Welcome to the Lieberman Administration
Looks like Joe Lieberman decided to try for the old double-cross and say he now opposes the Medicare expansion compromise he’d hinted he would support. Lieberman wants no public option, no trigger that might create a public option, and no expansion of existing programs as a substitute for a public option. And he doesn’t care about expressing that view in misleading ways, timed to cause embarrassment to the Democratic leadership. And, frankly, unlike some other troublesome Democratic Senators one can hardly be all that surprised that he’s making problems for the Obama administration’s #1 domestic priority. After all, Lieberman took the view that John McCain would be the better President.
That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.
If reconciliation could be revived, things might look different. There’s a good case for not doing this legislation through reconciliation. The product that emerged from the parliamentarian’s wringer could be sub-optimal in various ways. But the product that emerges from Lieberman’s wringer will also be sub-optimal. So given a viable threat of reconciliation, it seems to me that both sides would have some incentive to compromise. It would also be worth considering legislative ideas that can definitely pass procedural muster under reconciliation rules. For example, bill that cuts Medicare Advantage overpayments, raises some funds from taxing “cadillac” plans, uses the funds to finance Medicaid expansion and subsidized for Medicare “buy-ins” for people over 55, and reforms MedPAC would expand access to health care while “bending the curve” and unambiguously meets the procedural standard for reconciliation.
183 Responses to “Welcome to the Lieberman Administration”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 14th, 2009 at 8:33 am
The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.
Eau du Essence of Neo-Conservative.
max
['Kill them all, democracy will know her own.']
December 14th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Comments “demonstrating” that this is all the fault of “the left” in 3, 2, 1…
Armando of TalkLeft (for whom I generally have little use) happens to be right about this one- there were never 60 votes for anything. The pretence of LIEberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln that there was some kind of compromise reachable that they would support was always just that, pretence. They will ALWAYS find another excuse no matter what concessions are made to them. The whole thing has been an exercise in pretending to be open to compromise while running out the clock so as to kill the whole thing. And Reid and Obama fell for it hook, line and sinker.
The Democratic leadership now has three choices: 1) Split the bill, pass the uncontroversial insurance reforms in regular order and ram the good stuff through via reconciliation; 2) nuke the filibuster once and for all; or 3) kiss their asses goodbye. History suggests they will choose option 3. And the usual hacks will tell us why the resulting electoral debacle was all the fault of the DFHs. Lather, rinse, repeat.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Seems to me that HCR went “sub-optimal” along time ago. Reconciliation seems like the only path at this point.
A larger question to me is the whole Lieberman mystery. I’d love to understand exactly why sucking up to Joe has been such a priority for the D leadership. What would it take for Joe to fall out of favor? If you can actually campaign against your party’s presidential candidate and still be not only welcomed back but actually catered to, is there still a working definition of party loyalty? Is there still a party to be loyal to?
What is the secret to Joe’s power? Is Joe really powerful, or is it that the party leadership is weak, spineless and hollow?
December 14th, 2009 at 8:51 am
The other reason to use reconciliation is to make Lieberman, Nelson, et al. pay a price for their intransigence, that price being: irrelevance. So far as I can tell, that is what they fear most. If it’s off the table then they are secure in their own fucked up narcissistic sense of entitlement. Take it away and they will whine and puke but ultimately fade away. And if Harry Reid doesn’t take away Lieberman’s chair after this, then he definitely deserves to lose his senate seat.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:53 am
“That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table.”
Senate leadership wanted to go to reconciliation in September.
The White House insisted on a 60 vote process.
Matt knows this and chooses to lie about it through his bared teeth.
Is the reason for his repeated prevarication that he’s an administration apologist even when the facts are against him? Or is the reason for his repeated prevarication that the health insurance companies have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Podestas?
—–
Yesterday on the Stephanopolous show, Arianna Huffington said that John Podesta was exactly like George Bush. I don’t think that’s fair. George Bush wasn’t personally corrupt like Podesta is.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I’m going to withhold judgment till the end of this week. But right now I’m closer to agreeing with #2 than feels comfortable.
And I certainly agree with Matt that a timely reconciliation option needs to be on the table.
I also agree with TPM that kicking Lieberman’s ass to the curb ought to be on the table. I guess JMM didn’t actually put it that way. But I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Jellyfish have more backbone than Harry Reid. Meanwhile, why isn’t MoveOn or some other group holding loud demonstrations outside of Lieberman’s Connecticut offices? Why isn’t there one of those free health care fairs going on in Bridgeport right now? Why is no one doing something outside of the pathetic leadership to embarass him?
December 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am
So given a viable threat of reconciliation, it seems to me that both sides would have some incentive to compromise.
What is left to compromise on? Everything has been compromised away already.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:59 am
What Steve said.
why isn’t MoveOn or some other group holding loud demonstrations outside of Lieberman’s Connecticut offices?
What good would that do? Protesting outside of Reid’s office, OTOH, just might.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Karen’s got a decent idea.
I have to say, though, that part of the calculation here has to be that Lieberman realizes that the left *already* hates him about as much as it’s possible for us to hate someone. There’s not much more he stands to lose.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Lieberman doesn’t care about protests from left-wingers in CT. He’s not a democrat anymore, and Reid’s strategy of leaving him with his party privileges to get him to vote with democrats on issues like this has been a failure. May as well give Lieberman the boot.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am
mb @ 3 asks a great question. How can leadership let Lieberman, who is nominally not even a Democrat, dictate policy this way, especially when he is negotiating in bad faith?
I was all for conciliatory measures with him after the election, but when he engages in this kind of stringing along, I say drop the hammers. If he switches to Republican, at least we don’t have to listen to righties shouting “you have 60 votes and still can’t get anything done,” as if there were ever really 60 uniformed votes.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:06 am
“Jellyfish have more backbone than Harry Reid.”
- Senate leadership wanted to go to reconciliation in September.
- The White House wanted a 60 vote process.
- Senate leadership wanted a public option in the floor Senate bill.
- The White House wanted no public option in the floor Senate bill.
Jellyfish may have more backbone than Harry Reid, but Harry Reid has more backbone than Barack Obama.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
why should lieberman care what the Left thinks? He has the backing of the Democratic Party leadership regardless of what he does. For some reason, he is bullet proof. Defeat him in the primary and the party leadership campaigns for him anyway snubbing the choice of their voters in CT.
I hope Reid proves me wrong and Joe suffers for stopping HCR (if that’s how this plays out,) but it’ll be the first time he has to pay for bucking the party.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:09 am
[...] to the negotiating table. Reid could try to pass the health care bill through reconciliation (which he has taken off the table), broker another compromise that satisfies Lieberman’s concerns or abandon the public option [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Karen, there’s nothing that can be done. He can’t win reelection in 2012 with his numbers, even in his candy-land fantasies he just doesn’t have the support. Though many here who never really read polls think he has some magic trick, his approval rating is in the 30’s, and you don’t come back from that.
It was up to the senate to take care of him until then, and they have failed in that task. What’s more, they forced a lot of people to eat shit with the promise that they could reign Lieberman in if it came to it.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Rein, for the grammar nazi’s that infest this place.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
My senator (Durbin) happens to be the majority whip. I’m going to give him a call today, and underline two words: “Lieberman” and “reconciliation.”
December 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
@17: The grammar nazis that infest this place are shocked by the way you have made us plural. Ve have vays of dealing vith apostrophes here, Herr Soullite.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Ted, and you made it all worthwhile!
December 14th, 2009 at 9:20 am
“My senator (Durbin) happens to be the majority whip. I’m going to give him a call today, and underline two words: “Lieberman” and “reconciliation.”
You ought to call the White House instead.
The decision on whether to either totally cave or go to reconciliation will be made by the White House, not the Senate leadership.
The Senate leadership wanted to go to reconciliation three months ago, and was rebuffed by the White House.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Is the legislative branch or the executive branch more corrupt? After Taibbi’s expose, Lieberman single-handedly reopens the debate.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
He can’t win reelection in 2012 with his numbers, even in his candy-land fantasies he just doesn’t have the support.
The republican party is in such crappy shape in CT that I will be surprised if Joe’s not back for another go. Dodd also has low approval numbers, but the republicans are running a candidate against him for 2010 that makes Sarah Palin sound like a genius.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:26 am
We need progressive health care reforms. But taxing so-called “cadillac” plans hits middle class workers really hard. The House pays for health care by taxing the rich and forcing irresponsible employers who don’t offer health care to do so. That’s the right way to finance the bill – not on the backs of the middle class.
Moreover, taxing benefits will not improve plan efficiencies, it will simply raise health care costs. Employers will cut benefits and/or make people pay more. That’s the opposite of reform – and a looming political catastrophe if the dems are crazy enough to include it in their final bills.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Step 1) Reconciliation on a decent bill.
Step 2) Kick Joe out of the caucus. Remove him from all committees, let alone his chairmanship.
