The Hill: "Difficult to pinpoint when or why Lieberman has taken a hit"

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 17:31

Joe Lieberman's favorability rating has dropped quite a bit in the month of December, according to CNN polling:

Joe Lieberman, national favorable rating, CNN polls, December 2009
Poll Date Favorable Unfavorable
Dec 16-20 31% 34%
Dec 02-03 40% 28%

That's a 15-point net swing in favorability rating in just two weeks.  The Hill is mystified as to why this might have happened:

It is difficult to pinpoint when or why Lieberman has taken a hit: In the past two weeks, he not only crucial in helping remove the healthcare bill's public option and Medicare buy-in provisions, but also subsequently announced that he would join with Democrats to support the bill after those provisions were removed.

Yes-truly, difficult to pinpoint this one.  After all, successfully gutted the central provision of the bill that an entire wing of the Democratic Party had been fighting for during the past year, and lied about supporting the Medicare buy-in compromise.

Pretty difficult to pinpoint.  People usually love politicians who publically flip their positions on important issues in order to gain personal power.  Also, partisans usually love politicians who support legislation only after the central demand of those partisans has been removed from that legislation.

Hard to figure this one out.  Why could Lieberman possibly have taken such a quick hit in popularity?  Doesn't make any sense at all.

Chris Bowers :: The Hill: "Difficult to pinpoint when or why Lieberman has taken a hit"

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

i'm totally stumped too. i also eat paste. (4.00 / 5)

Golly (4.00 / 4)
This is quite a puzzle. Probably just sampling error.  

Is it a rasmussen poll? (0.00 / 0)
You know how they load up their samples to skew repug....

OH WAIT - LIE-berman isn't a dem anymore and has been thumbing his nose at them!

Well I don't know how this could be then.

Wow. (4.00 / 4)
That is mystifying. By single-handedly torpedoing the single provision in the health care bill that was the most popular across the political spectrum, Lieberman was just being a "centrist." And that's what people want out of Washington.

I could care less… (4.00 / 3)
...about Lieberman's approval ratings unless they prompt the Senate leadership to take another long, hard look at this crappy bill and reinstate the provisions that Lieberman was instrumental in gutting.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

The bigger question is (4.00 / 4)
Why did dem leadership give LIE-berman a "free pass" on endorsing mclame and actually campaigning for him?  Why is he still relevant?  Why does he have a committee chair?

Credible reports are that obama/rahm sold out the public option - if true, joe was just doing what he was suppose to do.  That's not on joe - its on those that have enabled him.

This is really all about failure of dem leadership and obama.

Lieberman is a useful tool for the party. (4.00 / 3)
He can block elements of legislation that members of the party do not want to pass without the party taking the hit.

[ Parent ]
Precisely (0.00 / 0)
This thread should really be how the obama/rahm and the party have sold out progressives and how LIE-berman wears the "bad guy" hat when it is useful.

WTF - why did gore choose this corporate tool as VP?

Was ralph actually right?!?!?!?!?!?!

And to head off future misleading replies at the past - NADER DID NOT STEAL 2000 or 2004 ELECTION.

So don't blame that treason on him - the repugs were definitely involved, but couldn't happen without the dems sitting down either.

[ Parent ]
To be fair to Gore (4.00 / 1)
Lieberman did not act like quite as much of a putz back then. Still an awful choice for VP, of course -- Bob Graham as a running mate would have sealed Florida and the election.

[ Parent ]
On the ropes (4.00 / 2)
When we had Lieberman on the ropes after he lost the Democratic primary, people including Lamont, eased up.  The old saying still holds: If you try to kill the king, you better do it.

Lieberman is not the worst.  Committee chairs like Baucus or Conrad are worse over all and are in a position to strangle or deform legislation.

Not much we could do when he won the election (0.00 / 0)
But dem leadership did not have to stand down after he endorsed mclame and actually campaigned for him.  That is on the party though, not progressive.

In fact, its another reason whey the party doesn't really deserver progressive/liberal support.

Baucus and Conrad did not "strangel and deform" meaningful HCR as LIE-berman did - but let's not kid ourselves either - obama/rahm had their backs and pressured others to capitulate to the corporate shills.  

I don't know where you get the idea baucus and conrad are worse in any way.  But there is not point in arguing which POS senator is the crappiest either...

[ Parent ]
Translated from DC speak... (0.00 / 0)
"We don't know if he lost support from liberals (who we think already hated him) for gutting the public option or from conservatives (who had been flocking to him) for ultimately supporting the bill... basically he pissed off everyone and we have no idea who likes him anymore."

Aetna and his other corporate masters love him (4.00 / 2)
And he is having the last laugh while we sit here and deride him - he got what his corporate underwriters wanted.

And obama and the party enabled him the entire way.  

[ Parent ]
I hope Gail Collins's column stung a little at least (0.00 / 0)
The one where she concluded he wasn't very bright.

[ Parent ]

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox