Neener, neener, neener

My morning has been cray-zee, so I'm a wee bit rushed in the blogging department today. (More on my day's activities later.) But I really couldn't let an opportunity to wallow in Schadenfreude pass unexploited.

So, it looks like Connecticut has run out of Joementum. Via TPM:
[N]ow we have another sign of just how unpopular Lieberman is post-Health Care Reform antics. Joe was already really unpopular among Connecticut Democrats. His approval among state Dems is now down to 14%. And his overall approval in the state is 25% in the state overall with 67% disapproval.

HuffPo has this little gem:
"It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks," the study concludes. "Barack Obama's approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman's with the state's Democrats."

Whoops-a-daisy! It looks like opposing a Medicare buy-in was a bad idea, particularly as Lieberman was on record as having supported it a few months prior. It's one thing to be "Independent," and another thing entirely to throw your lot in with the obstructionist minority party just for the sake of sticking it to the Democrats.

It's looks like Connecticut just might be willing to give Joe the heave-ho. Here's hoping.


  1. Yeah, flopping back and forth only gets both sides angry; as the HuffPo article makes clear, his low popularity comes from *both* opposing the buy-in and then voting for the bill. It wasn't simply his opposition to the buy-in, since so few voters actually think that "Reform" is a good idea (Quinnipiac polls it 53 against, 37 for, for CT voters in Dec.). Joe would have done better to have torpedoed the whole crap sandwich. Maybe he'll learn.

  2. My only regret (at present) is I don't live in CT so I could vote against him. I really hate to admit this but I think GJ is correct, they should throw it out. But go again for the public option. We just received notice that BCBS (Anthem) wants to raise rates again by 1/3. This is after a rate increase last year of 10% and an increase the year before that. The only way to counter these insane rate hikes is with a public option.

  3. I really hate to admit this but I think GJ is correct

    Well, that was big of you.

  4. Do I detect a little bit of a snidely derisive remark; and from you? Heaven forbid.

  5. Snidely derisive? Not at all. I was aiming for "affectionate teasing."

  6. UJ, I have several ideas for countering the insane rate hikes. First, have the Feds give all citizens and permanent residents catastropic coverage, capping the risk for coverage. Second, eliminate the State limitations on coverage; we ought to be able to buy our coverage from anyone. Third, elimiate the tax deduction for employers (or, alternatively, extend them to individuals). Equalizing insurance costs for individuals and employers would enable more individuals to buy coverage and decouple the employer insurance link. Four, let's have serious tort reform and try to reduce the magnitude of defensive medicine.

    There are good things government can do, but the suckweasels and kleptocrats in power have no reason to try them. After all, what's in it for them if you get better, cheaper coverage?