Step 3) Have MoveOn and Soros start a campaign to have the CT legislature remove Lieberman. (The path can be be cleared with a few amendments to state law.) If Joe wants to play the payback game, give it to him in spades.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
[...] are melting down over the news (<– warning: rabid lefty site), claiming Lieberman’s opposition is some kind of huge [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I hate to say it, but it’s time to punish Connecticut. We can’t really do anything about D senators from Arkansas, Nebraska etc., but we know can get someone much more Liberal than Lieberman from Connecticut. Lieberman is a petty, vindictive, narcissistic bastard. He will always do whatever he can to hurt the Democrats as long as there is no price to pay. Connecticut voted him in despite the primary becausse he brings home the pork. Make him ineffective at that and they’ll dump him.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I am tired of such an immoral man pretending to be religious.
Go to RECONCILIATION!
December 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
LETS NUKE LIEBERMAN
December 14th, 2009 at 9:34 am
“Is the legislative branch or the executive branch more corrupt? After Taibbi’s expose, Lieberman single-handedly reopens the debate.”
Normally, the legislative branch is more corrupt. Tom DeLay was brokering a higher dollar volume of deals than George Bush was, for example.
But the current administration has used healthcare to blow the legislative branch out of the water in terms of corruption.
- Close to a half of a billion dollars worth of healthcare deals have been brokered inside this White House. (If you’re not keeping count at home, that’s beyond what’s ever been done by any administration on any issue.)
- The administration was assembled by a man (John Podesta) whose family has been the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from the health insurance industry.
- The administration attempted to name a registered health insurance lobbyist (!) (Tom Daschle) to lead the “reform” efforts.
—–
It’s no coincidence that the administration has been consistently to the right of Congress on healthcare. They’re simply more in hock to the industry.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Sub-optimal, sub-optimal … oh, you mean “piece of crap.”
This was always going to end in tears. Promising the insurance industry a major role in insurance industry reform, and insisting that he would not “let the perfect be the enemy of the good”—as if a lightly updated version of Nixon’s 1974 plan was perfect; preen much?— doesn’t qualify as a strong opening position. And offering little in the way of public leadership as the process devolved into slapstick didn’t bolster the prospects of salvaging anything.
Sausage!
December 14th, 2009 at 9:37 am
The “he” in #31 being Obama.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I’m not even sure reconciliation is necessary.
Harry Reid should write the best possible bill that can win 51 votes (not 60) and then just schedule a vote. Ignore all the procedural crap – it’s purely internal Senate rules and has no Constitutional standing whatsoever. If someone objects, VP Joe Biden is the President of the Senate and can rule the objection out of order. In the end, the Republicans (including Lieberman) can do nothing but bitch about it and vote against the final bill, which won’t matter. The courts have already ruled on numerous prior occasions that internal congressional procedures are non-justiciable political questions in which they will not intervene. If the bill gets 51 votes (or 50+Biden), then it meets the Constitutional standards for passing legislation.
If the existing Senate leadership is unwilling to place the public good above the rules of their millionaire’s club, then they should be voted out of office and replaced with someone who will do the right thing.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Njorl: I hate to say it, but it’s time to punish Connecticut.
Punishing Israel would probably have more impact on Lieberman.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:43 am
On the bright side, it means DC is not as racist as previously thought: sure, they don’t care about 1,000,000 dead Iraqis; but they don’t care about tens of thousands of dead Americans every year either!
December 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am
With Lieberman’s most recent threat to hijack HCR, isn’t it time, rather than threatening budget reconciliation, that the Dem leadership threaten to pull the plug on his plum committee assignments; and, on a larger scale, any privileges he’s benefitted from as a result of caucusing with the Ds?
I understand the need to kowtow to the whims of Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, etc. They represent conservative states, and their potential replacements won’t be more liberal, and in fact are more likely to be Republicans (One need only look at the other Senators from these states, like Johannes and Vitter. Pryor, obviously, is the exception). But Connecticut is a blue state, and that won’t change when Lieberman is up for reelection in 2012. Considering how his policy actions have been received by the left thus far, his chances for retaining the seat, particularly with a motivated DNC against him, appear very bleak.
More importantly, there’s no reason, considering his ongoing obstructionism that serves no practical purpose other than antagonizing liberals, to allow Lieberman any of the benefits of senatorial Democrats. It’s not like having a theoretical 60 votes has allowed for swiftly and effectively enacting a progressive (or even left of center) agenda. So the difference between 59 and 60, in practical terms, is meaningless. Furthemore, there’s the peace of mind in knowing that, considering Lieberman’s penchant for pettiness and spite, he’ll vigorously attempt to scuttle all Democratic legislation, regardless of its merits. Only now he’ll be doing it as a member of the minority party, which makes him no more a consideration than the whims of a Mitch McConnell or a John Thune.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:52 am
We can’t get 60? Great.
Let’s pass it with bigger subsidies, a negotiated national public option, and 53 votes.
I won’t even want to punish Joe if he gives us that!
Of course, if we DON’T get that, even though we CAN, then that’s it for me and federal Dems. Fuck ‘em.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Why not do some demonstrations? The Teabaggers have gotten lots of mileage out of theirs; we have a better cause for ours. I know Lieberman’s a lost cause but the Connecticut TV stations need something to show, and it may as well be evidence that Holy Joe is very, very unpopular in his state. The choice isn’t between ideal and the status quo; it’s between nothing and something. I think we ought to do something.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
If the bill gets 51 votes (or 50+Biden), then it meets the Constitutional standards for passing legislation.
Can you show me those Constitutional standards? I can’t find them.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Christopher: “Can you show me those Constitutional standards? I can’t find them.”
Article I, Section III: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” This clearly indicates that the framers had in mind a majority threshold for passage of legislation. In those cases where a supermajority was required, such as overriding a veto, it was explicitly specified in the text.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Sure, you complain– but it was the wisdom and foresight of the founders to require that all legislation needs to be passed by a unanimous vote of the majority party.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:10 am
“He’s with us on everything but the war.”
Few words not spoken by Donald Rumsfeld have ever turned out to be so wrong.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am
What I don’t understand is why the democratic leadership has put up with this for so long.
Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain. Why is he still allowed to chair committees?
Is it a misplaced belief that they can work with Joe or is it something else?
I’m not asking a rhetorical question here. I really want someone who knows about these things to answer.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Article I, Section III: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” This clearly indicates that the framers had in mind a majority threshold for passage of legislation. In those cases where a supermajority was required, such as overriding a veto, it was explicitly specified in the text.
Thanks, Josh. That’s what I figured but I am confused as to why, if that’s what they had in mind, they went to such lengths to avoid stating it directly. Is there a similar implication for the House?
December 14th, 2009 at 10:15 am
And to think I voted for Gore/Lieberman.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I know Lieberman’s a lost cause but the Connecticut TV stations need something to show, and it may as well be evidence that Holy Joe is very, very unpopular in his state.
You’re not familiar with Connecticut news stations. Mostly they’re small operations that focus on local crime, event coverage (”This week the boat show comes to Hartford. We have Laurie Duke with this report”), some packaged national news clips, and a whole lot of weather and traffic. Seriously, the weather reporting in this state is about 60% of every news show. Any coverage of a Lieberman protest would last about 30 seconds before the viewer gets an update on traffic on I-95.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Josh G.
Is there precedent for that?
December 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
[...] or not and vote accordingly. Instead we have Joe Lieberman calling the shots, as though Americans across the country voted for [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Filibuster, cloture, etc., are senate rules that have no basis in the Constitution. Let’s say Harry Reid, with Joe Biden to back him up get 51 votes to ignore them — there is not a GD thing anyone can do about it. If legislation passes with a majority of each chamber and is signed by the president, it’s law. Which makes Reid’s ineptness doubly frustrating. The failure is willed. There is no other way to interpret it.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
If he wants to filibuster, let him. Don’t let him intimidate you stupid Democrats in not even *attempting* to bring the vote to the floor.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
“Double-cross.” Stab in the back. Traitor.
Ok, we all get it already. He’s a big fat money-grubbing Jew who needs to be eliminated to make way for the nat. socialist healthcare plan.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am
A public pledge right now:
If Dems ever sack up and remove this slimy piece of shit from their caucus, I’ll pony up a nice $200 check to the DNC the very next day.
My loathing for Joe Lieberman is off the charts.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Seriously, the weather reporting in this state is about 60% of every news show.
Hartford introduced me to “Pricktease Weather”, i.e. “Want to know if you’ll need to dig your car out of the snow tomorrow morning? Mike Squarehead’s here to tell you… at some point during this newscast, but we’re not saying when, so you’ll have to sit through all the fatuous shit first.”
As for HoJoe, I prefer the Berlusconi option, just with a life-size replica of a cathedral.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“Double-cross.” Stab in the back. Traitor.
Ok, we all get it already. He’s a big fat money-grubbing Jew who needs to be eliminated to make way for the nat. socialist healthcare plan
You figured it out dude. Health care reform is just a big anti-semitic conspiracy. Joe Lieberman’s an outstanding public servant. I just hate him because I’ve got a big swastika tattooed across my chest. Sieg heil motherfucker.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Folks, didn’t we just pass a budget bill this week that overcame a Republican filibuster? With Joe’s vote for cloture?
