Joe Lieberman: The Jew who killed health-care reform?

[Cynic]

Not really. If you are going to have party politics (and in the absense of every voter haveing perfect information on all the candidates you are) you might as well do them properly.

Imagine how perfectly inane other things in life, such as this forum, would be if we had to choose between only two sides to any given issue. While there may be a lot of room for compromise within each party, at the very heart of a two-party system is a built-in enforcement of false dichotemy. I wish I could think of any other way to go about it. Don't mistake me -- I see why things are why they are. I just don't like it.

 

[SezMe]

Damn the man Jew for not voting lock-in-step with the party that kicked him the Jew out! Damn him the Jew!

Let's not rewrite history; the Dems did NOT kick Joe out. He was defeated in a primary race and left the party of his own volition to run as a candidate of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party.

 

[theprestige]

If he wants to kill a vital health reform bill, conservative.

Of course. It's impossible that anybody could sincerely disagree with you about the vital nature of this bill in its current form. It must be the case that while they believe, as you do, that it is indeed a vital bill, they want to kill it anyway. Because they are stupid, or evil, or both.

I mean, seriously, that's what the whole controversy is about, right? Whether or not it's a vital reform? You can't just skip ahead of that whole debate as if you've already won it, just so you can move on to the intellectually easy and emotionally satisfying part of hating the people you'd like to see lose the debate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Damn the man Jew for not voting lock-in-step with the party that kicked him the Jew out! Damn him the Jew!

While I found Parky's use of "The Jew" a little baffling (we were supposed to realize he was saying what others would call him), I don't think it's at all accurate to say Lieberman was kicked out of the party. He lost a Democratic primary and then decided to run against the party as an Independent.

After he won that election by defeating the Democratic candidate*, he made a deal with the party to keep his seniority and the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

If he openly opposes the Democratic healthcare reform efforts, I would say he was welshing on the deal.

*ETA: I just read this on the Wiki article about Lieberman: "On November 7, Lieberman won re-election with 50% of the vote. Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[43] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.[44]"

 

[Morrigan]

Why does everything have to come down to Judaism with you park?

I once got modded for saying the same thing.

 

[Brainster]

C'mon everybody! Parky is trying to prevent Joe Lieberman from becoming the Jew who killed health-care reform, according to all those awful anti-Semitic liberals. Heck, he's probably trying to protect the liberals from being called anti-Semitic by calling Joe a Jew. It's effectively immunizing or inoculating him. From now on nobody can notice that long nose on Jew, er Joe, Lieberman.

 

[Eyeron]

New name. Jew Lieberjew.

 

[geni]

Imagine how perfectly inane other things in life, such as this forum, would be if we had to choose between only two sides to any given issue.

Your inability to do party politics in an interesting manner is not my problem.

While there may be a lot of room for compromise within each party, at the very heart of a two-party system is a built-in enforcement of false dichotemy.

I think it has more to do with the position of president which provides a very stong insentive to limit the number of parties.

I wish I could think of any other way to go about it. Don't mistake me -- I see why things are why they are. I just don't like it.

Reduce the office of president to mearly symbolic then depending on how you feel about strong goverments introduce some form of proportional representation or single transferable vote.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Imagine how perfectly inane other things in life, such as this forum, would be if we had to choose between only two sides to any given issue. While there may be a lot of room for compromise within each party, at the very heart of a two-party system is a built-in enforcement of false dichotemy [sic]. I wish I could think of any other way to go about it. Don't mistake me -- I see why things are why they are. I just don't like it.

I agree with you that the two party system isn't the best thing for the U.S., and that thinking all partisans must vote in lock step with their party is wrong.

However, in the case of Lieberman, you have a guy who left his party, won his current seat by running AGAINST that party, then made a deal to keep the benefits of having been in that party for years (his seniority and his committee chair) in exchange for acting like he was still a member of the party, or at least not going against the party.

Now there are plenty of Democrats who argue against one point or another of the bill--mostly the southern Blue Dogs--but that's not the same as helping Republicans kill the bill.

Oh yeah, didn't Lieberman also participate in the Republican Convention?

I think he's trying to be a Republican but still enjoy the benefits of his years as a Democrat. I thought it was a bad idea for the Democratic Party to cut a deal with him this way. (I'm sure their motive was to get the supermajority, which is meaningless if you get that supermajority by courting people who are ideologically opposed to your party's platform.)

 

[Cynic]

Your inability to do party politics in an interesting manner is not my problem.

I have confered with my party and have been informed that unless I hold you personally responsible for my inablity to to party politics in an interesting manner, I won't have enough support to carry the election. Sorry -- it's your fault, Geni. What's more, it's now your problem because in order to retain the support of my party and prove that I'm onboard with their collective viewpoints, I'm now going to bombard all the postboxes and telephone answering machines in the greater London area with brochures and messages decrying your blame in this matter, even though I personally don't disagree with you that much. My hands are tied. Isn't that interesting?

I think it has more to do with the position of president which provides a very stong insentive to limit the number of parties.



Reduce the office of president to mearly symbolic then depending on how you feel about strong goverments introduce some form of proportional representation or single transferable vote.

