Lieberman is a moron of the most banal kind, driven by his ego, and his need for both approval and revenge--not by any principal. And trying to shame him only enrages him, I think.
Having said that, the real idiots are the Dems who cave to him. Who should all be removed from office, along with Lieberman.
From Wikipedia: Lieberman "received a Bachelor of Arts in political science and economics from Yale University in 1964 and was the first member of his family to graduate from college...He then attended Yale Law School, receiving his law degree in 1967." So unless something drastic happened to his brain in the next forty years or so, the guy's pretty fucking smart.
@Mo MoDo: Yes, but Dubya's dad was a really powerful politician at that point, plus his family had connections to the institution. Lieberman was the first person in his family to even attend college, let alone graduate school. Doesn't make him a good person though!
@tehcutie: FYI, tehcutie, law school doesn't really test one's intelligence--it tests their endurance. Equating this shit stain of a man's intelligence with his graduating law school is like saying someone is a great chef merely because they studied culinary arts: there are elements involved in achieving a level of proficiency that takes intelligence way beyond merely completing a set curriculum. If in your estimation Dingfuck is "pretty smart", well, let's just say I think it says more about you than it does about him.
@TheSometimesWhy: Like bluebears said, it's the act of getting in that's difficult. It's YLS, for fuck's sake. To make your comparison valid, it would be like saying a chef who was working under, I don't know, Thomas Keller, doesn't know how to cook. Keller wouldn't have taken the cook if she didn't have the skillz.
Although, Lieb wouldn't of had women to compete with in getting in back in the early sixties, so it's not a perfect measure of the intellect. But you got to measure it somehow!
@tehcutie: You don't have to have graduated from law school to understand my point, tehcutie, though, sadly, I did. But rather than take my experience as dispositive of the issue, ask yourself how many times you have read reports in the media of lawyers doing things that were absolutely devoid of anything even remotely approaching intelligence, without even going near the topic of ethical/moral lapses?
Your Keller example assumes the world is a meritocracy. All I will say in regard to that observation is George W. Bush.
I think if you can give Lieberman the benefit of any doubt, it's that he was able to marshal some test scores and LSAT scores to the extent that it got him admitted to law school. If that makes him intelligent in your world, vio con dios.
Just curious: Are you transfixed by bright, shiny objects that move real fast?
@TheSometimesWhy: Did you read my first post? Lieb came from an unconnected background, so merit would be how he got accepted. Regardless, the man's intelligence has been "vetted" by Yale twice and by the public every time he's been re-elected.
The fact that most lawyers are not doing anything "intellectually-stimulating" has no bearing on my argument.
PS: You don't seem to be engaging in my conversation, but speaking over me? (Particularly with the Dubya comment, a man who is the essence of nepotism; I was initially impressed by Lieb being able to achieve these trappings of success, despite the fact that his parents weren't educated/connected.) Is that how you get stars around here? Sheesh.
@tehcutie: With all due respect, I felt I addressed your thoughts directly. That you don't see that is regrettable, but I wasn't intentionally "speaking over you."
I think the distinction I am making has to do with your definition of intelligence versus my perception that people can be well-versed in very narrow and specific skill sets that give them access to institutions and educations that others ascribe intelligence to. I tried to get you to see that. I failed. Mea culpa.
I am not saying that Lieberman wasn't skilled by getting into law school. Having achieved membership in that most elite group, the Senate, the man is clearly skilled. And though he may in fact be intelligent, I wouldn't cite going to law school, being a lawyer, etc., as proof of your thesis, that's all.
Referring back to your initial post, perhaps you equate intelligence with grit and determination, both of which Lieberman holds in spades. Too bad such admirable traits are being wielded in the interest of feeding a bottomless need for attention
As for getting stars around here, I haven't the faintest notion of how that happens. Does it have any value in the real world? If so, please advise me how that works.
I love how this article is paired with an ad whose tag line is "For the elitist on your list."
So, basically, the jackasses who don't want us to have health insurance are also going to be getting the good whiskey for the holidays. To arms! To arms!
Woody Allen says he wears glasses so everybody thinks he's an intellectual and his movies don't make money so they think he's an artist, but he didn't say anything about being Jewish. Maybe he isn't aware of it.
Just don't see why he's stupid when the bill is terrible...like really shitty and not helpful to America and people continue to call the bill "reform." Joe is reflecting public opinion which is surprisingly right in this regard.
@Cord: The bill is shitty because they have had to strip out every piece of meaningful reform due to the stupidity of this asshat and the republiturds. Once it gets rammed through the real reforms can be added in at a later date.