IOW, if we switch to reconciliation on HCR, Joe can switch parties, and every single bill has to go the reconciliation route in the Senate.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Are you kidding? Lieberman has no incentive to compromise, reconciliation or no. He is positioning himself for a career as an insurance lobbyist. No matter what happens to this bill, he will block it. Not showing up for the meetings was a dead giveaway that there is no possible bill he will support.
Can we quit pretending he is “with us on everything but the war” now and take away his committee responsibilities?
December 14th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Reconciliation is a bad idea. The non-budgetary parts of the bill couldn’t pass through reconciliation, and so would still need 60 votes. You think Joe Lieberman will vote for the non-reconciliation parts of the bill despite opposing the whole thing?
If the house had the votes to pass a public option that truly represented an existential threat to the private insurance companies (medicare+5 rates, open to everyone, ect) then this would be worth doing via reconciliation. Blame purists like Dennis Kucinich for this failure. The house public option would reduce costs but nothing else. It wouldn’t force the private insurers to change their ways. This simply isn’t worth the procedural mess of reconciliation.
If democrats would use the nuclear option they could do away with the filibuster once and for all. But they are too spineless for that.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:03 am
[...] PDRTJS_settings_709279_post_1834 = { "id" : "709279", "unique_id" : "wp-post-1834", "title" : "Narratives", "item_id" : "_post_1834", "permalink" : "http%3A%2F%2Fibwblog.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2F14%2Fnarratives%2F" } Following up a bit on Lieberman’s public hissy fit, Yglesias has this: [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Everyone keep Joe Lieberman in their prayers. He needs all the help he can get. Godspeed, Joe!
December 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Reconciliation is a bad idea. The non-budgetary parts of the bill couldn’t pass through reconciliation, and so would still need 60 votes.
It depends on what the parliamentarian says. If the parliamentarian says no, then I’d just get a new parliamentarian. This crap isn’t legally binding in any real sense, and this is entirely correct:
Harry Reid should write the best possible bill that can win 51 votes (not 60) and then just schedule a vote. Ignore all the procedural crap – it’s purely internal Senate rules and has no Constitutional standing whatsoever. If someone objects, VP Joe Biden is the President of the Senate and can rule the objection out of order. In the end, the Republicans (including Lieberman) can do nothing but bitch about it and vote against the final bill, which won’t matter. The courts have already ruled on numerous prior occasions that internal congressional procedures are non-justiciable political questions in which they will not intervene. If the bill gets 51 votes (or 50+Biden), then it meets the Constitutional standards for passing legislation.
The real problem is that democratic senators want to preserve these internal procedures because it makes them individually more powerful. They don’t care that it makes the party ineffective–the party exists solely to pass out committee assignments.
Blame purists like Dennis Kucinich for this failure.
Kucinich is stupid little elf. Cleveland has enough problems without this jackass representing it. This is also a guy who bankrupted the city as mayor. A guy who got his start in politics making shamefully racial appeals to eastern european immigrants–a guy who once told the Free Press his job was to represent “the people who think the niggers should stay on their side of the river.” Now he’s ditched the polka-and-racism shtick for some new age, vegan crap.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“Reconciliation is a bad idea. The non-budgetary parts of the bill couldn’t pass through reconciliation, and so would still need 60 votes. You think Joe Lieberman will vote for the non-reconciliation parts of the bill despite opposing the whole thing?”
Wrong on the basic facts.
Reconciliation goes first, and handles all of the most contentious aspects of the bill, including the public option, subsidy levels, and financing.
After reconciliation passes, then would come a regular order bill,, which handles the regulatory aspects. This bill would not only get the votes of Lieberman and Nelson, but would also get both Maine Senators as well, which brings the floor up to 62. A handful of other Republican Senators would be likely to sign on as well.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Adam–you think moderate Republicans want to run against insurance regulations? All of the controversial stuff is budgetary–including abortion!
They should have let Schumer campaign for bill-splitting to the media.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Simon LaBonne:
“Comments “demonstrating” that this is all the fault of “the left” in 3, 2, 1…”
Not the “left” as a whole, but just the dilettantes who supported Richy Rich Ned Lamont’s vanity antiwar campaign. If you aim at the king, you better kill him or else you’ll have one pissed-off king looking for retribution. Looks like Lieberman will get his.
And what was the vanity antiwar campaign about? To keep Saddam Hussein in place as tyrant of Iraq. Well done.
And to think, fatty Saint Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate. At the beginning of the summer former-Senator Obama said they’d go the reconciliation route if necessary on the centerpiece of his agenda. Maybe the Senate leadership talked him out of it, maybe not.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Petey, you may be right that the White House has opposed reconciliation on health care reform, but the Senate runs its own business. Obama is not a dictator. You can’t take the dems in the Senate off the hook on this. If they wanted to take the reconciliation route, Obama couldn’t stop them.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:31 am
[...] Yglesias agrees with Chris Bowers that the Senate Leadership forwent a huge amount of leverage over Joe Lieberman [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Haha, you guys believe what you see on TV. Lieberman is just haggling for the biggest bribe he can get. The Dems will find a way to put a few million into his retirement account, and then he’ll vote for health care reform.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias writes: [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
let the whole thing collapse then take to the streets with torches. start with joe’s house…
December 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Reconciliation is a bad idea. The non-budgetary parts of the bill couldn’t pass through reconciliation, and so would still need 60 votes.
There’s no need to bother with non-budgetary insurance reforms if the public option is broad enough and includes an employer mandate to pay premiums into the public option trust fund. Congress could throw a lifeline to private insurers and allow individuals an out out to stay with group coverage if the private plan matches the public option plan benefits (but its a lifeline not a lifeboat, the affordability subsidies should only go towards paying for the public plan). This is exactly what this guy proposed in January.
an individual may elect not to be enrolled for benefits under this title if the individual demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the individual has health benefits coverage under a group health plan (as defined in section 5000(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that is at least equivalent to the coverage otherwise provided under this title, as certified by the Secretary.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h193/text
December 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Petey: Since you accuse Yglesias of “lying through bared teeth” about the Senate leadership’s willingness to use reconciliation, please post a link to some evidence. I’m trying to have an open mind about this but I’ve seen you repeat the same allegation in dozens of threads without citing to anything. Nobody is going to believe Yglesias is lying on your say so.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“Petey, you may be right that the White House has opposed reconciliation on health care reform, but the Senate runs its own business.”
When the Senate Majority Leader is of the same party as the White House, the White House gets to dictate to the Senate Leadership.
That’s not the same thing as running the Senate, but it’s not nothing either.
And given that whether or not to go to reconciliation has been a Leadership matter, this one lies with the White House.
“If they wanted to take the reconciliation route, Obama couldn’t stop them.”
On paper, this is true. In practice, it’s not.
“You can’t take the dems in the Senate off the hook on this.”
I’ve been very happy with the performance of the Senate Leadership on healthcare.
They’ve been consistently moving things as far to the left as the White House will let them, and they’ve even been willing to throw a few sharp elbows at the White House from time to time. I was surprised and very pleased that they were so eager to go to reconciliation.
Kent Conrad may be history’s worst monster, but the Senate Leadership has been on the side of the angels all the way along on this one. (Game’s not over yet, of course, so things could change.)
If you tell the truth on this one, it’s very close to 100% being a White House obstacle course.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
There’s a weird periodicity to Petey’s involvement and appearance here. Mostly it seems to involve Petey using any excuse (rightly or wrongly) to accuse Matt Yglesias of mainly expressing the opinions of social class privilege.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Lieberman doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t him, they would’ve paid someone else to do the same. Insurance companies and other big businesses can spend billions buying politicians, and everyone has a price, especially politicians.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“There’s a weird periodicity to Petey’s involvement and appearance here.”
Yup. Matt tells lies to try to water down or kill portions of healthcare reform and Petey shows up.
Some patterns aren’t too difficult to discern…
December 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
matt is a member of the beltway. the beltway exists to perpetuate the interests of concentrated wealth. i’ll give him the benefit of the doubt because he’s young and assume he doesn’t know he’s part of the problem, but all of this is for show.
it’s not a debate, it’s a carefully choreographed dance to make sure no reform is passed that will cut into industry profits or tax the very rich, all while creating the impression that lawmakers are trying to help the middle class.
it’s difficult to accept that this is true, but to anyone paying attention it is plainly obvious that progressives never win, because there are no progressives.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
We can’t punish him, we have to keep him in the caucus so he’ll help pass Democratic legislation!
FAIL
December 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Is it really less expensive to bargain with Lieberman than with any Republican? At least with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, you can rely on some consistency.
I’m not claiming that either of Snowe or Collins makes sense all the time, but I think Lieberman is just bent on harming/frustrating progressives whereas the Maine Senators don’t share this motive.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
A lot of this stems from Tarjuffe buying into the crowd that was telling him he’d be “The first Jewish President” way back when and his immense bitterness that it never materialized. If Bill and Hill were telling him that – they were being disingenuous. It was like telling N.Y. Mets stalwart Ed Kranepool that he’d be “The first .400 hitter since Ted Williams,” because there was a time I think in late April/early May 1964 that he was hitting over .400 in 1964 (I think he finished the year hitting .257 or something like that). Who in their right mind ever thought that Joe Lieberman had the right stuff?
