Joe Lieberman "Betrayal"
A lot of people think Joe is betraying his party.
They are wrong.
Some people have likened it to McCain refusing to run with Kerry, or run against Bush as an independent. This comparison exposes the flawed thinking. If McCain had done so, he would have been hurting his own party, by helping a Democrat win.
But as Joe runs, he will almost surely win (he'll get most independents, and I figure half the Democrats, and a big chunk of Republicans). And then what happens? He goes back to the Senate as a Democrat, is part of the Democratic caucus, votes with the Democrats, has committee assignments as a Democrat. He won't be in the Senate as an "independent" like Jeffords, he will be an actual Democrat, with a voting record comparably in line with the party to what Lamont's would be, and with a lot more clout to get things done for the state of Connecticut.
Now, you can argue he is going against the will of the Connecticut Democratic party. It's hard to argue against that. But from my longstanding perspective, parties exist not to choose who runs, but to choose who the membership of the party thinks should win, and to help that candidate win. If the Democrats in CT choose to back Lamont, more power to them, but that should not in any case mean that Lieberman shouldn't run.
I am pretty big into party politics, but I do not have any patience for the notion that parties should choose who is on the ballot, or that being on the ballot apart from your party's choice is a betrayal of the party. It may be going against the party's wishes, but unless the action you are taking serves to harm the broad interests of the party (such as, for example, Teddy Roosevelt getting Wilson, instead of Taft, elected by running as a third party candidate), I just don't buy that it is a betrayal in any meaningful sense of the word.
If by some incredible chance the Republican challenger wins the Senate race, then perhaps I will agree Lieberman betrayed his party. But none of us should hold our breaths for that ...
They are wrong.
Some people have likened it to McCain refusing to run with Kerry, or run against Bush as an independent. This comparison exposes the flawed thinking. If McCain had done so, he would have been hurting his own party, by helping a Democrat win.
But as Joe runs, he will almost surely win (he'll get most independents, and I figure half the Democrats, and a big chunk of Republicans). And then what happens? He goes back to the Senate as a Democrat, is part of the Democratic caucus, votes with the Democrats, has committee assignments as a Democrat. He won't be in the Senate as an "independent" like Jeffords, he will be an actual Democrat, with a voting record comparably in line with the party to what Lamont's would be, and with a lot more clout to get things done for the state of Connecticut.
Now, you can argue he is going against the will of the Connecticut Democratic party. It's hard to argue against that. But from my longstanding perspective, parties exist not to choose who runs, but to choose who the membership of the party thinks should win, and to help that candidate win. If the Democrats in CT choose to back Lamont, more power to them, but that should not in any case mean that Lieberman shouldn't run.
I am pretty big into party politics, but I do not have any patience for the notion that parties should choose who is on the ballot, or that being on the ballot apart from your party's choice is a betrayal of the party. It may be going against the party's wishes, but unless the action you are taking serves to harm the broad interests of the party (such as, for example, Teddy Roosevelt getting Wilson, instead of Taft, elected by running as a third party candidate), I just don't buy that it is a betrayal in any meaningful sense of the word.
If by some incredible chance the Republican challenger wins the Senate race, then perhaps I will agree Lieberman betrayed his party. But none of us should hold our breaths for that ...
Now Playing: Extreme - Color Me Blind
2 Comments
Leave a comment
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
As we all now see, with millions hurting through lack of jobs (perhaps due to the global competitive nature of real free-markets and better education systems in other parts of the world) Americas are losing insurance in record numbers, and costs skyrocketing.
Will the author of the piece above, now reconsider Lieberman's betrayal to the 68% of Americans who want a public healthcare option? It is ludicrous to believe that a Government run health care option will destroy America. It's like saying the US Postal Service will bring us to our needs, since they compete with FED-EX and UPS. How come pharmaceuticals cost significantly more in USA than in Canada, than in Europe, when most are made in the USA or companies owned by US corporations? How is it that we rank in the bottom of the Cost of Healthcare to Benefit of Healthcare ratio when compared to all industrialized countries?
Sure, Medicare and Social Security are oftentimes rolled out as poster-children for bad programs that destroy the country. If the Government eliminates contribution limits paid by the rich, and continues the same percentage contribution rate (just like income taxes) it might just be pretty darned solvent. And Meidicare? Same thing. The super rich have benefited from 20-30 years of tax decreases of 50+ % decrease, compared with 10%-15% for the middle class. Perhaps it might be time to revert to the taxation policies of the 50s, 60s when life was wonderful, and we had people that actually pumped gas and made a living.
Anyway, one need look at Mr. Leiberman now, and see his true stripes. In my opinion he is not representing the interests of his state's citizens, but instead the insurance interest in his state. That is not the America we should have. What ever happened to "protect the General Welfare". Perhaps we need to change the preamble to "Protect the Rich?"
Time to give government back to the people, not to the corporations and the special interests.
HurtinginCT2
It is ludicrous to believe that a Government run health care option will destroy America.
Of course it won't destroy America.
It will simply cause significant and perhaps irreperable harm.
The comparison to FedEx is ridiculous for many reasons that many have gone into and I don't have time to do here. And there's many reasons why things cost more here, but price and revenue controls are not the way to fix the problem. Competition, including making consumers of the care more directly responsible for the cost, is the answer. And the public option does not represent true competition at all, as it will require billions and billions in federal subsidies.
As to ratios ... you're comparing apples and oranges, in a sense. For Americans who HAVE comprehensive insurance, or the means to buy care without insurance, our health care quality is among the best in the world.
As we are in significant disagreement on this, I don't think it's worth me reconsidering Lieberman on that basis. Further, as Lieberman's party switch is unrelated to his position on this reform package, even if I agreed with you I wouldn't reconsider. You may think he doesn't represent your citizens, but it seems to me a majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you. It's not like they didn't know "his true stripes" for the past 20 years.
Sure, Lieberman was down in the polls early this year, but that was when Obama was first assuming office. Times change. Now his approval ratings among Reps are higher than his disapproval ratings among Dems, and he has more independents than not. He is 48-45, over last December when he was 38-54. This is not a good trend for you.
As to Social Security, eliminating limits ... no, that just makes the problem worse. The more I contribute, the more I get when I retire. As rich people tend to live longer, the effect is made even worse. Without some sort of means testing, increased contributions don't help. And we can do means testing without increasing the limits.
But sorry, if you think the reason why people could live off a job at the gas station had to do with high taxation rates, you're completely fooling yourself. You cannot find an actual connection. Lower tax rates have not contributed to price inflation or wage deflation. And they have not slowed the rate of growth of government, which has increased since the 50s, and you obviously can't say the government is doing less for the people.
Perhaps we need to change the preamble to "Protect the Rich?"
Only an extreme leftist -- which is in the minority in this country, thankfully -- could believe that taking a much larger percentage of money from rich people than everyone else is "protecting" rich people.
Time to give government back to the people, not to the corporations and the special interests.
To me, giving government back to the people means respecting our rights, which means that this health care reform bill is completely unconstitutional, violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. To me, taking government away from corporations and special interests means that the government does not have the power to significantly AFFECT corporations and special interests, except to limit them from causing harm: if the government didn't have the power to give things to those interests, then those interests wouldn't be involved with the government in the first place.
From where I sit -- and where our Founders mostly sat -- you have it all backwards.