@MissNormaDesmond: Ugh, I read that a couple of nights ago and got really depressed. Is this the best we can do on cost control, the petri dish approach? I get how a farmer sowing and harvesting a field at high cost will be cool with lowering his price as long as he can lower his production costs because he's the primary employee. But hospitals employ tons of admin staff processing the highly inefficient fee-for-service model. Hope the guy's right; I just think it should be noted that the healthcare system seems to have many more moving parts than agriculture.
@BearDownCBears: It's a complex problem; it's not reasonable to expect it to have a simple solution, or for it not to take some effort and some false starts. What definitely won't help (and I know you're not proposing this, but others are) is simple-mindedness in the face of legitimate complexity.
I don't think what's relevant about the analogy to earlier governmental efforts to promote better approaches to farming lies in whether farming itself is significantly like health care. It's that government stepped in to provide both carrots and sticks that ultimately spurred vast improvements to the efficiency of the system. The profit motive alone won't do this, despite the knee-jerk protestation of conservatives everywhere. The current system is insanely profitable, and totally inefficient.
@Cord: Try again. He's not reflecting public opinion, which favors a public option -- he's reflecting the interests of his wife's bosses and his campaign contributors.
@MissNormaDesmond: It's also important to note that the farmers and bureaucrats who implemented the slow agricultural reforms weren't doing so under the shadow of crushing new liabilities freshly greenlighted by congress. That's what freaks me out. Agricultural reform wasn't promised on credit.
I mentioned this in another post on old saggy puss here, but it bears repeating. He's exhibiting classic toddler behavior. If he goes without attention for more than a couple of days, he throws a tantrum until the reassuring glare of the TV cameras is thrown back his way.
I think Jon Chait's nailed it. Ok -- so Lieberman gets donations from the insurance industry because he lives in the insurance capital of America. So does Chris Dodd, and he's voting for the bill.
If Lieberman just wanted to ensure that he'd get donations from the insurance industry, he wouldn't have supported the sections of the bill he's now opposing just a few months prior. He also would have offered a more plausible reason to oppose the compromise than what he's been offering (which makes no sense).
In short, there's no sign that he's opposing the bill because of anything but general vindictiveness and stupidity.
@eatsshootsleaves: But the medicare issue is legitimate issue though. I don't see why people are disregarding the fact that it's bad policy. If only a real reform bill had been proposed in either house.
WTF? I am kind of hating Gawker commenting right now. Okay, now that my comment is where it was supposed to be to start with --
@Lincolnsbeard33: Again, why is it bad policy? And enough with "It's long, that means it's bad." That's a truly inane criticism.
@Cord: actually, the medicare proposal is the only part of this bill with real potential to change our horrid health insurance system. A really progressive policy would open up medicare to everyone, regardless of age, but even this limited expansion will help more people than the lame-ass "trigger" public plan we are likely to be stuck with when Lieberman's tantrum successfully guts what is left of this bill.
I was going to say that he's stupid but he's shrewd inasmuch as he seems to know exactly how far he can push his Republicanism in the face of Democratic leadership without, finally, losing his committee leadership. But on reflection, I realize that there is no limit to that. Democrats have so bought into the myth of bi-partisanship (that there actually is another party willing to work with Democrats on governing) that someone who is clearly a Republican in every possible way can continue to fuck them over and face no sanction whatsoever.
“Senator Lieberman has received $448,066 in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry during his time in Washington,” said David Donnelly, Public Campaign Action Fund’s national campaigns director.
Trust me, no matter what hoops the DEMS jump through this asshole is going to vote against it, cause his wife tells him to every night before they go to bed.
@MisterMustard: Aye, sir. And he's proved it now with his flip-flop. They can give him exactly what he's asking for, and he'll turn around and say he's still against the bill because of some other thing he supported a week ago but now suddenly doesn't because "the situation has changed" or whatever nonsense he came up with about his medicare buy-in reversal today.
I really hope the voters of Connecticut understand that it is their fault that the country is going to end up not passing *any* sort of health care bill, and that it is also their fault if one passes without any teeth or point to it. They had a perfectly good alternative to Lieberman in Ned Lamont, and they voted for this dumb jerk instead.
@badasscat: And all the people in Greenwich will be sending him a check, cause the yachts they bought last season came to them as a result of my mother being rejected for her breast cancer surgery due to a pre-existing condition.
The really sad thing is that the media are so obsessed with the horse race in the Senate vote--who's winning, who's losing--that they never grill toadies like Lieberman about the financial interests that make them dance to the music of the insurance companies. Lieberman should be mercilessly questioned.