December 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
While I won’t defend the manner in which Lieberman chose to announce his opposition, I think it’s outrageous to pronounce him and, by implication, other opponents of the reform bill(s), guilty of “sociopathic indifference”.
Replacing the public option in favor of massive expansions of Medicare and Medicaid is a substantive change with which many might take issue. Lieberman opposes the means (of the latest plan), not the ends. And well he might, as the current Medicare program already represents a $37 trillion unfunded liability and is predicted to be insolvent as early as 2017 and perhaps sooner if the economic downturn persists. Adding tens of millions of beneficiaries could well undermine the whole program and our nation’s finances, to boot.
Yglesias isn’t doing the reform effort any favors by impugning the motives of the reform bill’s opponents which, BTW, now include well over half of all Americans:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
December 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
What a delight it is to witness the implosion of Obamacare and the consternation of its supports! Tee hee.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions. [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
[...] As several of you have observed, he’s being the skunk at the picnic again. [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“The republican party is in such crappy shape in CT that I will be surprised if Joe’s not back for another go.”
It’s not the Republican who threatens his seat, it’s the Dem. For a couple of years now, polls have consistently shown him losing by a significant margin. The little creep is gone in 2012, and I think he has to know that, which may be why he’s so focused on getting his revenge now while the getting’s good.
If he loses his Dem chairmanship, he won’t be getting another. Nobody thinks the GOP has any chance of winning the Senate in 2010, though they may gain a couple of seats; which means that they will have no chairmanships to hand out for the rest of Lieberman’s Senate career. So if the Dems dump him, he has nothing – his power is gone for good.
Given the above, I suspect he’s either so crazed with hatred for the liberals that he doesn’t care about the consequences to himself, as long as he can hurt them; or else he’s counting on the Dems’ well-established abject cowardice protecting him from any consequences to his behavior.
Of course, there’s always option 3: Lieberman is doing exactly what the leadership of the Emanuel Party really wants, i.e. giving them an alibi for doing the bidding of their corporate masters.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Lieberman, great, of almost any senator or politician in Washington I would choose to be at his mercy.
I consider him to be as honest and truthful as we can currently expect in DC.
I would put our future in his hands 200% before Pelosi, Reid or Obama.
Joe hold out for USA.
Maybe Joe Lieberman believes in a different kind of liberalism, one that puts truth and good of country before power. Maybe honor and integrity trump lies and deceit. Everyone knows that taxing for 10 years to support a program for 4 isn’t deficit neutral, but Obama and Pelosi and Reid stand by that lie.
The USA citizen doesn’t buy it.
No honest person buys it.
We know 2nd 10 years bankrupt the country.
And yet they keep raising Gov salaries and budgets.
That’s a lot to hate, the government FAT CATS.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
it’s really quite simple: democrats hold a substantial majority in both houses of congress, and a democrat occupies the white house. if the american people were in favor of, or evenly divided over the current version of healthcare reform, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. so, please don’t blame republicans – just accept this fact: AMERICANS SIMPLY DON’T WANT A RADICAL REFORM OF THE U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. if the democrats had not hubristically overestimated their mandate, and instead had begun with (1) interstate insurance purchasing option, (2) tort reform, and (3) stricter government oversight of insurance companies, a bill would already be passed by now. inflexibility, overconfidence and overreaching have led the democrats to failure.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Since when have liberals cared about human life?
Did they care about the 70 million killed in the former soviet union?
Did they care about the 12 million killed as a result of the war started by National Socialist Germany?
What about the three million vietnamese killed after the US was forced to abandon South Vietnam by the liberal US congress? – or the 1 million Cambodians that perished in the killing fields shortly thereafter?
How about the 2 million Iraqis and Iranians who perished in the iran-Iraq war as a result of jimmy carter failing to support the Shah?
Now you expect the American people to believe that healthcare is all about preventing people dying when you know full well that far more people will die under socialized medicine than under the current system – a system that your genocidal policies have undermined at every turn.
The true intent of obamacare is to funnel billions of dollars to the SEIU – this is the only way that liberalism can continue to pull the wool over the people’s eyes – if productive people (Republicans) pay for it.
Liberals are a cancer on the face of the world – but bit by bit the world is waking up.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
You libtards and king Barry are getting EXACTLY what you deserve, period. How’s that hopey changie thingie goin now?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Let’s get something straight. Joe Lieberman represents the people of the state of Connecticut. Not Harry Reid, not Barack Obama, not Nancy Pelosi, MoveOn.org, or any other progressive or liberal agenda.
Two years ago, the Democratic Party and the liberal base threw Lieberman under the bus because he dared support something they didn’t. The more moderate and conservative element of Connecticut rewarded him with another term because we all knew he stood for something rather than marched in lock-step with a Democratic leadership that has long been out of touch with mainstream America. You reap what you sow.
As a conservative in Connecticut, I’m happy with Joe. I feel that while he doesn’t always represent me, he is not a liberal lapdog. I supported him in 2006 and I’ll do so again in 2012.
Most of this country is center-right. Get over it.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Actaully, Lieberman would make a better president than Obama
December 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Wake up. More than half of the people are against what they are trying to pass. Therefore it shouldnt
December 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Your comment regard:”tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance,” is such a red herring. Tens of thousands of people die each year (with) health insurance.
I go with Liberman, if congress allows people between the ages of 55 and 65 on Medicare, what will stop them from reducing it to 45 next year. It’s just the next step to socolized medicine for all!
December 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Wake up. More than half of the people are against what they are trying to pass. Therefore it shouldnt
Right. That’s article five of the constitution, I believe.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Double cross! Traitor! Criminal! How dare anyone stand in the way of utopia. I guess Republicans just want sick people to dieeee!! Oops, Lieberman isn’t really a republican though, is he? He’s a Democrat…or he WAS a Democrat until the radical Left drove him out in the primary…right into the arms of the republicans. Those Leftists are just so darn clever! So Smart!
December 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Lieberman could save the country. He blocks the vote. It goes into next year (election year). Nobody want’s to touch it then because it is so unpopular. Obama is a miserable failure as Cap and trade bombs out too. ha ha. and the people throw the left out of power for a generation.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
A CNN pole shows that 61% do not want this healthcare bill to pass. I for one, agree. Thank God Lieberman is in the Senate, and able to stop these Wackos.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Many more people die due to the fact that it is legal to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, eat fatty food, drive a car, etc. The mere fact that because x, y people die, does not justify an embarrassingly retarded attempt at healthcare reform.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I really do like the idea of going through reconciliation. As a die-hard conservative since I was 13 years old and distributing Goldwater literature, I’m open to any idea that will let us destroy the welfare state, cripple unions and trial lawyers, balance the budget, abolish the NEA, and require absolute proof of eligibility to vote.
If you pea-brained liberals don’t understand the idea of checks and balances, (and 60 votes to remake the economy isn’t such a high bar), then you had better pray hard that the Republicans don’t ever get control of Congress and the White House ever again. Because once you change the rules to suit yourselves, we can play by your game. It’s a lot easier to destroy the government bureaucracy than it would be to rebuild it. And at the rate the Messiah’s poll numbers are dropping, and the rate that public opinion is swinging against liberalism, we’ll be back in power after the 2012 elections. You’re rapidly turning all but the foam-at-the-mouth mindless leftie kook fringe against you.
Oops, I made one mistake in the above. I said “you had better pray hard….” Forgot you didn’t pray, except in your little shrines to St. Obama, the Messiah….
December 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
[...] people have nice things to say about the man here, and here. [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Joe doesn’t owe any loyalty yo the Democrats. Remeber he is an Independant because the Dems. including Hillary threw him to the wolves and supported another candidate against him. That was AFTER he carried the party banner with Albert Gore Jr. And now you LIBS want loyalty?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
To the kooks on this site.
When referring to Sen Lieberman, can you please call him a Maverick?
it’s what every democrat and media outlet called Senator McCain aka McMaverick whenever he bucked his party..
LOL
Obamacare is dead. he’ll get a watered down bill with a few provisions, declare its a first step and victory.
Democrats will go to lose seats in the both chambers and possibly lose one or both
Hope.. change…
December 14th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
A little reading on realclearpolitics.com proves beyond all doubt that the current legislation stinks worse than week-old fish rotting in the lakeside sun.
Thank you, Joe!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“…timed to cause embarrassment to the Democratic leadership”?!? “Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman?”!?!
