Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditEvery time I hear about Joe Lieberman's latest apostasy, I think, Oy vey! There he goes again. More Joementum.
Remind me why we still call this guy a Democrat? Sure, Lieberman caucuses with Democrats in the Senate--Joe is nothing if not opportunistic and who wants to be part of a lowly Republican minority?--but I think he forfeited his right to call himself one when he almost became John McCain's VP and campaigned stridently against an Obama presidency. Yet somehow he managed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Gotta love those Senate Democrats--they always find a way to reward someone for stabbing them in the back. See Baucus, Max.
Following Lieberman's threat to filibuster a public option, every paper played up the story of how the "centrists" are now rebelling. Watch out, the centrists are coming! "Centrists unsure about Reid's public option," the Washington Post reported today. Let's get real. These holdouts are not centrist Democrats; they are corporate Democrats, which should be an oxymoron. They'll do whatever the healthcare industry wants and use their red state constituents as an excuse to do so. Only Lieberman is from Connecticut, one of the bluest states in the country. So what's his excuse?
Well, some rather large insurance companies reside in Connecticut and, as Joe Conason points out, Lieberman's wife just so happens to have been a drug industry lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton. Conason reports:
Among Hill & Knowlton's clients when Mrs. Lieberman signed on with the firm last year was GlaxoSmithKline, the huge British-based drug company that makes vaccines along with many other drugs. As I noted in July, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill in April 2005 (the month after his wife joined Hill & Knowlton) that would award billions of dollars in new "incentives" to companies like GlaxoSmithKline to persuade them to make more new vaccines. Under the legislation, known as Bioshield II, the cost to consumers and governments would be astronomical, but for Lieberman and his Republican cosponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the results would be worth every penny. Using the war on terror as their ideological backdrop, the pharma-friendly senators sought to win patent extensions on products that have nothing to do with preparations against terrorist attack or natural disaster.
Sounds like a bit of a conflict of interest, no? Let's take a look at some of these other so-called "centrists." Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is in the pocket of Wal-Mart (just like her fellow Arkansan in the House, Blue Dog leader Mike Ross), Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is tied up with every major industry in the Bayou State and Ben Nelson...Well, he's Ben Nelson. What more need I say?
This healthcare debate has provided what they call a clarifying moment. When it's all over, we'll know exactly which side these Democrats are on.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I voted against Joe last time he ran. I'll do it again next time.
Joe is arrogance personified. He ran in the late 80s on the humble platform of serving no more than 3 terms. Then in '00 he ran for both VP and his senate seat. Then in the last election, after being ousted in the democratic primary, decided us people of Connecticut still needed him; so he broke off on his own and ran for a 4th term (breaking his promise from the late 80s).
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 10:02am
If Senator Lieberman is doing the work of a corporate shill, at least it's for corporations that employ people in his state. Why is the President cutting checks for AIG if the money will only go to people in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands?
Posted by Mistral at 10/28/2009 @ 10:04am
Surprise!
Lieberman is on the take.
And who bankrolled him v. Dem challenger Lamont in CT primary? Multibillionaire Mike Bloomberg, currently buying himself an illegal 3rd term as NYC mayor. Both as unprincipled as they are greedy & deceitful.
Surprise!
Posted by sloper at 10/28/2009 @ 10:25am
Look, Lefties......
You want corporations to maintain and hopefully, create jobs, right? So, who is supposed to look out for their interests? Berman and The Nation?
Why don't you all just return to the land and be organic farmers so you can minimize your dealings w/corporations to the absolute minimu.
It is just so boring to hear the same old, same old bitching about corporations. Hell, aren't you employed by some corporations that's tugging at the sleeves of congressmen/women?
Posted by Happy at 10/28/2009 @ 10:44am
"Why don't you all just return to the land and be organic farmers so you can minimize your dealings w/corporations to the absolute minimum"
trust me, i did that a LONG time ago!
Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2009 @ 10:50am
Gotta give the man points for consistency, at least. Has he EVER told the truth? Has he EVER sided with decency, compassion and/or morality over profit, racism and privilege for his cronies? Most senators have at least an occasional moment of moral clarity, but not Odious Joe. Must be nice to not be burdened with that pesky little thing called a conscience.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/28/2009 @ 10:57am
It is just so boring to hear the same old, same old bitching about corporations. Hell, aren't you employed by some corporations that's tugging at the sleeves of congressmen/women?
Posted by Happy at 10/28/2009 @ 10:44am
Hap,
I actually prefer small businesses over corporations, but is it too...um..."Republican" of me to say that? I mean, don't the Republicans still support small business in America, or have you all simply decided to come out of the closet as corporatists?
Joe Leiberman is an ass; the people of Connecticut were duped and he should just come out of the closet as a Republican, like all the other closeted Republicans.
BTW (and speaking of closeted Republicans), anyone heard anything about Jeff Gannon lately? Why isn't he still with the White House Press corps, like he was under Bush, or would that have been Rove he was under, or perhaps he was on top of Scotty McClelland...?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:13pm
During the previous administration when efforts were made to dismantle elements of the New Deal, privatize social security, destroy collective bargaining, etc., there was real worry for the average pay check to pay check American over prospects for surviving into an uncertain retirement.
Now that the direct threat to some of the basics are considerably diminished & attention is directed to the needs of younger working people, most importantly, universal access to affordable health care, we are faced with the obstructionism of the "centrist" demos.
Marginalize & strip these de facto repubs of committee & panel leadership & let em jump ship or retire. Even if Rahm Emanuel gets mad.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2009 @ 12:16pm
Joe Lieberman has been a neocon infiltrator of the Democratic Party from the beginning. He was recruited and trained by William F. Buckley and his, Lieberman's, career has been back consistently by international organized crime figures. He is the mob's man in the Senate. And if the Democratic Party, as a whole, wasn't also corrupt they would have kicked this guy to the curb a long time ago.
Posted by dont_know at 10/28/2009 @ 12:21pm
Joe Lieberman is a smart guy. He knows who tried to stab him in the back - the Democrat Party when they wanted an empty vessel, rubber stamp to take his place. He owes the dems nothing. Joe is not going to follow the looney left on these we-have-to-have-it-all-right-now excursions. Start slow and incrementally to see what works and what doesn't. Health care is much too important to be left to the whakos. If the whole nation has to live with it, the whole nation must be involved in making it.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/28/2009 @ 12:49pm
I realize that Israel is his overriding concern, but, for a man who is supposed to be "religious" and "moral", it is surprising to find him corrupt as well.
Posted by pjcasey at 10/28/2009 @ 12:50pm
Lieberman just signalled his 2012 decision...
he's not running for re-election.
It'll be "spend more time with my family" and "dedicated years to public service"...but the polling (which his internals probably already show) will indicate a trouncing if he ran.
Then...the book deal with Harper-Collins (a sub of News Corp), with juicy tidbits where he takes shots at the Democratic Party and how "out of touch" and "extreme" it's become.....naturally AFTER his 2000 run with Al Gore.
Endless interviews on Hannity, Fox, Beck, etc. Pre-sales pumped up from the "Anything Ann Coulter Writes I'll Buy" Crowd...
then? Speeches to AIPAC, right-wing think tanks, GOP PACs, etc. and "guest political analyst" on FNC. Talk of "Joe having a place in the 2012 Administration of (GOP nominee)....maybe Sec State!"
