Lieberman, again and again
I am not being original here in echoing out Joseph Lieberman’s perdifidy. (And if you want to know why I insist on using a mis-spelling and comical exaggeration of the word, look at the google search.) I mean to say not perfidy to the cause of Liberal or Progressive or Democratic Policy, but to consistency of principles of policy.
The sentence that irks a bit is this one said on the Sunday Morning talk-haze.:
“We’ve got to stop adding to the bill. We’ve got to start subtracting some controversial things.”
Followed by the call for bi-partisanship — and this next sentence is kind of non-sensical —  I think the only way to get this done before Christmas is to bring in some Republicans who are open-minded on this, like Olympia Snowe. — in large part because Olympia Snowe is the only name that one can possibly come up with here.
The problem is the subtracted the “Public Option” (which, at the point it came to the Senate, was not worth defending anyways), and then added the “Medicare Buy-in”, with the reasonable guess that it could pass Joseph Lieberman’s muster. What might lead a person to reasonably conclude it could? Because of previous proposals from Joseph Lieberman.
The video presents the puzzling case of media malfeasance, as shown in this round out of a tv appearance yesterday.
And, answering the most widespread criticism of late–that he switched stances on the Medicare buy-in provision, which he supported during the 2000 presidential campaign.
That… can not be the “most widespread criticism”. Can it? I am more concnerned from his switched psoition from 3 months ago — which, incidentally, he has since addressed in part by parsing the differences of the moment and the political feasibles of what can be stopped — and in part by pointing out that Anthony Weiner and other liberals liked the new policy.
The principles of the man blow me away.