Democrats/Liberals support a man who spent 20-plus years as a member of a racist group (TUCC) … they believe in Man Made Global Warming … they want the BIG BROTHER (the Gov’t) to control everything, etc. If Democrats/Liberals really want to see an embarrassment and/or a stiff-neck, then they should look into their own mirror more often…so to speak whilst smiling.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Yglesias, what a joke you are. So many of your ilk were so happy to throw Sen. Lieberman under the bus when it suited you and your agenda (remember the ‘black faced’ Lieberman photo?), only to find your “Judas Ascariot” an Independent Senator. Moreover, Sen. Clinton found tire marks all over her body after the annointed One took center stage. Time and time again progressives have “ate their young,” only to expect to find such positive attributes as loyalty in their victims??!! The moral relativistic code you so love and live does not always reconcile well with moral values (such as loyalty, integrity, etc.) that you demand in behaviour from others. Hypocrite…
You also whine that democracy in OUR country is now ‘ungovernable.’ (Hell, man, you own the White House and both houses, and it’s still the Republicans fault?!) You also stated that its time to change our system. And replace it with what, a totalitarian dictatorship of your liking?
You sound like you’d really fit into the freedom loving regimes of, say, China, North Korea, Uganda, or even the peaceful and tolerant society of Iran, Mattie.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
The freak, Obama’s, signature program, nationalized health care, has gone down on the deck of the Titanic.
The CRU scandal has his signature foreign policy proposal, a massive transfer of American wealth & jobs to the Third World also doomed to failure.
Our Kenyan goat herder is according to his job approval ratings by a host of polling firms qualified for no more than that, herding goats.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I can’t believe all these right wingers want people to die. To die. Think about that. They want people to die so they can make Obama look bad. How dare they. Hundreds of millions will die in hospitals tomorrow if health care reform doesn’t make. Hundreds of Millions! Do the righties have no conscience? We need to get rid of the politics of fear or else hundreds of millions more will die. After health care reform we need climate reform. I hear billions of lives are on the line, billions. Why can’t everyone be a nice caring lefty? Why? It drives me to tears. I need my blanket.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
GO SENATOR JOE “MAVERICK LIEBERMAN!!!!!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
disillussioned- i just want people like you to die \
fuck you and obama… commie, motherfucker
December 14th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
disillussioned Says:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I can’t believe all these right wingers want people to die. To die. Think about that. They want people to die so they can make Obama look bad. How dare they. Hundreds of millions will die in hospitals tomorrow if health care reform doesn’t make. Hundreds of Millions! Do the righties have no conscience? We need to get rid of the politics of fear or else hundreds of millions more will die. After health care reform we need climate reform. I hear billions of lives are on the line, billions. Why can’t everyone be a nice caring lefty? Why? It drives me to tears. I need my blanket.———————————————————————
isn’t your party that supports abortion on demand, euthiansia and one child per couple policies?
Its sounds like you’re the asshole that wants death..
oh, did i mention you’re an asshole
December 14th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Bottom line is…you do NOT deserve any form of Medicare unless you have EARNED it, your spouse is a beneficiary or you are disabled…PERIOD! What you really want is cradle to grave care and yes, I am gloating like heck over what Joe is saying! You Libs have no problem at all destroying not only senior’s care that has been insurance for them for decades. Nor do you give a crap that the doctor’s reimbursements have been slashed already. And you call Republicans greedy??! You have got to be kidding me! Go Joe!!!!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I have always thought that Lieberman was a typical liberal jerk. But maybe, just maybe, the man actually sees no reason to upend the entire medical care system of the United States and, at the same time, pile even more debt on the already unsustainable levels we are currently forced to endure. Maybe he thinks it is just not worth it for the 10-12 million citizens who are chronically uninsured (and apparantly unable fill out MEDICAID request forms). If Joe is being recalcitrant for noble reasons, good for him! But being a politician, I have my doubts.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Joe-mentum … catch it!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
What is so strange here is that without some common sense Dems like the Nelsons and Joe, these socialist pacifists in the Dem controlled Congress along with the faux Messiah, would have our healthcare, our energy programs, our defense options bankrupted and even now we are teetering on disaster. In 11 months, Obama has forced even some of his leftCenter people to actually wake up and yell Uncle to all of this naif’s destructive economic policies. And this Prez has the gall to warn big business, banks, and car companies to tow his line or…..and it was Fannie and Freddie under Dodd and Barney who bankrupted our housing market and this new $1.1 trillion domestic bill passed by the Dems that has 5000 earmarks for our friendly neighborhood Dems and Pubs both.just adds to the economic mess. Yipe. If any business people ever vote for Dems again, they should be boiled in oil!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Those of us who followed the moderate Democratic positions understood it had been a conditional acceptance to consider the bill as it moved forward. It was not a fait accompli back pocket or block vote, nor had there been a definitive positive position stated by his spokesman.
I find the claims of surprise more interesting than Lieberman’s stated position at this point in time.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
[...] Clyde Middleton posted: 2009-12-14 17:32:00 Viewed 1 times. 0 Comments. This piece whines about the centuries-old filibuster, and seeks to blame Sen. Lieberman for the impending death of [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
This is all very funny. You libs (or “progressives,” whatever you are calling yourself this week) are hoping to push through complex, sweeping reform of a part of American life that, in spite of it’s ills, works quite well for the average voter. People aren’t buying the expansion coverage to 30mm and simultaneously cutting costs; any more than they bought the “death panels.” You have painted yourselves inti quite a corner. You should start over, (if you are serious about reforming the private healthcare market) and listen to the Republicans and moderates in your own party.
I fear that you are not serious. I think, as some Dems in congress are honest enough to blurt out, that you are going for the brass ring of single payer; if so, then stop pretending, and start selling full-on socialized health insurance to the American people. (It has no appeal or benefits?)
There is no way, for instance, that anyone can seriously propose total reform of the private healthcare industry without some discussion of alleviating our circus-lottery tort system……but, the Dems have made themselves addicted to the lawyer’s money. Re-regulation of the insurance markets to allow interstate competition? Perhaps that would work too well?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise…
I don’t think I’ve ever read a more dishonest statement. Liberals are notorious for ramming shit down the American electorates collective throats. This “healthcare” bullshit is just another example of this. According to Rasmussens latest poll, 56% oppose the healthcare bill and even more significantly, 63% of seniors polled oppose it and 46% of all others strongly oppose it. 40% favor it and only 19% strongly favor it. So there you have it. Now I’m sure this information means absolutely nothing to you Liberal shitheads because facts and reason never do. According to your own Bible, the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html, Obama and his cronies have sealed a backroom deal with Big Pharma to the tune of untold billions of dollars. And Obama told us this kind of shit was history if he got elected. And you all have the nerve to rail against Bush for lying? This guy is the Chief of Liars.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Yglesias has become such a booster and apologist for the Obama administration that it’s a wonder he hasn’t renamed his blog “The Obamagram”. He used be interesting to read. He’s become just another unthinking twerp.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Democrats can’t lead, it’s that simple. Majority in both houses and the White House and they can’t pull this off?
December 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Oh, and for all of you trying to paint the picture that reasonable people who disagree with you on this topic are horrible monsters from hell hell that want hundreds of thousands of our countrymen to die for the sake of our greed…..you aren’t fooling anyone. I saw the word sociopath used above. That is funny, most of the libs I know don’t give squat to charity, and are sometimes petty or nasty to their fellowman.
As many people as you say die from lack of health insurance, die every year in mostly preventable auto accidents. Where is your crusade to federalize our roads?
All of this because the many (not all) liberals give not a shit about the poor, the downtrodden, or people without health insurance. They want power, pure and simple, and they know the cloak of brotherly love and altruism hides their thirst for it. (Safe to say breed #1 responsible for most of these posts.)
I suggest all you so afflicted read Rand. I did, and it saved me at an early age from such a horrible state of self-loathing and power-lusting overcompensation .
December 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
What about starting over on healthcare reform and creating something (carefully) that the great majority of people (including many Republicans and Independents) can agree on rather than a minority plurality of leftist Democrats. Why isn’t that an option? Democracy is for everyone, not an entitled minority (left or right) – even if they are so arrogant that they think only they could be correct about anything. Authoritarianism is just as deadly coming from the left as it is from the right – hence the early on comment about killing off anyone who disagrees with the left. WOW! Perhaps they all should be waterboarded and tortured also? Human rights is only for leftists and terrorists?
By the way, few if any people are dying due to not having insurance (the study that suggested it is a highly flawed polemic). Anyone (ANYONE) can go to an emergency room and be treated – and do! So much BS is being thrown around (on this issue – most of it from the left). The U.S. medical care is the best in the world. Health status and longevity (including higher rates of suicide, accidents, firearm related deaths, and bad lifestyle choices such as lack of exercise, drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse, obesity, diet, etc.) are where the U.S. does poorly. Don’t confound health status with medical care. And, the old WHO report that ranked the U.S. 37th or 39th has been disowned by the WHO and those who prepared it – junk in junk out.
There are real problems in the U.S. medical care / health care system, but let’s address them honestly and carefully otherwise the law of unintended consequences may well result in all of us getting less and worse healthcare. We don’t need the bomb throwers that this blog seems to attract destroying democracy, healthcare, our economy, and the lives of anyone who disagrees with them. No wonder so many Americans (now a majority) no longer approve of the Democrats, Obama, and their policies. Insanity increasingly appears to have been transferred from Bushies to Obamies. Must be something in the water at the White House. Can’t wait for the masses to thwow them out just like they did the Bushies.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Gosh. I guess all that “hope and change” isn’t that easy, is it?