But he just telegraphed that 2012 is out.
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 12:51pm
Joe Lieberman is a smart guy. He knows who tried to stab him in the back - the Democrat Party when they wanted an empty vessel, rubber stamp to take his place. He owes the dems nothing. Joe is not going to follow the looney left on these we-have-to-have-it-all-right-now excursions. Start slow and incrementally to see what works and what doesn't. Health care is much too important to be left to the whakos. If the whole nation has to live with it, the whole nation must be involved in making it.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/28/2009 @ 12:49pm
Yo, pyeatte, how about the fact that 60-70% of Connecticans (??) support a public option? Does the fact his constituents want it make any difference to you die hard corporatists?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:53pm
Also why Lieberman will deftly avoid most other non-Fox News media. He's blatently opposing both his own PREVIOUS positions and the will of his constituents.
Which means he's obviously trying to appeal to "other people".
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 1:06pm
Joe Lieberman is a smart guy. He knows who tried to stab him in the back - the Democrat Party when they wanted an empty vessel, rubber stamp to take his place. He owes the dems nothing. Posted by pyeatte at 10/28/2009 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yep, remember how the Demoncrats did everything to him to screw him and he still won. Time to the axis of American evil (Demoncrats, Obamanation, and the marxist left to pay the fiddler!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 1:28pm
Corporate Sellouts ........Just don't pay attention that the lions share of Wall Street, Financial markets, and Bank money as well as Corporate America supported the Obamanation and ALL Demoncrats in the last election!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 1:30pm
Corporate Sellouts ........Just don't pay attention that the lions share of Wall Street, Financial markets, and Bank money as well as Corporate America supported the Obamanation and ALL Demoncrats in the last election!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I hate agreeing with you (from your previous positions) but truth will out.
Read the article in the latest Village Voice:
We've Bailed out the Banks. When Do We Go After the Crooks Behind our Financial Collapse?
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-10-27/news/we- ve-bailed-out-the-banks-when-do-we-go-after- the-crooks-behind-our-financial-collapse/
Posted by dont_know at 10/28/2009 @ 1:53pm
Centrist Democrats = Corporate Sellouts
well, so is obama.
i mean, after all, who is campaigning most stridently against the "public option"?
who held private meetings with the execs after having stated numerous times that the negotiations would be open for all to see?
just another imperial manager.....
OBAMAGARCHS UNITE!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 2:42pm
Did not the Democrat party attempt to run another more liberal candidate against Lieberman in last election cycle in Connecticut? Did not the constituents of Connecticut say no thanks, we prefer Joe? My guess is that the CT ACORN org let you down.
Isn't it time the left moved on, pun intended, to another abject failure? Maybe you should stand aside and let those that know how take over again.
Posted by jaydee1943 at 10/28/2009 @ 2:47pm
My, what nastiness directed as thoses who merely think for themselves.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/28/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/28/2009 @ 2:51pm
Yes, CHIP.... we all remember your strident defenses of Chuck Hagel and Jim Jeffords.
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 3:37pm
Ari Berman:
"This healthcare debate has provided what they call a clarifying moment. When it's all over, we'll know exactly which side these Democrats are on."
Well, that's probably true, but how about the clarification of which side Obama is on?
Of all the commentators here at The Nation, I would think that you, Ari, would be showing either some contrition for your rather unobjective Obama cheerleading during the Presidential campaign, or some fire and brimstone rhetoric on how Obama has failed to meet even the most minimal progressive expectations --beyond pretty words.
The deeper problem, of course, is not "which side these Dems are on", but the overwhelming evidence that the major operators in the Dem congress as well as the Head Executive (Obama) reeks like a fishmarket in the Philippines.
When will "progressives" tire of this endless game of "it was those damn blue dogs", or "if it wasn't for that weasel, Lieberman" we could get something good accomplished around here? This game is more than a little old and tired.
Progressives need to start gettin' ed off --as well as gettin' ahead of the curve for a change. If we don't do it, I can pretty much guarantee that lesser minds will.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 3:41pm
Yeah, sure it's all hot and bloviated -- but what's worth noting is the change of the general topic generating the heat. Bush Co. has really changed the landscape. The progressive focus was never this advanced, in terms of the actual amount of words and screaming and heat and muckraking on CEO pay, corporate bail outs, etc.. Doesn't really matter that progressives are not winning yet. Winning begins with getting the subject changed from bulls*it like condoms in schools and gun control. The thin veil of the conservative agenda's given way to the real grit: follow the $
Healthcare will pass, the proverbial foot in the door. Older bigots will fade away, and little by little we'll move in the direction of protecting America from multinational parasites and their hypnotized herd.
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2009 @ 3:41pm
"p!ssed off"
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 3:43pm
What a joke. Every Democrat who doesn't line up with the complete transformation of the US into a European socialist style govt is a traitor and a corporate sellout.
I know, have the Democrats start a national media campaign where Obama and the Dem leaders in Congress call corporations evil and that they must be destroyed.
Let's see how they do in the next election after that move.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:49pm
Let's see how they do in the next election after that move.----Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:49pm
$1000 to your favorite charity, Larry....
if Joe Lieberman runs for re-election in 2012.
If he does...$5000 if he wins.
That's $6000 you can send to missions or even AIPAC.
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 3:54pm
Preemptive nuking of Maskot's unrelenting drivel:
I voted for Nader. No, it didn't make any difference --nor does anyone's vote these days, more to the point.
I didn't at all care for Edwards in the '04 campaign --I was a Dean supporter-- and I saw him give a speech live as a prez candidate that cycle. Didn't win me over.
Edwards was worth supporting in '08 only to the extent that he was a viable candidate to possibly win, and his platform was well spelled out and explicitly anti-corporate stranglehold. And that's why he was almost universally loathed in DC power circles.
Edwards, ultimately, is just another tragically sad figure in the anals of US political history. Given a few different plot twists it would have been interesting to see someone delivering a populist fight to the powers that be. Would Edwards have been worth the risk of our vote?
We'll never know. But Obama isn't cuttin' it by a longshot.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 3:54pm
Look, Lefties...... You want corporations to maintain and hopefully, create jobs, right? So, who is supposed to look out for their interests? Berman and The Nation? Why don't you all just return to the land and be organic farmers so you can minimize your dealings w/corporations to the absolute minimu. It is just so boring to hear the same old, same old bitching about corporations. Hell, aren't you employed by some corporations that's tugging at the sleeves of congressmen/women? Posted by Happy at 10/28/2009 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
--you don't think your "musings" are completely dull by now? same old, same old "I'm getting rich, I'm HAPPY (see my double-entendre, aren't I cute)" crap over and over.
who cares? why are you here if you're so HAPPY anyway? real life not stimulating enough?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
who cares? why are you here if you're so HAPPY anyway? real life not stimulating enough?
Yep, that's why no one here should utter a word in reply. Easier said than done, of course, but I've yet to see a concerted effort to --properly-- ignore those of Happy the Fool's ilk. I can think of quite a few who should be utterly ignored here, but since it never happens I sincerely wish that The Nation would institute a stronger site monitoring and clean-up policy.
I'd be happy to volunteer my services.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 4:30pm
Lieberman has a right to hate the world after how his people have suffered!