Symbols are useless -- might as well suggest we get a queen or something. If you've ever tried to accomplish anything by commitee, then I think you can understand how ineffective not having an actual leader can be. I'm not convinced that what we have currently isn't just that and the the position of president isn't already symbolic, but then again, there does seem to be a lot of competition for it. Checks and balances are kind of nice once in a while. If the president has a good head about him and a clear conscience, his vetos can prevent years of court rangling to undo the actions of an overzealous congress. At the same time, if a president gets a little too uppity, they can do the same to him. Its a nice arrangement, IMO, even if it results in many stalemates. I'm not honestly familiar with a more parlimentary system enough to properly compare them, however.

 

[Merko]

I find the allusion to Lieberman's Jewishness in the title distasteful.

I think he has every right to vote any way he wants on any issue, but of course it will affect his chances of reelection as well as his political influence.

In the end, I find it extremely unlikely that he would actually filibuster the final vote as he's now threatening. It does not make any sense at all to kill the entire measure when he's only claiming to have issues with a program that might involve 5% of insurance takers, and these 5% have chosen to be part in that of their own volition. I think that Lieberman is a shrewd negotiator, that's all. In the end he will settle even for a minor concession as long as he gets some prime time and comes away giving the impression that he's pulls a lot of weight in the senate.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Parky....wrong forum for conspiracy theories...

 

[Thunder]

Parky....wrong forum for conspiracy theories...

no conspiracy theory suggested or intended.

Lieberman is a Jew. He may decide to give the Republicans a filibuster so they can kill health-care reform in the Senate.

I fear that if this happens, he will forever be known as the Jew who killed health-care reform.

I certainly wouldn't welcome him in MY synagogue.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Let's not rewrite history; the Dems did NOT kick Joe out. He was defeated in a primary race and left the party of his own volition to run as a candidate of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party.

Yup, a party that forces a primary between a long standing incumbent and a new guy isn't trying to kick him out. The party primary vote him out in the primary. Nope, not-uh.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Lieberman is a Jew. He may decide to give the Republicans a filibuster so they can kill health-care reform in the Senate.

I fear that if this happens, he will forever be known as the Jew who killed health-care reform.

2/3 of the people posting in here are concerned where he leans on this issue (even if only remotely)... I hope he votes off that stinkin' heap of a bill... But only you care what his vote makes him ethnically. He's a politician, and he'll vote for what he believes in, whether I disagree with his decisions or not.

I certainly wouldn't welcome him in MY synagogue.

Fortunately I'd welcome him whether he voted for it or not. IMO politics and his personal life outside of politics are two completely different things.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find the allusion to Lieberman's Jewishness in the title distasteful.

Just a quibble: an allusion is an indirect reference to something. Calling him a "Jew" is not an allusion to his Jewishness--it's directly referring to it.

However, I agree with your sentiment.

From what I know of Parky, though, I don't think it was meant as a slur. I think it was, as he said, meant to be what he thinks other people would say. As such, he should have put in it quotation marks to make it clear in the title that this isn't something he would say himself.

 

[Thunder]

Fortunately I'd welcome him whether he voted for it or not. IMO politics and his personal life outside of politics are two completely different things.

there must be consequences for people's behavior. if not legal ones..then social ones.

if Barry Madoff suddenly got paroled and came to my Synagogue, I'd spit in his face. I honestly do not think he would be welcome in most Jewish houses of worship in the USA. He has done more damage to our PR then any man in a generation.

 

[Thunder]

From what I know of Parky, though, I don't think it was meant as a slur. I think it was, as he said, meant to be what he thinks other people would say. As such, he should have put in it quotation marks to make it clear in the title that this isn't something he would say himself.

um....there is a name for people who consider the word "Jew" to be a slur. when people ask me my nationality or ethnicity, I tell them all of my ancestors were Jews from Eastern Europe. I don't consider this a slur at all.

 

[geni]

Symbols are useless -- might as well suggest we get a queen or something.

It seems to work for germany but europe has no shortage of spare royalty in case you feel you need some.

If you've ever tried to accomplish anything by commitee, then I think you can understand how ineffective not having an actual leader can be.

You still have an actual leader you just knock it down to majority leader in congress.

I'm not convinced that what we have currently isn't just that and the the position of president isn't already symbolic, but then again, there does seem to be a lot of competition for it.

He controls the executive branch.

Checks and balances are kind of nice once in a while. If the president has a good head about him and a clear conscience, his vetos can prevent years of court rangling to undo the actions of an overzealous congress.

The senate can effectively stop congress from doing things.

At the same time, if a president gets a little too uppity, they can do the same to him. Its a nice arrangement, IMO, even if it results in many stalemates. I'm not honestly familiar with a more parlimentary system enough to properly compare them, however.

There are various parlimentary systems however a general feauture is that the most powerful person is the head of the largest/coalition rather than dirrectly elected. This allows for long term stable third parties to exist since there is no winner takes all vote that everyone takes part in.

 

[fuelair]

Damn the man Jew for not voting lock-in-step with the party that kicked him the Jew out! Damn him the Jew!

Sarcasm aside, is being a moderate really that much of a sin?

Unlike Parky, I am unconcerned about his religion for any purpose. He is a traitor to the ideals of democratic government. Almost makes me glad that we lost previously - except Bush and his butt boys are far worse traiters to the country, not just the ideals of one party.