What Mr. Iglesias fails to realize is that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Axis is completely out of touch with the public mood. No doubt none of Mr. Iglesias’ acquaintances oppose nationalized health care, but the idea is distinctly unpopular amongst the proles. As the Rasmussen survey shows, Obama’s ratings among the masses have fallen faster than any modern president – and for all of the reasons Conservatives warned of prior to the election. With luck we can stop the “progressives” before they do irreparable harm and take back Congress next year so that the nation can benefit from some good old fashioned gridlock.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
It’s a bad bill. It must die. I’d love to have health care reform, but it shouldn’t look like this. It’s time to gut the union deals, the trial-lawyer deals, the pacts with PhRMA and AARP. And most of all, please don’t let the Federal government try to run it. Every program they’ve ever run has its cash raided and goes bankrupt.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Way to go Joe! Give Harry Reid and his lackeys hell. The American people might yet get a decent bill out of the Democrats’ morass.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Some wise wrote above: “You’re rapidly turning all but the foam-at-the-mouth mindless leftie kook fringe against you.”
Absolutely. I have been a registered Democrat since I could vote at 18. I am almost 40. I was a Hillary supporter during the primaries. I even considered myself a “progressive.” But what I’ve seen happen to the Democrats since the take-over of the party by the lunatic fringe has forced me to leave the party, thanks in no small part to the outright voter fraud perpetuated in the caucuses, fraud that favored Obama.
I’m not a hawk, nor am I some socially conservative blue dog. I live in California. I teach yoga.
I am very much appalled by how the Obama Democrats have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them. They shut down debate, they call any opposition horrible names (teabaggers), and they are more than happy to shove health care “reform” down everyone’s throats that MOST people do not want.
And yet, you call yourselves liberals? What REAL liberal would support health care legislation that is really just a giveaway to the insurance companies? Health insurance mandates force people to become paying customers for PRIVATE companies!!! THIS is not liberal, it’s not enlightened, and it’s not going to help! This is corporate-fascism!
Wake up, lefties. You’ve chased people like myself and many of my friends away with your far left equivalent of religious fundamentalism. Thank God for Joe Lieberman. He may save our country from the ruin that will ensue from this out-of-control congress.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
How soon we are forgetting that less than 40% of the public and 40 repubicans are against this bill. Not just Lieberman. Also, this bill actually RAISES healthcare costs. It’s toxic. Don’t blame Lieberman, blame the pinheads who constructed this Bill and the Idiotic Democrats who haven’t come through on one promise since they have been in office.
Lieberman’s a scapegoat right now for Democratic failure and incompetence.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Wasn’t Joe L. the guy we dems put forward to be the second in command an election cycle or so back? or did we do that just to get the Jewish vote I forget.
Maybe he’s the guy who can do simple math. ie… Medicare has a HUGE unfunded liabilty measured in TTTTrillions (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662) and we are about to add 30 to 40 million seniors to its roles. Who will pay for that…?…Wall Street or maybe Trial Lawyers. I am in need of healthcare. I WANNA’ PUKE…
December 14th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
@107 & 108 Are you the same damian from The Omen? Good heavens, you have some anger issues.
I’m just saying that if everyone could just get along and work together, we could move this bill through Congress and give it a chance to work. Speaker Pelosi assured us it would be a Christmas gift to the American people and she would not say that if there was anything wrong with it. Sure, it has a lot pages, but these things are complicated and that’s why we have professionals like like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama in charge. They understand it and know what we need. We are truly fortunate to have leaders like them to lead us through these difficult times.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
It is quite amusing to read the left on left internal battle.
This may be the move Lieberman needs to get my vote in the next cycle. Let’s see if he holds out to protect American liberty and productivity. Clearly the Democratic form of reform is less about health care and more about power and control. Not even considering Tort Reform or opening up across state lines is the real tragedy here.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
What a bunch of “useful” idiots! Reconciliation is no option at all. If you want to pass a major overhaul like the current health care legislation, you need to reach the 60 vote threshold or passing it will represent nothing more than a temporary and hollow victory. Aside from the justifiable outrage the Dems would face in the next election for bucking public opinion and changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit their ideological ambitions, the measure could be just as easily repealed with 51 votes once the political winds change (and that change is assured). The fact that the benefits portion of this plan won’t kick in until after several years of taxing us to pay for it just makes a quick repeal that much more likely — and it makes for a wonderful campaign rallying cry! I am dead set against this left wing attempt at socialization, but I am a political pragmatist that can see that if it must happen, it will have to be done be in a manner that will be seen as legitimate and that will have political longevity. As an avowed political opponent of almost everyone commenting on this site, I offer my advice for free, although I am under no allusion that it will be considered, much less understood.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Gee, I guess the Dems shouldn’t have thrown him under the bus in his last election.
Payback sucks, eh?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“I’m not a hawk, nor am I some socially conservative blue dog. I live in California. I teach yoga…Thank God for Joe Lieberman.” (amazed)
Why does teaching yoga preclude you from being a gangling douche? Hitler was a vegetarian. Please tell me where you teach this yoga so I can come by and piss on you and your putzo mat.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
From Comment 127: “Sure, it has a lot pages, but these things are complicated and that’s why we have professionals like like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama in charge. They understand it and know what we need. We are truly fortunate to have leaders like them to lead us through these difficult time”
You have GOT to be joking. This is a joke, right?
My problem with the Democrats now (having been a Democrat for many years) is that leftists are so damn determined to give the Democrats a pass on everything after skewering Bush on anything minor thing, including sneezing.
Even if you are a die-hard Democrat, you still need healthy skepticism and you need to keep your leaders accountable.
What’s truly disheartening is to see all the so-called “intelligent” liberals on this site going on about staging protests in the name of healthcare, when I am convinced that MOST OF YOU haven’t really taken the time to consider whether the actual bill being put forward is really going to help!
You just want “health care for all” and don’t even bother to VET the convoluted solution your representatives are offering! Yet, if the Republicans were offering it, I’m sure you’d be going through it line by line.
Stop the hypocrisy. A TRUE agitator would not be towing the party line but holding any and ALL people accountable, even if they have a D after their name.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Joe’s admin is 10x better than any Obama Socialist Admin. Go Joe! Only better is for him to join the GOP and vote to dump Harry Do-nothing the pre-mature bufoon Reid
December 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Wow what are you smoking Matt? Where’d you get the “tens of thousands” who die each year, who this bill would presumably save? If it was just about providing health insurance or care to the poor, that would have been passed months ago. But your president let Nancy launch an over-the-top grab on the health care marketplace –> mandates, taxes, rules, all of which have nothing to do with providing care to those who need it. A simple 20 page bill would suffice. You trot out the same red herring as Harry Reid…that if you oppose the steaming pile they’ve put together (the Senate version of which still leaves 25 million uninsured), you are shirking your duty to save the uninsured. Puhleeze!
December 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Trevor writes: “Why does teaching yoga preclude you from being a gangling douche? Hitler was a vegetarian. Please tell me where you teach this yoga so I can come by and piss on you and your putzo mat.”
Real intelligent, Trevor. You have just APTLY demonstrated what I just commented on, that being the bot wing of the Democratic party and their absolute and total intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them.
My being in California and teaching yoga has everything to do with what I said…that being…if someone such as myself can be chased away by a Democratic party that has been hijacked by intolerant radicals, then I am NOT the only one. *I* fit the “urban liberal” demographic. I am NOT a heartland person who goes to church on Sunday. And if people like me are leaving the Democrats, you damn well better be worried.
So keep it up. It’s precisely foul-mouthed jerks like you tha are the main reason I am bailing on the Democrats and I’ve stopped identifying myself among the “left.” I’m independent now, not part of some mindless and hateful radical group think.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“leftists are so damn determined to give the Democrats a pass on everything after skewering Bush on anything minor thing, including sneezing.” (amazed)
That’s your real bete noir – that “Democrats” picked on the fuckin’ idiot (W). Look what the kid did – what he shouldn’t have gotten any shit for it? What are you – his mother?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
What’s become obvious is that the Democrats are unfit to rule this country. America, as it is today, needs a leader that reflects the people. Fat. greedy, lazy, under-educated, racist, bigoted, culturally unaware, hateful of other countries and subject to mind-erasing by Rush, Glen and a few carefully planted, Rovian jingoistic phrases. Good job America. Hope and Change are dead. We now return you to your monster truck program. Republicans, it’s your show again. Dumb ‘er down.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Long Live Lieberman.
If Lieberman singlehandedly stops this disaster of a healthcare bill he can run for President as an independent. Suppose the choices in 2012 were: Obama (D), Palin or Cheney (R) and Lieberman (I). The US might get its first Jewish President. And it might get a new party. (please, please, please…..)
December 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
“Real intelligent, Trevor. You have just APTLY demonstrated what I just commented on, that being the bot wing of the Democratic party” (amazed)
yeah, that’s me – a “bot wing Democrat”, ha ha. And, if it’s a little “foul language” that upsets you so – that just tells everyone what a priggish little prince you are. Stay with Aunt Bee and make doilies lest your delicate sensibilities be pricked any further. Dick Cheney would likely whip it out and piss on you faster than any Left/Liberal/Progressive could.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Talk, talk, talk. I’m so sick of talk. Somebody should put a bullet in JL’s brain, and fast.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“That’s your real bete noir – that “Democrats” picked on the fuckin’ idiot (W). Look what the kid did – what he shouldn’t have gotten any shit for it? What are you – his mother?”
