Joe Lieberman. Not a Republican, not a Democrat, an independent, and he is showing that in no uncertain terms, though independent in what way besides the obvious Americans have yet to work out. Despite being in a democratic state, and starting his career with the party, and currently caucusing with the Dems, he has said that he will align with the Republicans in fighting the public option. He will fight it so far as to join a filibuster the republicans toss out to fight it.
A curious thing that. Connecticut is a very blue state and by and large pro public option. All five congressional districts show support for it. The smallest amount of support for it is 52% for/ 38% against in Connecticut’s second district in the eastern part of the state. The largest amount of support is in the Hartford area, the 1st district, where 67% of the populace is for the public option, with only 26% opposition to it.
One wonders then who exactly Sen. Lieberman is representing. I have always thought that there is, or should be at the very least, some type of tie between what the people in a state or district want, and what their representatives in Washington deliver to them. I can understand a principled stand by a senator or representative, but it does look kind of funny for him to do this when he has taken over $100,000 from Purdue Pharma, over $70,000 from Aetna for 2010, and these numbers are somewhat small in comparison to other years, when he was generally given around $220,000 per election cycle between them.
Both companies witha vested interest in this fight, both headquartered in Connecticut. This, from this vantage point doesn’t look like a principled stand
against something he thinks in reprehensible and morally improper, but someone who knows where his bread is buttered. I would like to think that our representatives are untouchable, not capable of being bought, but looking at the amount of money he gets from these people each election cycle, one cannot help but think that maybe there is a connection between these companies, their money and this particular vote.
If these are his principles, I would ask that those who live in the nutmeg state give a long hard think to the type of people they vote for in future. Now no one is perfect, and there is corruption everywhere, but when we see it, and this looks like a vote that has been bought, we should do our level best to root it out.
Independence is a good thing, and Joe is an independent. But what exactly that means is a matter of interpretation. One interpretation is that he is independent not only in matters of political affiliation but of judgement. Any man who would take over $200,000 per election cycle from Aetna, an insurance company who could well lose out if there is a public option, and Purdue Pharma, a leading manufacturer of Oxycontin, who would lose out if drug prices dropped thanks to health care legislation, could not to this writers mind say he was unswayed by the money in making this decision.
That doesn’t sound like independent thought to me. Shouldn’t independents think independently of moneyed interests?
And money from big business in essence making decisions on legislation this monumental is tantamount to heresy. I don’t want business writing my legislation. I know it happens, but this is about as public and overt a vote buy as one could imagine.
But then again, Joe has been a schmuck for years, so it really isn’t a surprise that he’s being one now. It’s the money here that burns my ass.
That is about it from here, except a second viddy. Rep. Bart Stupak talking about abortion funding and health care reform on C-span from Tuesday morning.
Today’s nuggets, from Supreme court Justice Louis Brandeis, via wikiquote: There is in most Americans some spark of idealism, which can be fanned into a flame. It takes sometimes a divining rod to find what it is; but when found, and that means often, when disclosed to the owners, the results are often extraordinary.
It is, as a rule, far more important how men pursue their occupation than what the occupation is which they select.
We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.