Lieberman SLEEPING with Big-Pharma lobbysist. Literally...
We here at C-dems.blgspt.com have pointed out 100 times, that if Al Gore, Donna Brazille, and Joe Lieberman were the architects of the "GO SOFT on George W. Bush" 2000 presidential campaign - the one where 'enviro-man' Al Gore NEVER took a camera crew to Texas to point out that state's worst-in-nation pollution, and where Gore REFUSED to speak out on behalf of poor Texas school children KICKED OFF of pre-school, after-school, and health-care by Governor Bush's TAX CUTS FOR MULTIMILLIONAIRES...
...if Al Gore was the architect of the "go soft on Bush's record" 2000 campaign, then Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman CEMENTED that strategy as official doctrine for Democrats in the 2002 midterm elections, where Daschle ran scared from the Bush-Rove propaganda campaign which portrayed Daschle as "SOFT ON TERRORISM!", and where both Daschle and Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman SHORT-SHEETED the Senate's ENRON investigation.
Well, it turns out that not only was Senate Majority Leader Daschles wife earning a solid-middle six-figure income as an industry LOBBYIST in Washington DC in 2002... but, four years after Daschle LOST his Senate seat, Joe Lieberman's wife Hadassah is now “a senior counselor in [the] health and pharmaceuticals practice" of legendary lobbying and P.R. firm Hill & Knowlton.
The point being, why donate to or support a Democratic candidate like Tom Daschle, if he runs such a wimpy campaign that REFUSES to CONFRONT the Republican opposition on the whole string of issues of GOP misrule?
Daschle and Leiberman's wives pulling in six-figure incomes lobbying for corporations that Democrats are SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THEIR CONSTITUENTS FROM is just another example of the BETRAYAL of 100 years of progressive, democratic advances by the now thoroughly corrupted DLC/belly-of-the-beast Dems.
Oh - and one even more important thing about Joe Lieberman's whinning re-election campaign: WHERE DOES JOE LIEBERMAN get off whinning that his opponent, Ned Lamont, is a 'SINGLE ISSUE CANDIDATE'??
DOES, or does not, Joe Lieberman BRAG about his CIVIL RIGHTS credentials??
OK then.. HOW does Lieberman explain this REFUSAL to SIGN ON to the Black Congressional Caucus' demands for a congressional INVESTIGATION into vote fraud in Florida during the 2004 election?
HOW does Lieberman square away BRAGGING about his Civil Rights record - - - while he can't even bother to SPEAK OUT that the Repub. congress has REFUSED TO reestablish the VOTING RIGHTS ACT???
Mr. Lieberman, "Voting Rights" is an issue besides the Iraq war... as are HEALTH CARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAX-CUTS in time of war, and huge, monster Republican DEFICITS.
Mr. Lieberman, THAT is at least FIVE other issues besides the abject CORRUPTION and INCOMPETENCE of George W. Bush's 'leadership' of the Iraq war - IF you call running kangaroo courts for female privates caught up in Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld's murderous torture gulag, and doing NOTHING as Iraqi insurgents cart off TONS of explosives from unsecured ammunition complexes "LEADERSHIP." Oh, and make New Orleans rebuilding and FEMA *INCOMPETENCE* SIX issues besides the war.
WHERE, Mr. Lieberman, HAVE YOU BEEN on those SIX non-Iraq war issues?
Playing a reprise of John Kerry as "Rip Van Winkle," sleeping all through the summer of the 2004 presidential election?
<< Whenever Senator Joseph Lieberman complains that he is the target of a “single-issue” challenge by upstart millionaire Ned Lamont, the three-term incumbent proves he....>> IS AN IGNORAMUS, a LIAR, OR BOTH.
=======================================
Lieberman Misses Point of Opponents
By: Joe Conason
Date: 7/17/2006
Page: 5
http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?iid=13051&ic=Joe+Conason
Whenever Senator Joseph Lieberman complains that he is the target of a “single-issue” challenge by upstart millionaire Ned Lamont, the three-term incumbent proves he doesn’t quite get what is happening to him. It is true that the Lamont campaign began as a protest against his slavish support of the war in Iraq. It is untrue that growing anti-war sentiment is the sole reason for his peril in next month’s Democratic primary.
That he would dismiss the disastrous occupation as merely “one issue” suggests how remote he is from his constituents—the great majority of whom now view the war as a costly strategic and moral error that should be concluded as soon as possible. He sounds equally detached from that failed policy’s awful reality when he proclaims that “the situation in Iraq is a lot better” than a year ago.
Connecticut’s voters are not obliged to prove their “moderation” by ratifying his bad judgment.
Yet the war issue alone probably would not have threatened him, as anyone who listened carefully to his critics might learn. After 18 years in the Senate, his fervent insistence that he is a lifelong devotee of “progressive causes” and his endorsement by major liberal organizations only seem to mask his accommodation with Washington’s conservative status quo.
