Sen. Joe Lieberman isn’t worried about the political consequences of his stance on health care reform:
“I don’t think about that stuff,” Lieberman told POLITICO this week. “I’m just — I’m being a legislator. After what I went through in 2006, there’s nothing much more that anybody [who] disagrees with me can try to do.”
Sen. Lieberman is expected to play a key role – perhaps that of spoiler – in the Senate’s health care debate, which will kick off with a key procedural vote tomorrow.
30 responses so far ↓
What me worry? Don’t count your chickens, Heath.
Joe’s out for Joe and he does luurve that committee chairmanship.
If he voted against the bill even coming to the floor he isn’t just putting his ass on the line – he’s jeopardizing everyone who even * thinks* about letting him stay in the Chairman’s seat after killing debate on a major policy initiative.
I’m neither rooting for or against Senator Lieberman.
I do think it is interesting that the experience of the 2006 election has come to be a liberating experience for Sen. Lieberman rather than a remedial one.
On the question of a public option in the health care debate, liberal Democrats are now playing the God card, and it would appear that every liberal’s favorite whipping boy, Sen. Joe Lieberman, is in their view a moral apostate.
Lieberman, already in Dutch with the far left of his party for having fraternized with the enemy, has vigorously opposed the “public option” – a euphemism for nationalized insurance – for non-theological reasons having to do with dollars and cents.
But no sooner did Lieberman say he felt it was a “moral obligation” to oppose a ruinously expensive nationalized health insurance plan than there appeared out of the blue a union inspired “vigil” of rabbis and imams and priests and Unitarian ministers all inveighing against Lieberman as a religious reprobate.
It certainly is odd how the seemingly inflexible doctrine of the separation of church and state — vigorously applied to crèches during the Christian season of joy – just comes and goes.
Most news accounts of the vigil did not touch on its auspices. The vigil, which occurred before Lieberman’s house in Stamford, was assisted by CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, a state union.
The purpose of the vigil, the union group announced on its site, was “To demonstrate to Joe Lieberman that we need health care reform and we do not want him joining any filibuster of health care legislation. The Interfaith Fellowship for Universal Health Care, a faith-based organization that includes religious leaders from all major faiths, is organizing this event.”
The union group urged its members “to participate and demonstrate our opposition to Sen. Lieberman’s obstruction of efforts to pass meaningful reform. The event will be solemn and highly dignified, and attendees will be asked to dress appropriately and NOT to bring protest signs.”
Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) issued a clarion call: “Please join people from across Connecticut – representing all walks of life and all faith traditions. Remind Senator Lieberman that we are united in our call for quality, affordable health care we can count on!”
CCAG’s director is Tom Swan, the campaign manager of Ned Lamont’s failed senatorial run against Lieberman. A little more than a year ago, Lamont appeared in a video clip hawking a Million Doors for Peace effort endorsed by CCAG:
In the video, Lamont anguishes over ex-President George Bush’s successful war in Iraq and advises recruits to “knock on doors. Remind them why we’re not going to let this happen again.” Lamont is referring to Bush’s “war of choice.”
Alas, it happened again when President Barrack Obama introduced more U.S. troops into Afghanistan, the current president’s “war of necessity.” President Obama has been anguishing for a month over how many troops to send to Afghanistan, sometimes called the graveyard of empires. If Lamont now seems unconcerned with knocking on doors for peace, it is because he is considering a run for governor on the Democratic ticket and currently is engaged in a head to toe reinvention process. Gone is the anti-war Lamont progressives came to love and honor during his successful primary challenge to Lieberman, who went on to win the general election. Governors in charge of their state’s national guards generally cannot be found knocking on doors for peace. This would be doubly unlikely for Lamont, who will be expected as governor of Connecticut to support the war mongering efforts of a Democratic president.
In their vigil, the clergy seemed at some pains to make the point that opposition to the specific health care plan containing a public option was immoral. One rabbi warned Lieberman sternly “You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbors. It is with a heavy heart that I proclaim to you Senator Lieberman that that is exactly what you seem to be doing at this time.” Another dithered over whether he thought it prudent to throw his theology into the political ring but finally succumbed, possibly at the urging of CCAG and unions thumping for nationalized health care.
“The moral imperative for our time is clear,” he said. “Anyone whose guide in public policy is conscience, anyone who argues that faith and religious traditions should direct our actions, such a person must stand for universal health care in America. It happens we are all also citizens of Connecticut. That fact leads us to ask you Senator Lieberman, what is it that you stand for?”
Such political specificity must always be theologically suspect. God works in mysterious ways and does not always take the route suggested by Democratic politicians. To put it in other terms: God’s way is not always and unvaryingly Dodd’s way. U. S. Sen. Chris Dodd favors a national health insurance plan; Lieberman does not, which is not to say that Lieberman favors sacrificing the children of union leaders to Moloch.
Other plans beside those offered by progressives may provide health care to those presently who have no health insurance. And it seems to be Lieberman’s fugitive hope that the thing may be done without bankrupting the nation or Connecticut, which use to be known as the insurance capital of the world and still employs quite a few people in the business.
ex-President George Bush’s successful war in Iraq …
And you wrote that with a straight face?
As for your main point, we’ve seen plenty of advocacy on behalf of Republicans from various churches. If anything it’s most unusual to see anything like that on the left. Perhaps most disconcerting of all to Senator Lieberman were the number of local rabbis who took part.
ex-President George Bush’s successful war in Iraq …
And you wrote that with a straight face?
Sure. He succeeded in most of his aims, after bumbling it in the beginning. Looks like there’s a bit of a problem in Afghanistan though. And Lieberman is not disconcerted by much these days. Nice that liberals finally have discovered the freedom of religious expression phrase in the First Amendment. Even progressives can progress.
Ok, you’ve officially just blown my mind. How anyone can call Iraq a shining success story is beyond my comprehension. Add the possible $3 trillion price tag with the countless thousands of dead and maimed, and it’s clear that Iraq will go down in history as America’s worst foreign policy blunder.
> it’s clear that Iraq will go down in history as America’s worst foreign policy blunder.
Iraq will go down in history as a contributor to the economic collapse of America. Worst foreign policy blunder? We’ve made a ton of them. Iraq isn’t even close to the worst. An example of something worse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Keelhaul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference
Bill,
It depends on who is writing the history and what happens in the near future. My guess is that Iran will have nukes within the year and use them thereafter to push both Obama and Israel into the sea. But you never know Future historians will have to fit all this into their calculus. And you never know: After American imperialism goes kaput, the Bushes may end up looking like Cicero before the fall of Rome. By that time, you and I will both be ashes and unable to appreciate the narrative. In any case, Ford was sort of right when he said, “history is bunk.” So are all attempts to imagine what the future holds.
JP, few is any would suggest that the US should not have declared war in 1941. The same can not be said for Iraq. We took our eye off of Afghanistan when a concrete strategy with objective goals may have done something.
Don,
I’ll agree with your characterization “American Imperialism” as that is what I think Iraq was and is. However, history will not be kind to the Bush presidency, of that I’m certain.
Hey, the war in Iraq WAS a complete success! It enriched the stockholders of Halliburton beyond their wildest dreams. Dick Cheney is probably the happiest man in America right now.
You can tell from his lovely smile.
Bill,
Which imperialism sets you off more: Obama’s domestic imperialism, or his foreign policy imperialism?
Hey Bob. Nice pics. The detente of two evenings ago didn’t last long, did it? Cheney who?
Don….I beg to differ with you.While I always enjoy your hyperbolic posts, a fair reading of the House and Senate bills easilly determines that the public option is not even close to european national health insurance and cannot..as you say… be a euphomisim for national health care, of the socialist kind.
With regard to the much used word “imperialism” it seems to me that both parties traditionally have recognized that the USA is the strongest country in the world’s history( though china is catching up) and thereby acts on its own imperatives.Any other country would do much the same.Its called “empire retention”.
Thanks, Don.
Heh heh…well, nobody expected that we’d just stop taunting each other online, did we? It’s what bloggers DO!
Don…in addition we already have about 50-60% of the healthcare system as a public system….Medicare,Medicaid and the VA for instance and our conservative critics always say that our healthcare system is the “best in the world”.If that is truely the case, then over all, the public systems are doing well for our citizens.
Don,
Obama has been restrained in the foreign policy realm compared to his predecessor. However, on the domestic front he seems to be continuing the status quo which got us into this mess and only adding to future obligations.
Bruce,
Never mind all that. You’re in serious trouble brother. At the gathering for CB the other night, you were missing in action. My wife and I talked to Bob most of the time in an effort to convert him on the matter of single payer health care. We were partially successful. But he seemed concerned at your absence and asked where you were. I said I didn’t know, and he said something along the lines of: Well, just wait until he mentions health care in one of his communiqués; I’ll health care him — or something of that sort. Don’t quote me here. It was crowded and noisy and the air was full of beer and shouts of Hurrah!!! when Dick Cheney appeared momentarily on one of the screens over the bar. So I guess I’ll let him answer you.
LOL!
I dont know if my prior post made it…Don…I am running for the Chairmanship of the Hartford Dem Party and had to be at a party town committee meeting otherwise I would have attended and hoisted a few drinks with you and Bob….Nevertheless you and Bob can count on a free drink by me at any CLP even where we all show up…and I am hoping to be at the next one….Someone like me has to speak for single payor…lol
Just bumped into Ned Lamont on the Harvard side of the Yale-Harvard game.
Yale’s up 10-0 in the fourth quarter against a Harvard squad that was 11 point favorites.
Here’s hoping…
Man, that was the very definition of a blown game. 4th and 22 from deep in Yale territory with a lead, and they go for it. Bad move by Yale.
1st Yale game I watched in ten years. I guess I’ll try to catch the 2019 version of “The Game”.
>>I am running for the Chairmanship of the Hartford Dem Party
God help you.
Bruce,
I hope you are successful and join ACR in wishing the blessings of God on you. Hartford could use a little help from both you and God.
sarmerica, heath really bothers you, doesn’t he?
JP, few is any would suggest that the US should not have declared war in 1941. The same can not be said for Iraq. We took our eye off of Afghanistan when a concrete strategy with objective goals may have done something.
If we hadn’t done Iraq, we would not have deployed those troops into Afghanistan. I’m unsure if more troops in Afghanistan would have been a great idea, or even if it is a good idea now. I mean, what’s the objective? Before 9/11, Afghanistan’s government was allowing Al Qaeda to train there. Now they aren’t. But that can be accomplished with a handful of troops.
Not at all. I don't often agree with Heath, but I respect him.
Bill Buckley “few is any would suggest that the US should not have declared war in 1941.”
Better check those links again. Operation Keelhaul occurred after WW2 had ended. The British and Americans rounded up millions of anti-communists who had fled Eastern Europe and the USSR and turned them over to the Russians. These were refugees that had made it to free lands. We found them and forcibly turned them over to Stalin where they were raped, tortured, turned into slave labor, and executed by firing squad. American troops sometimes turned over refugees to the Russians after having driven past rows of bodies hanging from the trees.
This was all agreed to at the Yalta Conference and the one that followed it where FDR and Churchill gave Stalin Eastern Europe and subjected millions of people to a half century of oppression. It wasn’t a foreign policy blunder. It was a crime against humanity.
JP, you’re not arguing similar events.
They’re not both foreign policy mistakes?
You must log in to post a comment.