You missed the point. The point is, you’ll get all over Bush’s case but ignore it when Obama does the same damn thing.
Thankfully SOME on the left are finally waking up and holding Obama accountable for his continuation of Bush’s policies. But far too many are still too trusting and are not being critical enough of the health care “reforms” being suggested. They are more concerned with a symbolic “win” for the Democrats than having a reform that really works.
“And, if it’s a little “foul language” that upsets you so – that just tells everyone what a priggish little prince you are.”
I’m a woman, moron. And your language and insults, without any intelligent commentary tacked onto them, don’t show what a prig I am, they show how little substance YOU have.
So what is your purpose? To further drive away people like me from the causes you care about? To further bleed the Democratic party? You do the Democrats are having a hard time getting donations now, don’t you? So you actively want to rude and push away potential allies? That’s real smart of you.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Thank God for Joe and the Republicans resisting the neo-Marxists democrats.
This unconstitutional take over of the health care industry needs to be stopped, and the auto industry power grab reversed.
Joe Lieberman is a fine American, barry boy is a disgrace.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“…But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance…”
Oh give me a break. Neither party cares about healthcare for anyone. Both parties only care about themselves and obtaining more power.
It’s time to end this charade we call “government”. The last 20 years have lead to more and more government in our lives, whether the Reps or Dems were in power and now the goal is to take over 1/6th of the US economy and to force us to accept what “mommy and daddy government” provide us. It’s time for a complete crash of our government and our financial system. Honestly, I look forward to it ONLY because we need it. This depression taught a lot of Americans the importance of how to better manage their lives financially (including me) and now it’s time for the government to learn the same lesson. Neither party believes in fiscal responsibility; it’s time for a real crash. Everything the past Administration and our current Administration is doing is pushing us over the edge; we’re about to fall and everyone is in denial. Healthcare – let’s spend money! Climate – let’s spend money! Raises for gov’t employees – let’s spend money! War – let’s spend money! and on and on it goes…
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1419042320091214?type=marketsNews
December 14th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Bravo for Mr. Lieberman. The Democrats should not have tried to sabotage him in his home state.
As for tens of thousands dying because of no insurance (aside from the bogus claim), millions die every year WITH insurance.
Do you hear that distant roar of chainsaws?? Those are Republican and Independent langoliers coming your way.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
[...] hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.” Matthew Yglesias says he’s demonstrated a “willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
[...] as I wrote this morning: That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Welcome to the Lieberman administration? Now that’s not a bad idea. Clearly, as demonstrated by subsequent events, the superior half of the Y2K Democratic ticket. A man of principle despite the insults and calumny directed at him. Progressive on the domestic issues and a hawk on national security. And most of all, a true non-partisan, elected and behaving as an Independent. Bring it on…this is a great idea.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I am not too sure that ‘progressives’ who tend – like birds of a feather – to flock together really understand how far they have overstepped this time.
The things that are going on which they regard as laudable are anathema to the majority of this center-right country.
Have you looked at the increased rate of gun sales in this country? Not hunting rifles – those sales are flat – but pistols and defensive shotguns and similar? Same thing for ammunition sales for these weapons.
A sizable minority of the population has been pushed way too far and way too fast. Their brethren in the center-right majority are all that is currently restraining them but it is reaching the point where the majority is going to say that while they personally would never resort to violence themselves, they ‘understand’ why this group is so angry.
That’s all it will take, really, for the violence to start.
It was never about getting 50.00001% in the House or 60 votes in the Senate and inflicting your views on everyone else. It was about everyone accepting those compromises that let us all live together without violence. That consensus is the one we have to worry about, and it’s fraying more with each passing day.
1. When will the violence start?
2. Do the progressives seriously think they will defeat those people who cling to their guns and religion?
December 14th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
This almost makes me glad that Gore didn’t win. Could you imagine this prick in the White House?
December 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
HA HA FEEL THE PAIN, MARIXSTS! FEEL THE PAIN!!!
OBAMA = FAIL
December 14th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Kropotkin Says:
December 14th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
This almost makes me glad that Gore didn’t win. Could you imagine this prick in the White House?
———-
Yeah, scary. And then when the Nobel Peace Prize committee gave him that consolation prize for sucking his thumb, you knew what a narrow escape we had.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Thankfully Lieberman has matured since his attempted election stealing with algore.
Dump this 2000+ pages of crappola – dump algore’s Ponzi scheme – global warming-dump most Dems in 2010.
Save the economy after the 2010 elections – dump obama in 2012 and on to rational government
December 14th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Rick Roberts Says:
December 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Talk, talk, talk. I’m so sick of talk. Somebody should put a bullet in JL’s brain, and fast.
I’m so pleased that we live in a kinder, gentler America, where people can have honest differences about issues of public policy….
Hey idiot child, sometimes you don’t get your way. I don’t hear conservatives talking about shooting Reid, Pelosi, or the Messiah. What kind of sociopath are you?
I’ve been a conservative all my life and other than from the idiot fringes have never seen such venom as is routinely spewed forth from the left. They seem to think that anybody who doesn’t toe the line isn’t just mistaken, but downright evil. When the left can’t win on the merits of their arguments, they stop arguing and pick up a gun. And when they pick up a pen, it’s often obvious that they’re ill-educated (I have trouble taking people seriously when they’re opining on incredibly complex issues of national policy, yet can’t spell, can’t use correct grammar, and usually resort to name-calling)
Why do you think you’re so all-fired smart that you’re always right? Why is any deviation from the party line cause for hatred?
Geez, and you think conservatives are narrow-minded?
December 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Most of these people dragging the system down are undoubtedly minorities and illegal aliens. We need some kind of final solution to these problems.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
government should not be be trying to “control” the cost of health care–or running it.
we have rejected over and over and over again for 50 years the idea that government can or should control prices or wages. with the possible exception of world war 2, when national survival was truly at issue, all price and wage controls did in the korean war and in nixon’s big 1971-1974 experiment, was to distort the markets and head us towards disaster. if one wants to control the price of health care, one has to control the price of everything that’s a part of and/or related to health care–and then the price of the things that are part of and/or related to those new things and on down the line until you have to try to control EVERYTHING. that’s why the health care bill is 2,000 pages long, and that’s why it will be 10,000 pages long in 5 years. as we all know, since we’ve been through these promises of frugality for ages, the true cost will be much higher than any predicted costs. so, let’s not lie to each other or ourselves.
apparently, no one has stopped to think that our cost of health care is high BECAUSE WE WANT A LOT OF HEALTH CARE. nobody says, “gee, isn’t it awful that “x” percent of our gdp goes for computers, and it was nothing only 25 years ago. oh, my!” that’s because we allocate our resources to what we either want or must buy.
so, we have to start the conversation over. the general theme has to be: private competition, and may the cheapest product with the most benefits win.
having said that, and pleased everyone on the right, if we as a nation now deem health care a right, not a mere commodity (on the basis we want the kid next door or 1000 miles away to get his/her broken leg fixed the same as our own) then here’s what an honest left would propose.
there is only one non-cumbersome way to do it. that’s by honestly raising taxes and giving the extra money to some of the population as a health care subsidy to buy health insurance. it can be done as a sort of negative income tax through the existing irs bureaucracy without the government owning or controlling anything. just take from some of us and give it to others to buy health insurance. if the insurance companies need a zillion dollars to insure very unhealthy people (pre-existing conditions) then we will be put to the test as to just how much we really want to cover everybody because we’ll have to pay for it–but not give up our freedom or line the pockets of the politicians to lie to us how much money they’re saving us or how much they are just doing it because they’re great people.
but, you can’t insure an extra 15, 20, or 40 million people for the same or less cost than now. and, unless you live in an authoritarian or totalitarian society, you can’t make people buy things by government fiat. but, you can tax.
so, if you want it, let capitalism produce the wealth and administer the product, and let government openly tax the wealth and spread it around. then, the vote will be honest and the choice will be honest, win or lose for either side.
keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago
December 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
There certainly seems to be an awful lot of hatred and anger from those who are supposedly enjoying their party holding the majority in Congress as well as occupying the White House.
Maybe some good clean fun like skeet shooting might help some of you work out those lingering frustrations!
PULL!
December 14th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
What is funny is that the American public (along with many Senators, including the #2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin) doesn’t even know what was compromised behind closed doors among 10 Democrats. Until we see the final product, we should reserve judgement. Rumors are swirling and they are just that – rumors.
Just wait for the CBO assessment. If it meets the President’s objectives – less that $1T and helps reduce the deficit – then we’ll find out the details.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
1. Reconciliation won’t work because principled Democrats like KKK Bob Byrd won’t allow it.
2. What a bunch of crybabies. Joe Lieberman is not the only one in opposition. Landireu, Nelson, Lincoln and Webb if he wants another term.
