Hadassah Lieberman, wife of US Senator Joe Lieberman and an accomplished woman in her own right, is the “Global Ambassador” for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure cancer foundation. This is a fact that clearly doesn’t sit well with prominent far-leftist blogger Jane Hamsher, who has been targeting Senator Lieberman since 2006 when she actively supported another far leftist – Ned Lamont – over him in an attempt to get the multi-term CT Senator out of office for straying from the liberal tent over the war in Iraq. Oh, and for the fact that he didn’t treat Bush as the bigger enemy than Al Qaeda. Hamsher, as you may recall, is the blogger infamous for posting the blackface photo of Joe Lieberman standing alongside Bill Clinton in what was most definitely a low point in her vicious attempts at having Lieberman voted out of office.
So, now that I’ve set the scene, fast forward to now, where Hamsher – still targeting the hated Lieberman – figures she can get to him another way: By targeting his wife. Here’s an excerpt from a letter she wrote to the Koman foundation demanding that not one dime of Koman contributions should go to Mrs. Lieberman. Why? Because her husband doesn’t support ObamaCare:
It has come to my attention via an article by Joe Conason in Salon that Hadassah Lieberman – wife of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) – is currently a compensated “Global Ambassador” for Susan G. Komen for the Cure. It is widely known, however, that not only has Senator Lieberman been an instrument of obstruction to the kind of health care reform advocated by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, but that Mrs. Lieberman is also a former lobbyist for APCO Associates, which represents the interests of the same major, private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies which Mr. Lieberman seeks to protect.
Mrs. Lieberman’s relationship with Susan G. Komen for the Cure is unethical and misleading. Important and often very personal donations made to Susan G. Komen for the Cure to benefit the sick and dying are essentially undermining their intended use. And as Hadassah travels the globe under the banner of Susan G. Komen for the cure, decrying the inadequacies of our health care system and the desperate need to reform it, her husband is at home to kill the reform efforts we so desperately need.
What’s wrong with this picture? As Bill Jacobson notes, quite a bit:
Considering that cancer survival rates under the U.S. medical system exceed those under socialized systems, there is no truth or logic to Hamsher’s allegations that there is a correlation between Joe Lieberman’s positions and the health of cancer patients in the U.S. There also appears to be no truth to Hamsher’s allegation that the Komen Foundation supports the specific public option “reforms” opposed by Joe Lieberman, as Conason notes in his article.
But that is beside the point. Politicizing breast cancer is what we’ve come to in the fight by supporters of nationalized care to impose on the American public a system the majority of Americans do not want. And the fact that Hamsher is a breast cancer survivor is no excuse.
No, it’s not, and it’s also not a get out of jail free Absolute Moral Authority card to peddle the pathetic – and flat out wrong – assertion that because Lieberman doesn’t support ObamaCare that he is “against” any type of healthcare reform, and – via implication – opposes people getting the vital medical care that they need. This is the same type of bull sh*t smear used by embryonic stem cell advocates, as we saw all during the 2006 campaign season, as exemplified by demagogue extraordinaire Claire McCaskill who, along with promiment supporters like actor Michael J. Fox, strongly implied that anyone who opposed embryonic stem cell research (and cloning) was “against” finding cures for diseases like Parkinson’s. It’s shameless, it’s disgusting, and Democrats have got to stop hijacking the debates over healthcare by inserting this bogus, false claim that is in no way true. By continuing this line of attack, it’s the left who derail and unnecessarily prolong debates over cures and “reform” – in effect causing the chronically sick to have to wait longer in order to find out what the outcome will be. And in the process some of them will die during the wait. So, just which side is it that is militantly “against cures” again?
Jacobson also makes another great point about Hamsher’s letter regarding Mrs. Lieberman:
Add to it another nail in the feminist coffin. Since when is a woman to be deprived of her livelihood and her own professional accomplishments because of her husband?
Whoops! We’ve seen this type of two-faced “feminism” before. Just a couple of examples:
– Supporting Bill Clinton – to the point of being willing and able to give him a blow job over his support of abortion and other “women’s rights” – even though he was a lying adulterous snake to whom marital vows were about as sacred as a snotty handerchief.
– Supporting abortion worldwide – even in countries like China, where girls are aborted at an alarming rate due to China’s boy baby favoritism.
Move along here, nothing to see …