Mr. Lieberman dutifully recites his opposition to “tax cuts for the rich” and “privatizing Social Security,” and his support of “universal health insurance” and “affordable health care.” When he utters those phrases, unfortunately, they ring hollow to many rank-and-file Democrats.
Actually, the syndrome afflicting him is found among entrenched veterans of both parties, especially those who appear more concerned with connections and contributions than values or ideals.
Now Mr. Lieberman has long been known to cultivate the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which provide jobs in his home state and contributions to his campaign fund. But he has literally been sleeping with one of their Washington representatives ever since his wife Hadassah joined Hill & Knowlton last year. The legendary lobbying and P.R. firm hired her as a “senior counselor” in its “health and pharmaceuticals practice.”
This news marked Mrs. Lieberman’s return to consulting after more than a decade of retirement. “I have had a life-long commitment to helping people gain better health care,” she said in the press release announcing her new job. “I am excited about the opportunity to work with the talented team at Hill & Knowlton to counsel a terrific stable of clients toward that same goal.”
It would be uplifting to imagine that Hill & Knowlton—after spending the past decade as a defendant in tobacco class-action lawsuits because of its role in propaganda disputing the deadly effects of smoking—is now devoted to improving everybody’s health. More likely, the firm remains devoted to improving the profits of its clientele, which has historically included Enron, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, American International Group and Boeing.
When a Senator’s wife works for one of the capital’s largest lobby shops—and others have—appearances tend to matter. In this case, something happened immediately that didn’t look very good.
Mrs. Lieberman signed up with Hill & Knowlton in March 2005. The firm’s clients included GlaxoSmithKline, the British pharmaceutical giant that manufactures flu vaccines along with many other drugs. In April 2005, Mr. Lieberman introduced a bill that would award an array of new government “incentives” to companies like GSK to produce more vaccines—notably patent extensions on other products, at a cost of billions to governments and consumers.
That legislation provoked irritated comment by his hometown newspaper, the New Haven Register. In an editorial headlined “Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk,” the Register noted that his bill was even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership. “The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures,” said the editorial. “But it should not write a blank check, as these bills do, to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return.”
No doubt Mr. Lieberman would do the bidding of the pharmaceutical lobby whether his wife was on their payroll or not, but this kind of coincidence is best avoided by a man who lectures the world about morality and ethics.
The Senator has demanded that Mr. Lamont release his income-tax returns, which must mean that he plans to do likewise. His latest financial disclosure lists Mrs. Lieberman’s compensation from Hill Knowlton only as “more than $1000.” Presumably his tax returns will show how much more—and measure his distance from the people he represents.
...if Al Gore was the architect of the "go soft on Bush's record" 2000 campaign, then Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman CEMENTED that strategy as official doctrine for Democrats in the 2002 midterm elections, where Daschle ran scared from the Bush-Rove propaganda campaign which portrayed Daschle as "SOFT ON TERRORISM!", and where both Daschle and Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman SHORT-SHEETED the Senate's ENRON investigation.
Well, it turns out that not only was Senate Majority Leader Daschles wife earning a solid-middle six-figure income as an industry LOBBYIST in Washington DC in 2002... but, four years after Daschle LOST his Senate seat, Joe Lieberman's wife Hadassah is now “a senior counselor in [the] health and pharmaceuticals practice" of legendary lobbying and P.R. firm Hill & Knowlton.
The point being, why donate to or support a Democratic candidate like Tom Daschle, if he runs such a wimpy campaign that REFUSES to CONFRONT the Republican opposition on the whole string of issues of GOP misrule?
Daschle and Leiberman's wives pulling in six-figure incomes lobbying for corporations that Democrats are SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THEIR CONSTITUENTS FROM is just another example of the BETRAYAL of 100 years of progressive, democratic advances by the now thoroughly corrupted DLC/belly-of-the-beast Dems.
Oh - and one even more important thing about Joe Lieberman's whinning re-election campaign: WHERE DOES JOE LIEBERMAN get off whinning that his opponent, Ned Lamont, is a 'SINGLE ISSUE CANDIDATE'??
DOES, or does not, Joe Lieberman BRAG about his CIVIL RIGHTS credentials??
OK then.. HOW does Lieberman explain this REFUSAL to SIGN ON to the Black Congressional Caucus' demands for a congressional INVESTIGATION into vote fraud in Florida during the 2004 election?
HOW does Lieberman square away BRAGGING about his Civil Rights record - - - while he can't even bother to SPEAK OUT that the Repub. congress has REFUSED TO reestablish the VOTING RIGHTS ACT???
Mr. Lieberman, "Voting Rights" is an issue besides the Iraq war... as are HEALTH CARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAX-CUTS in time of war, and huge, monster Republican DEFICITS.