And Goldman (Sachs) has a right to a day or two of greed after how his people were robbed!
I got nothing.
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2009 @ 5:02pm
why are you here if you're so HAPPY anyway? real life not stimulating enough?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
Part of staying HAPPY, besides doing well while Magic flounders, is to `watch' the Kool-aid drinkers....and this is the best portal.
It's been a better show than I could've imagined back on Nov.4th.....you actually made some solid contribution, if you're the one undressing MASK...or was that gunslinger....no matter....both are good `actors'!
Posted by Happy at 10/28/2009 @ 5:02pm
blogs again today.
I'm out. Good night and good luck, ~B
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 5:14pm
Repost.
De@d blogs again today.
I'm out. Good night and good luck, ~B
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 5:15pm
Joe is from Massachuessetts, right?
Anybody suppose that his front row seat to one of America's state-level public option healthcare systems might be fueling his opposition to it on a national level?
A program that is already over budget and already resorting to rationing healthcare?
Think that might be a factor?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 5:22pm
Joe is from Massachuessetts, right?
Anybody suppose that his front row seat to one of America's state-level public option healthcare systems might be fueling his opposition to it on a national level?
A program that is already over budget and already resorting to rationing healthcare?
Think that might be a factor?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 5:22pm
Not really, since he is not from Massachusetts. Try Connecticut.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 6:21pm
Happys a crusty ol fart He and the nation can't part So he plays his game Gets his fifteen of fame He thinks he's so smart But what he is, is lame.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/28/2009 @ 6:40pm
Part of staying HAPPY, besides doing well while Magic flounders, is to `watch' the Kool-aid drinkers....and this is the best portal.
Posted by Happy at 10/28/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
who cares? why are you here if you're so HAPPY anyway? real life not stimulating enough?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
Well, that's it right there.
What we do here is important and has value. As I explained to McCrevice some time ago, this blog and ones like it provide an important social function--a release valve of sorts for righties of all kinds to vent. Welcome. Indeed, a portal of great import.
Do you have any IDEA how many wife-beatings, dog-kickings, bottle-throwings, etc. have been prevented by providing this valuable public outlet? We may never know. I mean, some of these guys almost STIFFEN at the discussion of the death penalty, assassination techniques, and other rightie cult favorites. This stuff is up in their WHEELHOUSE. They need this, and, well, we give it to 'em. They vent, and do so ever so harmlessly in a forum where no one is being sold anything anyway.
Anyway, as to HAPP, I can't figure out why a guy who is doing so well BECAUSE of this Prez--is so rough on the guy. But, hey, he too has a place to vent.
Rationality be damned.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/28/2009 @ 6:50pm
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 6:21pm
Ouch. Having a forehead slap moment there.
I guess this means we can only conclude Joe truly is beholden to corporate interests in much the same manner Howard Dean said the Democratic Party is beholden to trial lawyers.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 6:54pm
traitor joe is a democrat? really?
parasitical sellout.
Posted by dexter666 at 10/28/2009 @ 7:34pm
Typially, the Nation and its readers focus overly on campaign contributions in theiir anlysis. Given that the greatest concentration of insurance companies is in Connecticut. That means that there are THOUSANDS of voters within Lieberman's state that are tied to these firms. And they will vote! If you think of democracy, then that factor ought to be worth something in how Senator Liebrman responds to issues. In a previous post, I showed that one Blue Dog Congressman has a huge concentration of voters who work for big pharmaceutical companies. The Nation's writer did not consider that when he threatened "He'd better pay attention to the people of his district." These elected people will vote mostly as their districts see fit, whenther you agree or not. That's democracy.
Posted by balataf at 10/28/2009 @ 9:41pm
most are sellouts, ibbs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:51pm
That's democracy.
Posted by balataf at 10/28/2009 @ 9:41pm
democracy?
maybe in finland....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:57pm
The problem is not "centrist" Democrats, it is the failure to start with serious campaign finance reform first before attempting other reform efforts like healthcare.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/28/2009 @ 10:15pm
Nonetheless, I would give Joe a big "ego pat on the back and a wink" and pass a bill in the Senate with NO public option, and THEN use the budget reconciliation process to get the strongest public option available with 51 votes in the "final" version. This is the sort of street politics that is needed to get this done.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/28/2009 @ 10:19pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 4:30pm
"I'd be happy to volunteer my services.:D"
No-one doubted that, but in today's Democratic Party, if you want to apply for the job of censoring 'unacceptable' speech, you'll have to stand in line.
Posted by pontificus at 10/28/2009 @ 10:20pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/28/2009 @ 6:50pm
I enjoyed your refreshing analysis with a cup of Chai. Would add this: those who most need and benefit from the blog-catharsis you describe are also the least able to admit /glimpse this within themselves. The Most Rev. Happycrits.
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2009 @ 10:42pm
I could never look at Joe Lieberman without thinking that he had too many teeth.
Posted by MikeHavenar at 10/28/2009 @ 11:18pm
Santi- which corporations are you talking about,the one's that moved operations to Asia or the one's who cared enough about our country to have operations here? Joe is worried about one thing,Joe being a Senator or his future income come 2012. Look up all the Senators at the web site Open Secrets. It will show their top contributors,so we know who is buying their votes. Guess who bought Joe?
Posted by whatozz at 10/28/2009 @ 11:31pm
Is it hard to scrutinize loyalties of any individual with the elephant of tort reform trumpeting in the corner?
Posted by aggie at 10/29/2009 @ 06:43am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/28/2009 @ 3:54pm
KOOL is a little pre-emptively defensive.
Mostly because if he had gotten his way in 2008....McCain would be President now.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2009 @ 07:12am
THE LIEBERMAN BETRAYAL--IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON
Lieberman is shameless about his connections with the health insurance industries. He has not only taken more than $1 million dollars from them in campaign contributions, but has amassed thousands of STOCKS from the industry. The same is the case with many of the so-called "conservative Democrats who oppose real health care reform that will benefit the people, not the industry. If this is not CONFLICT OF INTEREST, what is? When a member of Congress says he is opposing health care reform with public option, they should be called out for what they really are. Journalists should ask them to declare how much of health industry stocks they hold and how much they have taken in campaign contributions from the industry. Many of these corrupt politicians will most likely end up in the Boardroom of health insurance companies when they leave Congress. Political mobilization by progressives should be focused on shaming these corrupt politicians out and making sure that they are never again entrusted with the people's business. They are no friends of humanity! They are consumed by selfish individuality of the worse kind. The Democratic caucus should immediately end its fruitless marriage with Joe Lieberman and strip him of his chairmanship of Homeland Security Senate Committee for a start. Dr. Sam
Posted by drsam8 at 10/29/2009 @ 07:35am
McCain would be President now.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2009 @ 07:12am
no,
lady macbarbie would have killed him by now.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2009 @ 08:35am
I could never look at Joe Lieberman without thinking that he had too many teeth.
Posted by MikeHavenar at 10/28/2009 @ 11:18pm
Salieri?
Posted by Mistral at 10/29/2009 @ 08:56am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2009 @ 08:35am
Cindy or Sarah Palin?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2009 @ 09:16am
Liebermann is a slimy crook in the hip pockets of the insurance industry along with AIPAC. The guy should have been run out of the senate years ago. Perhaps a lesson could be learned from this. Instead of catering to jackasses like him, both parties should boot his ass out, he represents Joe Liebermann and only Joe Liebermann.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 09:54am
Leftist Democrats = Power Hungry Statist Sellouts
Posted by JimDoze at 10/29/2009 @ 10:17am
Centrist Democrats = Corporate Sellouts
hmm, when did Barak Obama become a centrist Democrat?
Wasn't it he, who with his first move as president was to give away billions to banks, Fannie and Freddy, Goldman Sacks, AIG, GM, Chrysler, etc etc etc etc and etc.
So, Mr Berman. Please try to show and little respect for your readers when you publish drivel...
Posted by damiansix at 10/29/2009 @ 10:45am
You lefties are certainly a mean, vicious sort. Is it EVER possible to have an honest, principal-based disagreement with you without being called a racist or a "corporate sellout?" Could it possibly be that Joe is trying to save you from yourselves, before your sacred Party drives our entire healthcare system off the same cliff that Canada and Britain did? (to name just a couple countries). Clearly our healthcare system needs reform--no one disputes that. But this silly blind faith, handing the entire system over to our corrupt, bloated Federal Gov't is ridiculous--and it goes against every liberal creed you guys embrace (like "question authority").
And if it's ties to corporations that make you dislike Joe, you might want to scrutinize some of your own political heroes a little more closely--e.g. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, not to mention EVERY single politician from Chicago.....
Posted by rustyb at 10/29/2009 @ 10:56am
Let's not forget that Obama was instrumental in "keeping Turncoat Joe in the fold."
Don't miss Glenn Greenwald's spot on Maddow yesterday regarding Liebermann - and Bayh - 'it's all in the family.'
Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2009 @ 11:05am
Joe Lieberman and the Blue Dog Democrats are the only thing that can save this Nation from yet another Government entitlement for which our children will have to foot the bill. Our children are already going to get the bill for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Chinese are going to want their money (that they have loaned us) back eventually. As US government spending ballooons and the dollar sinks, this may be sooner than any of us anticipate.
Liberals view themselves as taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What they are really doing is taking from our children to indulge their self righteous egos.
Posted by Tiger1985 at 10/29/2009 @ 11:06am
Posted by Tiger1985 at 10/29/2009 @ 11:06am
BTW, watch as these "scared to death about the deficits and debt" "fiscal conservatives"...
EVAPORATE as the 2010 Congressional mid-terms gin up and the GOP has to turn to its old stand-by answer to everything...
tax cuts.
Nary a worry about deficits will appear.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by Tiger1985 at 10/29/2009 @ 11:06am
Those damn liberals! Long live Reagan! Wait...um, never mind.
Posted by BlackFrancis at 10/29/2009 @ 11:20am
Stephen_Carver1,
Up above you commented on Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.
????
How are you in a position to do that?
Senator Lieberman is from Connecticut.
You are not.
Thus, you would not have the inside knowledge of Connecticut and Connecticut politics that would be required to make an informed and accurate comment on the subject of Senator Lieberman.
Connecticut residents did vote to re-elect him, and that is all you need know. Under the circumstances, that is all you are capable of knowing, and nothing more.
You claim that Connecticut residents were "duped" into voting for Joe Lieberman, but you, not being from Connecticut, would have no idea at all about what was in the minds of Connecticut residents while they were in the voting booths located in Connecticut.
You could not possibly have that, nor even be able to hypothesize about it, because you do not possess the detail knowledge about Connecticut that would be needed to even guess at the subject, much less have an opinion about it.
Thus the reality is that you have no idea at all about why Connecticut residents cast their ballots for Joe Lieberman the last time he ran for the Senate.
No amount of reading on the subject or watching the news on television could possibly make up for actual Connecticut residency that would give you the capability to know why.
So it would NOT appear appropriate in any way for you to comment on something that you know absolutely nothing about nor are even entitled to know about, not being a resident of Connecticut.
P.S. If you were getting tired of me before than I have probably completely exhausted you by now!!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2009 @ 11:39am
Tax cuts increase $ yield to the Federal Treasury by sparking economic growth. Tax increases do the opposite. I know that logic escapes liberals, but research it. It's a fact....
Posted by rustyb at 10/29/2009 @ 11:41am
NOTICE,
Before anybody posts in hyperventilating on my post to Stephen_Carver1 up above, this is to let you know I am engaging in some inside sarcasm directed at Stephen .........
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2009 @ 11:43am
Lieberman is not a state senator, you nimwit! He's a U.S. Senator. In case you aren't aware, U.S. Senators make decisions that affect ALL citizens!
Posted by rustyb at 10/29/2009 @ 11:44am
Those damn liberals! Long live Reagan! Wait...um, never mind.
Posted by BlackFrancis at 10/29/2009 @ 11:20am
Like Ann Coulter says - 'they don't make them like that anymore'....lol.....
Her eyes just light up whenever Raygun is discussed.
A dangerous "cult of personality."
Waiting for the Messiah..........
Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2009 @ 11:46am
You lefties are certainly a mean, vicious sort. Is it EVER possible to have an honest, principal-based disagreement with you without being called a racist or a "corporate sellout?" Could it possibly be that Joe is trying to save you from yourselves, before your sacred Party drives our entire healthcare system off the same cliff that Canada and Britain did?
Posted by rustyb at 10/29/2009 @ 10:56am
In the United States, we don't elect our representatives to "save us from ourselves." We elect them to do what "We the People" want them to do, which is why they work for us, not the other way around; or haven't you read the Constitution?
60-70% of the people of Connecticut want a public option. Joe is shooting his constituents a big middle finger and bowing down to his corporate masters, who will reward him afterwards with wads of money.
That's why our system is corrupt, because our representatives feel they can, because of the moeny involved, ignore their constituents.
"Saving us from ourselves." Jeez...that's plays right into Joementum's ego.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/29/2009 @ 11:53am
And if it's ties to corporations that make you dislike Joe, you might want to scrutinize some of your own political heroes a little more closely--e.g. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, not to mention EVERY single politician from Chicago.....
Posted by rustyb at 10/29/2009 @ 10:56am
The University of Chicago is the birthplace of the neoliberal mindset. That neoliberal label was later changed to neoconservative which Ronald Reagan held near and dear to his heart. Be careful about going on about Chicago...it was the rebirth of the GOP under Ronald Reagan.
As for Joe Lieberman, you show me a republican supporting Obama for president and I'll show you a guy who is no longer a senator (I'll help you out here...Chuck Hagel).
Dust the cobwebs out of your brain and realize that Lieberman supported John McCain during the presidential election, not Obama. The dems (the majority party) should remove Joe from any position of power in the senate. Let him be the minority leader if the GOP wants him. LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 11:53am
I think it comes down to this:
Obama and other Democrats believe it is much more important for their party to be in power than to affect any sort of change that does not further the personal careers of certain power Democrats. The individual candidates and their convictions do not matter. (support for Lieberman and Spector shows this).
He could build a more solid party if he would do the right thing and climb out of the dirty politics bowl, at least while he was president. But he can't. He's just another cheap politician with a higher price.
I think most people are seeing the breakdown differently. There will always be the "corporate, or neo-liberals and neo-conservatives". They think alike, parade in different costumes. They will both vote for bailouts, pork and Wall Street and against Main Street. Pro war. Pro Israel.
But both parties' grassroots are steadily entertaining the idea that getting rid of their moderates is a good idea. And they equate moderates with the corporate-heads. Even the latest Beck movement is to get rid of moderates, even if it favors a Democrat win. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats do several versions of the same thing.
AN INDEPENDENT IS NOT A MODERATE BY ANY MEANS. And it is the independent movement that is growing. The moderate movement is waning if you look closely.
Where will it get the American people if the two major parties get rid of their moderates? What will they ever agree on? You would be surprised. There are many issues they actually agree on with the top one being TOTAL REJECTION OF WALL STREET AND CORPORATE POLITICS for a start.
A lot of grassroots from both sides can live with this if it can actually get traction. If it does, you better watch out.
Other issues the far right and far left can agree on are (for exa
Posted by acupuncturegirl at 10/29/2009 @ 11:56am
Other issues the far right and far left can agree on are (for example, even if the corporatists try to co-opt the individual demonstrations on tv, on both sides, for political points, it does not matter):
-anti war -anti vaccine/death panels/managed care/eugenics -clean organic food, not genetic -no international debt on the backs of taxpayers -less taxes, more individual freedoms -protect American jobs -protect American families -education -secure borders including drug traffic and undocumented -less immigration -higher minimum wages for legal -anti-torture -anti-nation-building -free speech -pro-environment/anti-pollution -anti gay discriminiation
If any of these can get traction, perhaps with the right candidate, a lot of independent people will go for progress on any of these.
There is absolutely no traction being received from the corporate, or "moderate" politicians and groups on the grassroots causes. The moderates are the most heavily lobbied group and are useless for that reason (and everyone knows it). Even the liberal-sounding bills (cap and trade and the so-called health care reform) have become cover for corporate interests.
Watch for desperate true liberals to ally with straong and brave libertarians or some form of it, leaving Washington behind. Times are changing. Obama isn't.
Posted by acupuncturegirl at 10/29/2009 @ 11:57am
P.S. If you were getting tired of me before than I have probably completely exhausted you by now!!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2009 @ 11:39am
Nope. Now you just bore me.
Are you saying that because I am not from Connecticut, then I can say nothing about Joe Lieberman? I guess that means you cannot say anything about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China, Ethiopia, or anywhere else in the world that isn't where you live.
Specious and stupid. That's why you bore me.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/29/2009 @ 11:58am
Hey Ari, not everyone likes to crawl into bed with Big Brother... Big Industry may actually be a better bed mate. What entities create jobs - Uncle Sam Build a Bridge Project and Go Go Green? Build the bridge then sign-up for Unemployment? Brilliant left-lib mantra. Keep suffocating Big Bad Corporations and see where the unemployment rate takes Barry & His Bunch... Big Benevolent, Bloated Brother will loose its pale blue pallor very quickly indeed.
Posted by heffpa at 10/29/2009 @ 12:03pm
Hey Ari, not everyone likes to crawl into bed with Big Brother... Big Industry may actually be a better bed mate. What entities create jobs - Uncle Sam Build a Bridge Project and Go Go Green? Build the bridge then sign-up for Unemployment? Brilliant left-lib mantra. Keep suffocating Big Bad Corporations and see where the unemployment rate takes Barry & His Bunch... Big Benevolent, Bloated Brother will loose its pale blue pallor very quickly indeed.
Posted by heffpa at 10/29/2009 @ 12:03pm
Making a coherent argument is a lost art, it seems.
And yes, "Uncle Sam Build A Bridge Project" and "Go Go Green" do create jobs. Here. In the US. Not wherever the "Big Bad Corporations" have decided to outsource jobs to.
"If we're nice enough to the rich, maybe they'll all bless us lowly peasants with low-wage, no benefit, non-union jobs!"
US voters gave that mentality a big "Fuck that" when the 2008 elections rolled around. The GOP and its base should remember that, unless they want to further slowly slip into obscurity.
From 40...
To 32...
To 25...
To God knows what...
Go Phils. Fuck the Yankers.
Posted by badreligionlover at 10/29/2009 @ 12:34pm
Stephen_Carver1,
That means you can't comment on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China, Ethiopia etc. either.
And I hope you don't have the hubris to start talking about conditions on the Moon or Mars! I can't see how you would be qualified to do so.
I certainly hope I am not boring you because I am trying to irritate you instead.
P.S. to rustyb......I am not the nimwit you think I am.....My 11:39 am posting to Stephen_Carver1 was sarcasm....Stephen_Carver1 claimed special qualification to comment negatively about George W. Bush's time as Governor of Texas because he (Stephen_Carver1) is from Texas....in a post a couple of weeks ago on a different thread......I was just throwing that concept back at him.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2009 @ 12:42pm
From 40...
To 32...
To 25...
To God knows what...
Go Phils. Fuck the Yankers.
Posted by badreligionlover at 10/29/2009 @ 12:34pm
Yes, the GOP backing has dropped significantly, but evidently they still have the power to stop any legislation that would actually work toward removing the chains the insurance companies have us bound in. No majority is big enough evidently....they'd come up with some excuse like, the minority party ate the bills so we can't bring them forward to vote on.
I'm with you, go Phillies.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 1:05pm
.I am not the nimwit you think I am....
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2009 @ 12:42pm
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2009 @ 1:06pm
Right - any opposition to the Dems healthcare reform charade are simply corporate groupies. If that was even remotely true, why's it so difficult to overcome opposition to the Dems version of healthcare reform. You going to blame that on the idiotic notion of a Fox-inspired campaign of disinformation? The very simple undeniable truth is that there are far less expensive, less onerous, less oppressive means of achieving dramatically improved access to high quality health care than this and with less governmental involvement. The difficulty of passing meaningful health care reform that would have broad support can blamed on a group - but it isn't a group of corporate lackies or health insurance lobbyists - it's the far left element of the Democrat party who wishes to impose a narrow provincial political agenda on a broader public that is not so inclined to follow along - Obama's magic notwithstanding.
Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 1:18pm
Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 1:18pm
So tell me. Do you think the health care industry wants things to change? Follow up question for that now. If they don't want things to change, do you think by chance they'd use their money, power and influence to keep things the way they are? How would they go about doing that? Ask yourself this. Who supports the status quo? Who is calling the shots now? Who stands to lose the most if things change? The answer to the last three questions are the insurance industry and those who have invested heavily in them.
I could give a rats ass if a democrat or republican came up with a public option that truly was a public option. So far, the republicans have their head crammed so far up the insurance industries ass that they've become a permanent fixture there. There are obviously corrupt democrats in this equation too, but at least there are some out there willing to try to fight for the little guy.
The system we have is the most expensive, onerous, oppressive corrupted mess in the world. To deny this is complete insanity or stupidity. It's not the far left that are the problem...it's assholes who wish to profit heavily off somebody being sick an d there lies the problem. You can't treat someone dying of cancer at a profit. Now, you can spread the money out so that younger healthy people are paying for the care of the dying person and then fast forward 70 years or so, now the young person is old and dying, and the next generation of young people pay to take care of it's older generation. It's only greedy aholes who think they should get some kind of percentage of profit out of this that are the cause of the problem, not the left. Pull your head out.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by rustyb at 10/29/2009 @ 11:41am
Okay, I researched it.