Nice that TNR is calling him stupid, but he's not stupid. He's unscrupulous. He knows exactly what he's doing. He has no compunction about contradicting himself or seeming hypocritical. If he can screw the Democrats and gift the insurance companies billions in profits, he sees it as a win-win. As long as Democrats allow themselves to be led around by the nose, he will continue to do so. The goal posts will sit squarely in the laps of the insurance companies before he's satisfied.
@MissNormaDesmond: Can a stupid person so effectively manipulate a situation to his benefit? He is perhaps not a thoughtful person, but that doesn't mean he's an idiot.
@MissNormaDesmond: You're right that self-interest and greed don't require much in the noggin, but he's astute (or cunning) enough to have led a number of Democrats to believe that he was going to play along, waited until it seemed like a compromise had been worked out, then made his stance known at a moment that would guarantee maximum leverage for him. The fact that he's pulled this stunt effectively before seems to indicate a modicum of shrewdness.
Though, come to think of it, perhaps this mess doesn't prove Joe's cleverness so much as it proves the Democrats' lack of it.
12/15/09
Having said that, the real idiots are the Dems who cave to him. Who should all be removed from office, along with Lieberman.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
#tips
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Although, Lieb wouldn't of had women to compete with in getting in back in the early sixties, so it's not a perfect measure of the intellect. But you got to measure it somehow!
12/15/09
Your Keller example assumes the world is a meritocracy. All I will say in regard to that observation is George W. Bush.
I think if you can give Lieberman the benefit of any doubt, it's that he was able to marshal some test scores and LSAT scores to the extent that it got him admitted to law school. If that makes him intelligent in your world, vio con dios.
Just curious: Are you transfixed by bright, shiny objects that move real fast?
12/15/09
The fact that most lawyers are not doing anything "intellectually-stimulating" has no bearing on my argument.
PS: You don't seem to be engaging in my conversation, but speaking over me? (Particularly with the Dubya comment, a man who is the essence of nepotism; I was initially impressed by Lieb being able to achieve these trappings of success, despite the fact that his parents weren't educated/connected.) Is that how you get stars around here? Sheesh.
12/15/09
I think the distinction I am making has to do with your definition of intelligence versus my perception that people can be well-versed in very narrow and specific skill sets that give them access to institutions and educations that others ascribe intelligence to. I tried to get you to see that. I failed. Mea culpa.
I am not saying that Lieberman wasn't skilled by getting into law school. Having achieved membership in that most elite group, the Senate, the man is clearly skilled. And though he may in fact be intelligent, I wouldn't cite going to law school, being a lawyer, etc., as proof of your thesis, that's all.
Referring back to your initial post, perhaps you equate intelligence with grit and determination, both of which Lieberman holds in spades. Too bad such admirable traits are being wielded in the interest of feeding a bottomless need for attention
As for getting stars around here, I haven't the faintest notion of how that happens. Does it have any value in the real world? If so, please advise me how that works.
12/14/09
So, basically, the jackasses who don't want us to have health insurance are also going to be getting the good whiskey for the holidays. To arms! To arms!
12/15/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
No more of this "We are doing this for history" bullshit.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
You found it to be a pick-me-up, though, huh?
12/14/09
I don't think what's relevant about the analogy to earlier governmental efforts to promote better approaches to farming lies in whether farming itself is significantly like health care. It's that government stepped in to provide both carrots and sticks that ultimately spurred vast improvements to the efficiency of the system. The profit motive alone won't do this, despite the knee-jerk protestation of conservatives everywhere. The current system is insanely profitable, and totally inefficient.
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Piss it all.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/14/09
Harry Reid needs to give Joe a time out.
12/14/09
12/14/09
If Lieberman just wanted to ensure that he'd get donations from the insurance industry, he wouldn't have supported the sections of the bill he's now opposing just a few months prior. He also would have offered a more plausible reason to oppose the compromise than what he's been offering (which makes no sense).
In short, there's no sign that he's opposing the bill because of anything but general vindictiveness and stupidity.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
@Lincolnsbeard33: Again, why is it bad policy? And enough with "It's long, that means it's bad." That's a truly inane criticism.
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/14/09
Obviously not stupid.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
I really hope the voters of Connecticut understand that it is their fault that the country is going to end up not passing *any* sort of health care bill, and that it is also their fault if one passes without any teeth or point to it. They had a perfectly good alternative to Lieberman in Ned Lamont, and they voted for this dumb jerk instead.
(edited to add the word "dumb")
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
Though, come to think of it, perhaps this mess doesn't prove Joe's cleverness so much as it proves the Democrats' lack of it.
12/14/09
12/14/09