Mr. Lieberman, THAT is at least FIVE other issues besides the abject CORRUPTION and INCOMPETENCE of George W. Bush's 'leadership' of the Iraq war - IF you call running kangaroo courts for female privates caught up in Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld's murderous torture gulag, and doing NOTHING as Iraqi insurgents cart off TONS of explosives from unsecured ammunition complexes "LEADERSHIP." Oh, and make New Orleans rebuilding and FEMA *INCOMPETENCE* SIX issues besides the war.
WHERE, Mr. Lieberman, HAVE YOU BEEN on those SIX non-Iraq war issues?
Playing a reprise of John Kerry as "Rip Van Winkle," sleeping all through the summer of the 2004 presidential election?
<< Whenever Senator Joseph Lieberman complains that he is the target of a “single-issue” challenge by upstart millionaire Ned Lamont, the three-term incumbent proves he....>> IS AN IGNORAMUS, a LIAR, OR BOTH.
=======================================
Lieberman Misses Point of Opponents
By: Joe Conason
Date: 7/17/2006
Page: 5
http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?iid=13051&ic=Joe+Conason
Whenever Senator Joseph Lieberman complains that he is the target of a “single-issue” challenge by upstart millionaire Ned Lamont, the three-term incumbent proves he doesn’t quite get what is happening to him. It is true that the Lamont campaign began as a protest against his slavish support of the war in Iraq. It is untrue that growing anti-war sentiment is the sole reason for his peril in next month’s Democratic primary.
That he would dismiss the disastrous occupation as merely “one issue” suggests how remote he is from his constituents—the great majority of whom now view the war as a costly strategic and moral error that should be concluded as soon as possible. He sounds equally detached from that failed policy’s awful reality when he proclaims that “the situation in Iraq is a lot better” than a year ago.
Connecticut’s voters are not obliged to prove their “moderation” by ratifying his bad judgment.
Yet the war issue alone probably would not have threatened him, as anyone who listened carefully to his critics might learn. After 18 years in the Senate, his fervent insistence that he is a lifelong devotee of “progressive causes” and his endorsement by major liberal organizations only seem to mask his accommodation with Washington’s conservative status quo.
Mr. Lieberman dutifully recites his opposition to “tax cuts for the rich” and “privatizing Social Security,” and his support of “universal health insurance” and “affordable health care.” When he utters those phrases, unfortunately, they ring hollow to many rank-and-file Democrats.
Actually, the syndrome afflicting him is found among entrenched veterans of both parties, especially those who appear more concerned with connections and contributions than values or ideals.
Now Mr. Lieberman has long been known to cultivate the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which provide jobs in his home state and contributions to his campaign fund. But he has literally been sleeping with one of their Washington representatives ever since his wife Hadassah joined Hill & Knowlton last year. The legendary lobbying and P.R. firm hired her as a “senior counselor” in its “health and pharmaceuticals practice.”
This news marked Mrs. Lieberman’s return to consulting after more than a decade of retirement. “I have had a life-long commitment to helping people gain better health care,” she said in the press release announcing her new job. “I am excited about the opportunity to work with the talented team at Hill & Knowlton to counsel a terrific stable of clients toward that same goal.”
It would be uplifting to imagine that Hill & Knowlton—after spending the past decade as a defendant in tobacco class-action lawsuits because of its role in propaganda disputing the deadly effects of smoking—is now devoted to improving everybody’s health. More likely, the firm remains devoted to improving the profits of its clientele, which has historically included Enron, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, American International Group and Boeing.
When a Senator’s wife works for one of the capital’s largest lobby shops—and others have—appearances tend to matter. In this case, something happened immediately that didn’t look very good.
Mrs. Lieberman signed up with Hill & Knowlton in March 2005. The firm’s clients included GlaxoSmithKline, the British pharmaceutical giant that manufactures flu vaccines along with many other drugs. In April 2005, Mr. Lieberman introduced a bill that would award an array of new government “incentives” to companies like GSK to produce more vaccines—notably patent extensions on other products, at a cost of billions to governments and consumers.
That legislation provoked irritated comment by his hometown newspaper, the New Haven Register. In an editorial headlined “Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk,” the Register noted that his bill was even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership. “The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures,” said the editorial. “But it should not write a blank check, as these bills do, to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return.”
No doubt Mr. Lieberman would do the bidding of the pharmaceutical lobby whether his wife was on their payroll or not, but this kind of coincidence is best avoided by a man who lectures the world about morality and ethics.
The Senator has demanded that Mr. Lamont release his income-tax returns, which must mean that he plans to do likewise. His latest financial disclosure lists Mrs. Lieberman’s compensation from Hill Knowlton only as “more than $1000.” Presumably his tax returns will show how much more—and measure his distance from the people he represents.
posted by verifi at 9:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home