Reagan cut taxes...deficit went up.
Clinton raised taxes...deficit went down.
Dubya cut taxes...deficit went up.
Mind you I looked that up in a history book, not the Club for Growth website, so obviously history has an innate liberal bias.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2009 @ 1:41pm
P.S. to rustyb......I am not the nimwit you think I am.....My 11:39 am posting to Stephen_Carver1 was sarcasm....Stephen_Carver1 claimed special qualification to comment negatively about George W. Bush's time as Governor of Texas because he (Stephen_Carver1) is from Texas....in a post a couple of weeks ago on a different thread......I was just throwing that concept back at him.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2009 @ 12:42pm
As usual Sjchermy (schmarmy?), you get it wrong...again. I was not claiming any sort of special dispensation regarding George W Bush because I lived in Texas, I was talking about how George W. Bush's governorship in Texas did nothing to give him the essential credentials to be a good Preisdent. You were stating that his "bipartisanship" as Governor in Texas proved he was willing to work with the Dems when he got to the White House. I was simply showing you that he was FORCED to work with the Dems in Texas (or nothing would get done - don't forget the incident when all the Texas Dems went to Oklahoma to avoid a quorum on a redistricting bill that Bush was forcing down their throats), whereas Bush could IGNORE the Dems in Congress (which he essentially did), because he had the majority in both houses.
Barack Obama, much to my chagrin, is attempting to reach out to the Republicans in Congress time and time again, only to keep getting his hand slapped. The Republicans are playing hardball. I wonder how much longer it will take Obama to figure out he has a majority in both houses too and start working as the leader of the party, as well as the leader of the nation.
As to why you have singled me out for special attention, I am starting to feel like Mask - being stalked by a blogger. Stop it.
And yes, you still bore me.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/29/2009 @ 1:48pm
"As to why you have singled me out for special attention, I am starting to feel like Mask - being stalked by a blogger."----Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/29/2009 @ 1:48pm
Kind of an ego boost though...that you can drive people to obsession....heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2009 @ 1:52pm
Dear Wolfgang - Really? Personally, I would be curious which is actually the bigger problem - "assholes who wish to profit heavily off somebody being sick" or folks who think that someone else should be paying for all of their health care related costs without regard to how the person in question chooses to live their life. I happen to believe the latter is the bigger problem as it relates to both the cost of health care as well as the problems of access to health care for the poor. It is simple nonsense to summarily blame the problems of cost and access on a profit-motivated insurance industry in a third party payor system. Whether the third party is a free market system in which profit motivation drives efficiency and cost savings or whether it is an entirely public run third party payor system, there is simply no way to limit cost without rigid rules that regulate the utilization of health care. Read rationing. I think there is a very legitimate argument that free market systems can be more efficient and cost-effective in their operations than government run programs. So I would argue then that in order for cost to be controlled equally in a government vs a free market system, the government system would would need to be progressively more restrictive in terms of utilization due to it's relative lack of operational efficiency.
Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 2:15pm
there is but one word for the current bunch of idiots in washington "corporate whores" that is all they are.
Posted by photobum769 at 10/29/2009 @ 2:17pm
When My Nephew got killed in Iraq. My brother called Lieberman's office and asked that he not attend the Funeral The Governor of Connecticut was there. Its amazing how he got re-elected when so many people think he just turncoat. He has no shame and my Nephew lost his life for a Chosen invasion . The thing we must see in his name is the separation LIE-berman!
Posted by tommoulton at 10/29/2009 @ 2:25pm
Ari,
I am not sure if you are old enough to remember 1976-1980.
In 1976 the Liberal wing of the party ( Today's version of Progressives ) declared with Carter and 58 Senate seats they had a MANDATE to finish Johnson's work.
The Neo-conservative ( yes Neo-con's were originally Dems ) and the Southern Dems said "Wait! It was only a rejection of Nixon and the guy who pardoned him!"
The liberal wing declared war on the "Centrists" Sellouts.
Why not? They had an 8 seat majority. They could afford to lose a few seats to send a message.
So what happened? Well the Republicans actually took TWELVE SEATS and lost none.
See sadly those nasty Centrist sellouts represent PEOPLE. And when you punish THEM, their PEOPLE punish you back.
Bring a challenge against Evan Bayh? ( He remembers 1980 -- his father was a loss that year to Dan Quayle ) -- and his father was PROGRESSIVE! Sponsor of ERA attempting to get rid of the electoral college, etc.
But the Centrists punished BAYH by electing Quayle ... you can expect the same for the Centrists in Calif. to do the same to Boxer. Yes. Calif centrists will punish BOXER for what YOU do to other Senators. Tit for tat.
And if you think Boxer can win without Centrists, you obviously haven't heard of Prop 8, the DOMA in 2000 or the fact that Parental notification lost by 50.1-49.9 in 2000 ( if it were not for a 65% no in the SF bay Area, it would have passed statewide by 55-45% ).
Declare war on the middle -- it will be about 30% moderates who lose their seats and 70% Progressives who lose their seats.
Because while the Elected officials will talk about getting along and party unity -- the moderate VOTER spread throughout the US will DESTROY on sight ANY Progressive candidate the see.
Even if it means electing another Quayle!
Posted by Chromehawk at 10/29/2009 @ 2:28pm
I think there is a very legitimate argument that free market systems can be more efficient and cost-effective in their operations than government run programs....Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 2:15pm
To the contrary, the free market systems are failure compared to government run systems such as Canada, Great Britain etc. The health care standards are better and more patients are treated which translates to a longer lifespan in those countries as compared to the U.S.
Of course any system is going to require some form of controls or regulations governing how it operates. Right now, we have a system that has rules and regulations on how it operates and it is not efficient whatsoever. No data is shared between doctors, in a lot of cases, it's left up to the patient to see to it that Doc A has the correct information taken from Doc B.
The government would be more in a position to streamline some of these practices. Also, if you like at Medicare and Medicaid, they've been successful government run insurances as well as the VA. Your argument that private industry runs things more efficiently just doesn't hold any water. If you look at the risk factors, the private insurance companies dump all of the risk onto the federal government and take the low risk patients. They don't sound too efficient to me....they are more like money siphons than patient care companies.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 2:54pm
There is no such thing as a centrist democrat. These guys are republicans in blue and are obstructionists to the President's agenda. We have to send these centrists a message. Lieberman needs to be removed from his position of respect on Homeland Security and any of his supporters have to be equally chastised. If they can not lead, they need to get out of the way.
Posted by CarmanK at 10/29/2009 @ 3:00pm
Because while the Elected officials will talk about getting along and party unity -- the moderate VOTER spread throughout the US will DESTROY on sight ANY Progressive candidate the see.
Even if it means electing another Quayle!
Posted by Chromehawk at 10/29/2009 @ 2:28pm
But you make the mistake of thinking the bluedogs are centrists...they're not. Obama is a centrist. The bluedogs are nothing but republicans running as democrats in states that are pissed off at the GOP and wanted someone else in there. If these states had wanted republicans in office, the republicans would have gained seats. You are correct one thing, the progressives are going to push back on these people.
