Heard this on “All Things Considered” a couple of evenings ago, and had to smile. Even though I don’t normally do a “Quote of the Week,” I’ll make an exception in this case:
Senator DICK DURBIN (Democrat, Illinois): I have in my hand a smoking tweet.[…]
(Soundbite of laughter)
Sen. DURBIN: […] From Senator Jim DeMint – tweeted the following: if Reid won’t slow down this debate, we will do it for him. End of tweet.
Anyway, as you see, our junior senator (he of the “Waterloo” remark) continues to approach serious public policy from the destructive perspective of “What can we do to make those guys on the other side LOSE, no matter what?”
By the way, here you will find the tweet in question. You’ll note that Jim also wrote, “ I’m glad Sen. Durbin reads Twitter but he should be reading the bill,” and, showing that he has a sense of humor, which is laudable, he added, to CNN’s Rick Sanchez: “And by the way, smoking tweets has been banned in the Capitol.”
If someone is proposing to do something stupid, it’s not destructive to try and stop him.
What he should have tweeted was “Reid lies”. He’s been lying for months about the healthcare bill and has ratcheted up the lies lately.
The truth is that you won’t see any change for YEARS. The truth is that Congress could pass a much smaller bill that contained all the items that 75% of the Senate would vote for but the Democrats can’t do that. They are beholden to too many lobbying groups and silly window dressing like funding for abortion (really, how many government funded abortions are we talking about — it’s a CHOICE, right? – like cosmetic surgery)
Both Lieberman and Graham are opposed to the bill as well. “Where’s The Camera?” Joe is loving his time in the spotlight.
DeMint is the the easier target for you because it would rock your world if you had to come to grips with the fact that Graham and Lieberman are just typical politicians driven by greed.
That was a SWEEEEEET TWEET!
Actually, Doug, you’ve got it exactly backwards. I’ve been thinking about Joe Lieberman all week, and working on something it my head. But what I’m thinking about is sort of column-length, if not more, and I haven’t had the time to sit down and write it (we’re talking a two or three hour job, the way it’s shaping in my head). It’s actually the first time I’ve felt the urge to write a COLUMN in a while. I might actually submit it a couple of places before I post it here…
Whereas I don’t really have anything to say about DeMint. I mean, I don’t expect anything from him, so he can’t disappoint me. I just thought the “smoking tweet” line was funny. Didn’t you?
Of course, what I have to say about Joe isn’t “typical politicians driven by greed,” because I’ve spent a career following politicians professionally, so I know them, and such a thought would not form in my mind…
I’ve been thinking about Lieberman too. My thoughts have shifted from “What’s his point?” to “What’s his problem?”
Salon.com has some similar thoughts today, Burl! My favorite was that he seems to be coming up with ornery demands (that contradict previous positions) just because he can….
Brad, man–he’s killing your much-needed health coverage reform…and it looks like it’s just because he can…
Yeah, I’m thinking I’m gonna have to have a talk with Joe.
Only instead of calling him on the phone, I was thinking more of an open-letter kind of deal. That’s all I’m going to say until I get some time (maybe this weekend) to write it. When I’ve got something column-length in my head, I really can’t explain it in less than that length…
If the Holy Trinity of your favorite Senators (Graham, Lieberman, and McCain) are against the bill, doesn’t that make you stop for just a second and wonder if they’re right? or are they just partisan?
This “debate” on healthcare has exposed Congress more than any bill in the past. Every Senator has his/her own set of lobbyists to satisfy. And we end up with a multi-thousand page bill that doesn’t actually do anything for years. But the Democrats have to pass SOMETHING just so they can claim victory.
If it takes years to implement, what’s the hurry?
If you wouldn’t compromise on your own healthcare decisions, why should Congress?
If the Holy Trinity of your favorite Senators (Graham, Lieberman, and McCain) are against the bill, doesn’t that make you stop for just a second and wonder if they’re right? or are they just partisan?
In Brad’s defense, you can think someone is wrong on an issue and still respect his or her integrity or whatever it is Brad sees in those guys. It’s how I feel about Kucinich of OH for example. I’m sure Brad has thought hard about the issue. Especially since the health care seems to have a personal touch in his situation. So I wouldn’t question that.
That said, I’ll agree with you that it seems no bill goes through congress without special interest fingerprints all over it. But that’s just the sad reality of America.
I’ve spent a career following politicians professionally, so I know them, and such a thought would not form in my mind…
-Brad
That’s very condescending Brad. Lieberman is a politicians politician. He’s all about hogging the limelight. He was for health care reform before he was against. Really how can anyone look at that smug fool and suggest he is anything but a selfish media hound. Disgusting.
This may help with Joe:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121802145.html
David,
I agree – you CAN think someone is wrong on an issue and still respect his integrity.
But let’s consider this – Brad endorsed both McCain AND Lieberman to be President of the United States. Had either of them won (especially McCain last year), the current healthcare bill as it exists would never have seen the light of day. I struggle with understanding how Brad can claim that health insurance is one of the most important domestic issues and yet was willing to put that aside to endorse McCain. That’s baffling to me.
And the other point is that if Brad does think his favorite three senators ARE wrong, then he needs to refute the specific arguments that they make against the bill on a factual basis.
To me, there are three choices:
1) Debate the merits of the bill
2) Admit that at least two of the three senators are just about as partisan as all the rest of the politicians Brad claims to despise
3) Admit that the three senators are not above being influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets.