into a self-serving, duplicitous politician
and if i hate him (which i don’t) it’s not because he’s a jew
riley05 over 14 years ago
He’s far closer to being a christian-fundie Republican than a Jewish Democrat.
Herbabee over 14 years ago
The “King” is a fink!
(apologies to the Wiz of Id)
cfimeiatpap over 14 years ago
Mr. Oliphant has captured the essence of a true political personality me thinks…….. Sadly this caricature could represent any of a large number of our elected representatives. My thought is that this is really about who our elected representatives are really representing; it most assuredly is not the people. For those who think this is about anything other than a little man’s personal power a little light reading: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/10/29/joe_lieberman/index.html Why are our elected representatives so quick to reject a plan that would give all of us the same healthcare that they will receive for the remainder of their lives, even if they were only in office for four years? Why do the people who risk the most for our freedoms not have that same healthcare (come on, we all know that given the choice the majority of vets would avoid the VA if they could)? This little man has this power because we the people have given it to him. Does anyone out there really believe these millionaires have the slightest interest in the concept government of the people, by the people, for the people (that would mean having to include all of us lowly peasants who are not a corporation, a millionaire or Caucasian)………… Peace to all in 2010……….
riley05 over 14 years ago
Just calling it as I see it, Church.
Nice link, Cfimeiatpap.
Lt_Lanier over 14 years ago
We in the military like Lieberman
Lt_Lanier over 14 years ago
The Administration believes that the public’s widespread anger over joblessness and the bank bailout will be dissipated by the magic bullet of passing a health care reform bill, Healthcare is a valid concern, but It’s still the economy, stupid. Especially since many parts of health care reform, even if it passes, won’t take effect until 2014. To quote an Obama aide: “I don’t particularly expect a boost in the Democrats’ numbers if they pass the bill. The plan has been somewhat unpopular.”
deadheadzan over 14 years ago
Joe Lieberman has double crossed the Democrats ever since he became John McCain’s side kick. The Democrats should have tossed him out of all those chairmanships immediately. That they did not just shows spinelessness and not wanting to face reality. Lieberman has gone back on his own principals as shown by video clips supporting reform, even as late as 3 months ago. Religion has nothing to do with it.
MurphyHerself over 14 years ago
He’s not chairman anymore.
Lt_Lanier over 14 years ago
I seem to recall Obama and McCain both promising to protect the importation of Canadian drugs and from abroad until a recent letter to the FDA cites safety concerns. Come on, Mr. President, you expect us to believe that you are acting out of genuine concern for the safety of your 330 million fellow citizens rather than protecting a $350 bil. industry?
deadheadzan over 14 years ago
Howard Dean is correct, this bill did not get off to a good start, it should have been much better explained and next time around Democrats stop sucking up to all the senators taking obscene amounts of money to finance their elections.
riley05 over 14 years ago
I’m pretty sure Church is aware enough to understand Dean’s comments.
He just doesn’t want to admit it.
Church knows, just like all the Republicans know, that they, with their Lieberman puppet, have managed to gut the bill to the point of utter ineffectiveness.
To the point that when Obama runs for re-election, they’ll smugly point out that his bill was ineffective.
Unless the bill is rewritten to its original goal…just like Dean is suggesting.
Something that Church and the Republicans can’t allow.
After all, such an act would help millions of Americans, instead of the insurance companies…and we can’t have that.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
“gut the constitution” oh sheesh, care to explain that claim?
GOP isn’t supporting the bill even though they’ve succeeded at protecting big insurance, because they’re still trying to protect insurance even more by limiting medical malpractice payouts. They’re also trying to eliminate the rights of all 50 states to regulate insurance, especially those that have passed patient protection laws. GOP stance is why settle for defeating reform if they can agitate to eliminate all patient rights.
lindz.coop Premium Member over 14 years ago
My Jewish friends are not exactly enchanted with L-boy right now either.
riley05 over 14 years ago
So if this bill would be unconstitutional because of the limitations of the General Welfare clause, not to mention the Commerce clause…
…how can speed limits be constitutional?
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
^ I think Pelosi’s response was on the money. The govt currently does lots of things not mentioned in the constitution. Was social security mentioned in the Constitution? Was bailing out banks with TARP money mentioned in the constitution? Is regulating air space in the Constitution? How about farm subsidies not to grow/sell food items? or price supports for favored manufacturers?
riley05 over 14 years ago
Both sides of the constitutionality issue have been invoking the Commerce clause more than the General Welfare clause(s), Church…to my surprise, too.
I think the error about constitutionality is that we don’t live directly under the Constitution; we live under the Supreme Court’s various interpretations of it. Makes it far more expansive and inclusive.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
^ if you believe many things the federal govt now does is unconstitutional, then I don’t have much reaction to your belief that healthcare reform is unconstitutional, because then you’re being consistent with your beliefs.