Reaching across the isle got us blue dog dems which has produced.....nothing. We got Joe Lie Berman as tommoulton pointed out. The guy supports McCain and then is rewarded by the same party he chose to run against during the presidential election?! I've been around long enough to know the difference between corporate welfare and welfare of the citizens of this country. For the last 30 years we've been a corporate welfare society that scoffs at the notion of any type of welfare going to the citizens of this country and that includes taking care of our wounded soldiers coming back from the battles our gutless chickenhawk cowards in D.C. send them off to fight. People in this country think nothing of the billions upon billions we spend on "defense" in other nations. Doesn't sound to damned defensive to me, but then again, reason never entered into the political arena in this country. Blind stupidity and fear rule this country.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 3:07pm
Wolfgang, You have provided no basis whatsoever to your claim that the free market system is a "failure" compared with the Canadian or GB single payor plan. It might suit your political preference but I hardly believe they would have better operational efficiencies. After all, in a government program there is no specific incentive to be efficient in day to day operations is there? You appear to be blending a lot of fact and fiction. Yes, a government plan might be able to impose a more regulated environment than a free market system - but there is an endpoint to the cost benefit of that advantage that is reached when demand and unfettered utilization of services continues to grow - our own Medicare program has conclusively shown this. The only eventual remedy is rationing - in the absence of any incentive whatsoever to be cost effective and efficient in daily operation, government can only ration health care services to control costs. And let's not get too carried away with fantasy's about some great advantage that you claim might exist in Canada's or GB's government run single payor plan - you might want to check the cancer survival rates in GB versus the United States which was published recently in the Lancet (a British medical journal).
Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 3:34pm
Winyahn:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
I do believe we are in the ridicule stage just now. Moving into fighting.
Posted by RadGal66 at 10/29/2009 @ 3:37pm
GB's government run single payor plan - you might want to check the cancer survival rates in GB versus the United States which was published recently in the Lancet (a British medical journal).
Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 3:34pm
You keep going on about rationing. What the hell do you think the insurance industry is doing now? And, the profit margin for managers in the insurance industry are through the roof and you damn well know it.
If the profit margin is trimmed off and Joe the middle man making a fortune betting with his patients money on the market and then refusing care when those patients get sick doesn't work. How many cancer patients have been denied care in these fine institutions you care soo much about?
One of us is indeed living in fantasy land and you are the one. And, I'd further wager that you work in the insurance industry which would explain your complete blindness to reality....and perhaps you might be worried about your future employment....if that's the case, join the rest of us out here....it sucks.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 3:47pm
Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 3:34pm
Better known as Darin the Big Fat Troll aka Mr Insuricare.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 3:51pm
ieberman is not a state senator, you nimwit! He's a U.S. Senator. In case you aren't aware, U.S. Senators make decisions that affect ALL citizens!
Posted by rustyb at 10/29/2009 @ 11:44am
Are you trying to say that the U.S. senator is not from a state? If so, who's the nimwit? U.S. Senators represent the people of their state in the U.S. senate. Joe effin Lie Berman sure as hell doesn't represent me....not that the senators from my state do either.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 3:54pm
America's Democratic Republic is a myth. We express disappointment in the wake of the Health Care debate and the subterfuge and compromise that have given us nothing in the way of reform. The revolution happened while we were lulled to sleep by fraudulent wars, national emergencies, terrorism orchestrated by a secret government in the dark cave like bunker of Dick Cheney and the surrender of America's treasure to subsidize corrupt corporations. We are, and have been, a Corporatocracy. Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley……..are only a few of the elected officials who have betrayed their electorate and fed from the trough of this New World Corporate government. The Change we were led to believe would remedy the abuses of past administrations has morphed into a hybrid of Beltway double speak and sabotage , a rabid dog at the gates of change has been left to devour what hope there might have been. It is time to replace the incumbents and write a new chapter in the American Dream.
Posted by startrev at 10/29/2009 @ 3:57pm
Aha Wolfgang! Perhaps you are now starting to get it. If cost control is a major concern then rationing is ultimately the only really effective measure. So maybe it is more palatable for you to have government do the rationing than an insurance company? I would certainly agree that government will be FAR more effective at rationing than any free market based insurance company for obvious reasons. I think you have a blind faith that government will do better for less cost - not going to happen. There are other ways of getting access to those who don't have it (but want it) and in a more cost effective fashion than is currently being pushed. The obstructionists to manageable and fair health system reform aren't as much the insurance industry as is the far left. Skip the ad hominem - your preconcieved notion about my background speaks much about your inability to have a broad understanding of the problem. As it turns out I'm a physician in practice for 27 years - I treat patients who are on state aid or without insurance daily and have fought insurance companies on behalf of patients since I began practice. That being said, I'm pretty familiar with what is fact and what is fiction in the health care debate.
Posted by IaHawkeye at 10/29/2009 @ 4:10pm
If Europeans have a longer lifespan than us, it is probably due to lifestyle choices, not healthcare.
From what I've seen, Americans have higher rates of cancer than do Europeans.
THAT is a reflection of American lifestyles.
But here's the thing. Americans have a better rate of survival of cancer than do Europeans.
THAT is a reflection of our more effective healthcare system.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/29/2009 @ 4:35pm
Stephen_Carver1,
Nobody is stalking you, let alone me, so just relax, eh?
I am just not as impressed as you are with how intelligent you profess yourself to be.
You are back now into the Texas thing. Originally, you had dismissed my opinions regarding Governor Bush, since I do not live in Texas. Because you live in Texas apparently you believe that adds weight to your opinion.
You state Gov. Bush was "forced" to work with Dems. As is always the case with libs, this is offered as "fact" when it is just your opinion. I state that because I am sure there are plenty in Texas who supported Gov. Bush that would not give the same analysis as you do.
Thus I called it correctly when I said that your opinion was not so much a product of your being from Texas, but a product of your being a lib.
When I saw your post earlier commenting on Sen. Lieberman I felt like throwing some sarcasm back at you, because of your earlier nonsense about Texas. It is no big deal unless you make it a big deal.
I would take the opportunity to point out, considering your latest posting, that you do not apparently live in the real world.
You are "chagrined" because you think President Obama is reaching out to the Republicans in Congress!!
Since nothing like that has been happening, in fact since 180 degrees the opposite has been happening, I have to wonder if you are delusional.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2009 @ 4:39pm
Most Democrats are in the pocket of some lobby or other: financial (Barney Frank, Schumer, Dodd,et. al.), Military (John Murtha, et. al.) Health Care (Baucus, Dodd, et. al)
Face it,we live in an oligarchy--rule of, by and for the rich!
Posted by hkaplan at 10/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
Face it,we live in an oligarchy--rule of, by and for the rich!
Posted by hkaplan at 10/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
Then, AFSCME, SEIU, UAW, USS, NEA, UMW, NFT.........must represent an awful lot of the "rich"!
Posted by Happy at 10/29/2009 @ 5:25pm
The problem with health care reform is that no one knows how much it is going to cost. Nor how we are going to pay for it. I am always hearing how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be broke by the year so-and-so. Now they want to add an even larger entitlement program to the budget. And we are told that it won't add one dime to the deficit. It's all going to be paid by cost cutting. Every time a politician comes up with a new entitlement program it is going to be paid for by cost cutting someplace. Nobody ever cuts costs.