3. Obama has voted present on this entire process, choosing not to be tied down or have to explain himself.
4. If there really is 500 million waste in Medicare, go get it and then use it for your new boondoggle.
5. Finally, I thought we live in a democracy. When 60% of the people oppose a new entitlement I think it’s time to give it up.
Regardless, losing both houses in one election when a year ago the Republican party was dead is a admirable goal. Thanks for letting me vent.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
So, after booting Lieberman off the Conn. ticket, so that he had to run as an indie to keep his Senate seat, the poor, liberal Dems are crying that Joe’s not a team player.
Ain’t payback a bitch.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
You pinko commies primaried him and ran against him – what did you think he was going to do take warm showers with you commies until the wee hours of the morning. Wait for the impeachment trial and the blago tapes ladies your chosen one is up the creek and on tape.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Reading the posts have been hilarious. Especially the ones about going to the streets and protesting. 31% of Americans favor the current bill. The reason the tea-parties had impact is that they actually represented a large group of Americans. Like it or not, Joe Lieberman is saving the democratic party from itself.
This, by the way is why the Senate was created this way, to keep the majority from overreaching with foolish ideas. The senate tempers things by giving the minority a greater proportionate vote. It worked when Bush was Pres and it’s working now. It keeps the country a little closer to the center.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Take away Lieberman’s dual citizenship. Joe can always go to Israel to get his health care; the poor Americans he’s playing games with can’t.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
[...] Offer to You: Nothing Filed under: Health Care — Nancy @ 8:40 pm -0600 Well, as I wrote this morning: That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
All progressive Democrats should now begin to wage war upon Joe Lieberman, the state of Conn, and everything that Joe Lieberman stands for. Stripping his chairmanship should only be the beginning. We should boycott all things Lieberman and all things Conn. He is waging a personal vendetta against the progressives and we should reciprocate! Then, if this Scoop Jackson of a President and his neo-Clintonian Chief of Staff don’t get the message, we should vote elsewhere come 2012.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Just because Joe doesn’t fall in line and do the “goose-step” for Obama and his liberal co-conspirators doesn’t make him the issue. The issue is an administration and a liberal infested congress that is trying to cram something down the American people’s throats against their will. I cannot wait until November of next year so we can clean house and clear out this ridiculous left wing insurgency that is trying to ruin this country!!!!!!
December 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I have to say that at this moment in time Joe is the ONLY democrat of value. He actually has been listening to his constituents and voting the way they want. I am utterly amazed at this as I didn’t think it was even possible for democrats to hear the people who voted for them. For that matter I don’t think they really listen to anyone’s voice except their own. Maybe Joe is growing up and becoming a republican.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:07 am
I thought Lieberman cared about human rights and life but he obviously has a cold heart who only cares about his use of power. He is heartless afterall and deserves to be voted out of office and to think I supported him for his view on the war. I thought he actually cared about human life. Perhaps only those in other countries but not our own. He is a cold, heartless man who could care less that my Mother is sick and can not afford heathcare. America please wake up and understand that you are being brainwashed by people who don’t want to help out those right here in our own country but are willing to spill the blood of our brothers and sisters to help other in another country. I am not agaist war but I am for helping out Americans as well. Lieberman is horrible afterall.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Let me say as a caveat, I believe that you win to govern, even if it means you’ll lose a few seats down the line. Now having said that, reconciliation isn’t a practical option, and here’s why: tell me which of the following senators can afford to vote for the health care bill with reconciliation and not almost certainly hand over the Senate to the Republicans in 2010 or 2012:
Gillibrand
Bennet
Tester
Klobuchar
McCaskill
Webb
Brown
Pryor
either Nelson
Stabenow
Bayh
Lincoln
Lieberman
Landrieu
Johnson
Dorgan
Conrad
Specter
Baucus
Dodd
Oh yeah… and Harry Reid.
That’s 21 – count ‘em, 21 – Democratic senators up in the next 2 cycles from either red states or western libertarian ones who either are low on seniority or embroiled in personal problems (Specter, Baucus, Dodd, Reid) and hence vulnerable. Reconciliation could plausibly result in a Republican takeover of the Senate in 3 years. So, while it’s good to stand on principle, Dems essentially have to get this done without reconciliation, or not at all.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:46 am
[...] part of the reason goes beyond mere politics. As Matt Yglesias writes: Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do [...]
December 15th, 2009 at 1:48 am
[...] part of the reason goes beyond mere politics. As Matt Yglesias writes: Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do [...]
December 15th, 2009 at 4:22 am
The main problem that liberal
Democrats are having is not a stubborn Joe Lieberman but an American public that is overwhelmingly against this 2,000 page monstrosity called health care “reform”. As for soon-to-be ex-Senator Harry ‘dingy” Reid, if Lieberman did actually double-cross him, it could not have happened to a more deserving politician.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:27 am
WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTING TODAY THAT HE SEEMS TO BE KILLING THE PUBLIC OPTION AND MEDICARE POSSIBILITIES FOR THE HEALTH-INSURANCE-REFORM BILL, HOW LONG WILL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TOLERATE LIEBERMAN’S SHENANIGANS?
December 15th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Joe Lieberman would be just another sour senator were the senate organized observe majority rule. His power derives from the 60-vote requirement for cloture — and from his willingness to be indifferent to the damage he does.
It’s one thing to leave him in the tent as long as he’s pissing out, but quite another thing not to give him the heave-ho when he’s hosing down everyone inside the tent. Not throwing him out of the caucus makes the Democratic Party look weak in the eyes of the electorate.
Apparently Rahm Emanual wants Reid to appease Lieberman. I doubt he can be appeased. He’s not negotiating in good faith. He’s moving the goal posts every time the deal appears to come together. His objective is to kill the bill by making it impossible for liberals to vote for it. He can then sanctimoniously observe that the bill died because liberals allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and he’ll probably be joined in making that argument by Emanual, Lanny Davis, and the rest of the anti-single-payer “Democrats.”
There’s just one way to make him toe the line. Strip him of his chairmanships and seniority now, before the vote, and let him know that voting for a good health reform bill is the only way he’ll rap a chairman’s gavel again.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Reading the comments here is like reading a comic book, full of laughs. You lefties keep dreaming, when 2010 comes around, and you lose control of both houses of congress, you’ll all be whining about the bully republicans forcing bills through. I have to believe that none of you here read anything except the daily kos, so you don’t realize that the majority of Americans don’t want the socialism you’re selling. Try reading a history book sometimes, socialism doesn’t work, it never has, and never will, and you idiots wishing for socialism to take over America, and turn us into Europe lite, will never happen!
December 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I suggest that Lieberman be “punished” by running a left-wing lunatic against him in the Democratic primary.
Ooops. Already did that.
You folks are precious.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I think “criticalthinker” brought his friends since from #85 down, this thread turned into garbage. Otherwise I don’t know how the hell that happened.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:12 am
#176
Do you think that only socialists read this blog? And what is the “garbage” you’re talking about? Someone presenting a different point of view?
December 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Obama’s choice of Biden results in the incestuous far left poor excuse for an administration that is ruining the US.His
only enlightened choice was Joe Lieberman.His calm thoughtfull
reasoning and centrist philosophy would have given a chance to
positive change.Biden’s incessant bouts of verbal diarhea,spewing the catastrophic myths and falsehoods of the
neo-marxists,does not differ enough from Obama’s beliefs to
produce a perception of fair and balanced reform.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I think “criticalthinker” brought his friends since from #85 down, this thread turned into garbage. Otherwise I don’t know how the hell that happened.
It’s fucking realclearpolitics.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
What’s the difference between Sarah Palin’s mouth and Sarah Palin’s cunt? Retarded shit only came out of her cunt once.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
the author writes:
“But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.”
well, here’s what national health care gets you–
“800,000 H1N1 Vaccine Doses Recalled
Hundreds of thousands of pediatric H1N1 vaccine doses may not be potent enough to protect against virus.”
the government ran the h1n1 program and screwed it up–and it will screw up health care exponentially.
keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago
December 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“I think “criticalthinker” brought his friends since from #85 down, this thread turned into garbage. Otherwise I don’t know how the hell that happened.”
You might try listening to other points of view. The fact is, hardcore liberals make up maybe 20% or less of the population in this country. If you want to be more effective, you might try actually understanding what the “other side” wants. Otherwise, it’s a case of a small minority trying to shove through their ideas of what is “better” to a majority that isn’t interested.
I’m a moderate. What I see lately is the left imploding because they can’t wrap their brains around the fact that Obama did NOT get a national mandate to transform this country into an ultra-left socialist state. (Though, I personally don’t think that’s Obama’s goal. I think he is a corporate-fascist.)
Most people in this country do NOT want the health care “reform” being shoved down our throats. It’s not because we want people to die in the streets. It’s because the reforms proposed suck, period. An elegant solution would not require 2,000+ pages of legislative gobbly-gook and any person with half a brain can see that.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
[...] Again. And why is it incumbent on liberals to concede? It’s not because they’re weak; it’s because they care. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members [...]