There is only one way to pay for health care reform that covers 96% of the population by adding a public option. A tax increase. A very large tax increase on the rich and the middle class. Just the rich won't raise enough money to pay for the new bureaucracy the public option will need. That is the harsh reality of real health care reform. Obama, Pelosi and Reid can't say it now. The people won't accept it. You have to feed it to us a little bit at a time.
Posted by bean22 at 10/29/2009 @ 5:56pm
I say Joe L. has got to go I really don't care for what he is about now, President Obama is the man.
Posted by stone2126 at 10/29/2009 @ 9:04pm
Face it,we live in an oligarchy--rule of, by and for the rich!
Posted by hkaplan at 10/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
•• exactly.
Then, AFSCME, SEIU, UAW, USS, NEA, UMW, NFT........
must represent an awful lot of the "rich"!
•• no happy, they represent just a few "rich". pensions are a thing of the past. etc.,
Posted by Happy at 10/29/2009 @ 5:25pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2009 @ 9:34pm
RUSTYB:
You talk about "blind faith in government"? What about blind faith in free markets? Yes, government can't solve every problem, but then neither can private industry. Some problems need a government solution, some need a private industry solution, and some need a combination of the two--like health care. Our "market" health-care system is on the brink of collapse. It's time that health insurance be treated as a basic RIGHT, not a privilege; as a SERVICE, not a profit-seeking business. I, unlike you, believe it IS possible to have both a free-enterprise economy and a strong safety net (what some derisively call a "welfare state") at the same time--with government and industry complementing each other, making up for each other's shortcomings. Most other Western Democracies do it. (Yes, Canada and Western Europe--all NATO allies of ours--are Democratic, not "socialist".) They guarantee health care to everybody, while spending much less per patient and having longer life expectancies. What are you afraid of RustyB? That if guaranteed universal health care becomes law it would be popular, and make the case for liberalism and against conservatism? That was Bill Kristol's fear--that "the party of tax-and-spend would be redeemed as the protector of the middle class" back in 1994. The success and popularity of the New Deal moved the political center of gravity leftward, forcing Republicans to do the same for 30 years--and today's movement conservatives--who tried to privatize Social Security 4 years ago--don't want to have to become like Eisenhower, Nixon, and Rockfeller again. Blind faith in free enterprise is just as bad as blind faith in government.
Posted by RAG2 at 10/30/2009 @ 02:01am
First of all, I would like everyone to go on a campaign to stop these members of both houses being called 'centrist' or 'moderate'. Those terms impart a certain wisdom or Solomon-like even handedness that is entirely inappropriate for these people. None of them wants to be called a 'conservative Democrat' which is the most accurate description of how they vote. They are Democrats who vote with the conservatives. The media uses 'moderate' and 'centrist' with great reverence as if they are the only people with a modicum of sense.
Ben Nelson was an attorney for an insurance company in Omaha. He also represents the interests of a little ditty called Mutual of Omaha. He's been re-elected year after year in this red state by representing conservative concerns. ( and if you haven't noticed...he loves attention)
Posted by skippersmom at 10/30/2009 @ 05:19am
They are Democrats who vote with the conservatives. The media uses 'moderate' and 'centrist' with great reverence as if they are the only people with a modicum of sense.
Posted by skippersmom at 10/30/2009 @ 05:19am
Good point. Most of these so called centrists are blithering idiots trying to muddle their way through. There warped reasoning is that if they vote conservative as democrats, they'll be re-elected, but what the fools don't see is that the reason they were elected was not to be conservative, but rather change the system and make it more of a fair playing field for the average worker. If these reps aren't smart enough to figure something as simple as that out, they sure as hell don't belong in D.C. representing anyone.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/30/2009 @ 09:11am
Liberals view themselves as taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What they are really doing is taking from our children to indulge their self righteous egos.
Posted by Tiger1985 at 10/29/2009 @ 11:06am
You are a piece of work. Who do you think pays for the tax cuts? We do you idiot rethug moron. The philosophy of all of your GOPers is tax cuts will stimulate the economy. What the hell good are tax cuts to the unemployed? How does increasing the tax burden on the working class folks while removing taxes on the wealthiest help the economy? If you idiots really were for tax breaks for most Americans, the tax breaks would take place at 100k or less. Dual income working families may pull in more than 100k in many cases, but few people pull in more than 100k and the ones that do should damn well pay some taxes. The tax rate should go up drastically the more people make. People making millions can afford to pay more taxes than those on poverty row.
Greed and greed alone is what drives your right wing neocon philosophy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:06am
There is no doubt that government can manage healthcare better than the for profit insurance industry. The basic common sense is not hard to grasp because healthcare can be done cheaper and more efficient for honor than it can be done for profit. Failure to grasp that is why American healthcare is the laughing stock of the rest of the world. The subsequent savings with the public option is expected to be passed on to also saving the currently distressed medicare and medicade programs. History can back me up on this. Hell, we'd probably be a lot more successful at war if our US Army wasn't decimated in the 1990's to require mercenaries who fight for profit and not honor because you get more profit with halfass.
Posted by dajson at 10/30/2009 @ 11:24am
WHY DO THEY CALL THEM CENTERIST DEMS? They are the center of the right wing with some obvious conflicts of interest. I agree that this is a clarifying moment. It is time to elect some Democrats who are actually Democrats. And now we know who they are. Lieberman is just Lieberman. We should have learned what he is when he campaigned for McCain. Hopefully the Mass. voters have been enlightened. One thing for sure-the Health Care debate is the most exciting thing going on politically today. Everything changes hourly.
Posted by hoodriver at 10/30/2009 @ 5:10pm
Wolfgang1,
You say:
"......You are a piece of work. Who do you think pays for the tax cuts? We do you idiot rethug moron. The philosophy of all of your GOPers is tax cuts will stimulate the economy. What the hell good are tax cuts to the unemployed? How does increasing the tax burden on the working class folks while removing taxes on the wealthiest help the economy?......"
In case you are wondering, the tax burden on the "working class folks" has not been increased.
You need to read the book "Catastrophe" by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. (ISBN: 978-0-06-177104-0)
The wealthy pay most of the tax now. The top 25 percent pay 86 percent of federal income tax, the middle 25 percent pay the rest, and the bottom 50 percent pay no income taxes and get refundable tax credit checks.
In recent years it has now begun that people who pay no tax actually get tax money checks to them. Not people getting a refund on what they have paid, because they paid no tax to begin with, just money to them - a negative tax "burden"!!!
This type of thing accelerated during the Bush Administration.......the man who you on the left vilify and who some on the left wrongly accuse of "stealing money from the poor and giving it to the rich".
What you contend is simply not true....but you and others have been very successful at promoting it and many believe it.
I don't know why you believe it. You are probably not actively promoting a lie you know not to be true, but you would have to explain why you have come to believe (and repeat) a falsehood.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/30/2009 @ 7:11pm
How does a person like Lieberman with dual citizenship end up on a committee like Homeland Security or any committee that requires a security clearance?
Posted by oldrail at 10/30/2009 @ 9:58pm
What a joke. Every Democrat who doesn't line up with the complete transformation of the US into a European socialist style govt is a traitor and a corporate sellout.
I know, have the Democrats start a national media campaign where Obama and the Dem leaders in Congress call corporations evil and that they must be destroyed.
Let's see how they do in the next election after that move.
Posted by antis0cialist at 11/03/2009 @ 5:11pm