10.15.2009

Lieberman Flirting with Political Suicide

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is making the rounds telling anyone and everyone that he's opposed to the Finance Committee's health care bill, and indeed probably the entire concept of health care reform. Whatever Lieberman's motivation -- a desire for attention, a desire to protect an insurance industry that has a large presence in his state -- he would seem to be putting his political future at risk by doing so.

Lieberman's approval rating cratered among Democrats in mid-2006, dropping from 60 in May of that year to 38 in August after he lost to Ned Lamont and the U.S. Senate primary and then announced he would seek a re-match as an independent. Although Lieberman's numbers improved among Republicans and held roughly steady among independents over this period, the net effect was a deterioration in his approval rating from the low 60's to the low-to-mid 50's.



Lieberman's numbers held steady in that position for some time, until they dropped significantly further from March to July 2008, probably coinciding with the period when he began to routinely attack then-candidate Barack Obama. (Lieberman had endorsed John McCain in December 2007 in advance of the Republican primaries, but it perhaps hadn't dawned on Connecticut Democrats that he would continue to vocally support McCain during the general election.) During this period, his approval ratings dropped another 15-20 points among Democrats, and 5-10 points among independents -- while ironically not really improving any among Republicans. His overall performance rating bottomed out at 38 percent in December.

Since then, Lieberman's standing has been somewhat rehabilitated, primarily because of improvement among Democrats, with whom his approval rating has climbed back up from the low 20's into the mid-30's. It appears that Lieberman's backing for the stimulus package, rather than the afterglow of Barack Obama's election or the Democrats' decision to allow him to remain in their caucus, was the cause, as the bounce among Democrats occurred between February and March, during which time the stimulus vote occurred.

Generally speaking, this would suggest that Lieberman has more to lose among Democrats than he has to gain among Republicans by bucking his former party, which is only natural since Democrats outnumber Republicans in Connecticut by a 39-32 margin.

Were he to vote against the health care package, or vote to filibuster it, this would just about guarantee that he wouldn't be the Democratic nominee in 2012 would be vigorously and angrily opposed by everyone from the top levels of the Democratic establishment to the netroots. Republicans would then have to decide whether to field a candidate on their own or let Lieberman duke it out with the Democratic nominee, a decision that might depend on whether popular governor Jodi Rell were interested in that seat. Were Lieberman opposed by a credible Democrat on the left as well as Rell on the right, my guess is that he's struggle to emerge with more than 15-20 percent of the vote.

The absence of a strong Republican challenger would make life somewhat easier for him, but a February poll found him losing 58-30 (!) to Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in a matchup with no Republican candidate.

Although Lieberman will probably face some sort of challenge from his left no matter what, his best chance to remain in office, by far, would seem to be to continue to make nice with the Democratic establishment, to the extent that he deterred a strong challenger like Blumenthal from running against him. That will require him to vote with the Democrats on health care. Indeed, I don't see how Lieberman has any leverage to speak of, although who's to say whether he's looking at this from anything resembling a rational perspective.

Connecticut voters favor the health care package by a 47-42 plurality, according to a Quinnipiac poll conducted in September, with support dividing itself sharply along party lines and independents splitting their preferences evenly. Connecticutians also support the public option, which Lieberman is opposed to, by a more robust 64-30 majority, according to the same poll.

81 comments

The Religious Left said...

Qui es "Liberman"?

Bren said...

Lieberman is the contemporary Benedict Arnold.

shiloh said...

hmm, he's not up for re-election until 2012 and he can't run as a Dem and CT now knows he's a putz w/no loyalty to anybody or any party.

Looks like he's retiring in 2012, eh.

He made his bed and must now lie in it ...

p.s. but I heard he gave a great speech at the 2008 Rep convention ;) if you really, really like whiny voices!

Pinyan said...

Is it possible that he thinks he can make it to even higher office in 2012? Does he hae the fantasy that he'll be the Republican VP nominee?

mcc said...

For that matter, is it possible he's just plain given up, or realized he's unlikely to win another election again in any context?

If Lieberman ever reached that conclusion, what effect would it have on his behavior?

Mike in Maryland said...

And to add to the confusion, he is now aiming to take the lead on steering the repeal of DADT through the Senate.

Why? To actually overturn DADT? Or to sabotage the bill, and thus try to cut Rell from running?

Mike in Maryland

Amol said...

It's worth noting that Lieberman only said he'd vote against the bill, not cloture. He might think that voting no on a bill that ultimately passes anyway won't piss off Democrats too much while shoring up support from the insurance people in his state.

henwy said...

Finally a pol with some stones. Isn't this what we often say we want out of our politicians? That they do what they think is right instead of simply doing what it takes to cling to office no matter what the cost? Spector comes to mind as an example of that and it's hardly a pretty picture. If Liberman is really acting against his own self-interests as far as re-election goes, then it's hard not to come to the conclusion it's what he really believes. After all, Nate is claiming he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Paul said...

Kick him out of the caucus and offer his committee seats to Snowe.

Honestly... he didn't only campaign against Obama, he campaigned FOR downticket Republicans, as well.

If it quacks like a Republican, walks like a Republican and looks like a Republican... it's probably a Republican, no?

Then again, what he's largely opposed to is the fact that insurance companies will face additional taxes under the Baucus plan. Why don't the Democrats start acting like progressives and shovel the tax burden on the wealthy, if that'll make him happy? That way, if premiums increase, the insurance companies can't simply claim, "We're just passing on additional costs imposed on us by the government to the consumers," though they'll likely try that line regardless.

Also, like other posters, I was under the impression Lieberman was to retire after this term ends.

. said...

"Kick him out of the caucus and offer his committee seats to Snowe.

Honestly... he didn't only campaign against Obama, he campaigned FOR downticket Republicans, as well.

If it quacks like a Republican, walks like a Republican and looks like a Republican... it's probably a Republican, no?"


This.

Davy said...

et tu, Lieberman?

Please just ignore this guy and hope he fades away. Agreed, give his position to Olympia Snowe. She is my favourite Republican (used to be Chuck Hegel).

Dustin said...

Henwy, just because he doesn't have anything to gain politically, doesn't mean he doesn't have anything to gain.

Alex S. said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Alex S. said...

I guess that, when he said that he cannot support the Baucus bill, he simply indicated that he wanted to have a seat at the table. He wants to be a dealmaker, just like he was during the Stimulus Bill debate.
Yet, I can't shake off the feeling that he is probably the only member of the democratic caucus not seriously interested in a successful reform effort, whatever it might look like. And I also have the suspicion that he is going to run as a republican/on the republican ticket in 2012.

Brother Wolf said...

Here is a far more cynical offering -
What if Lieberman sees the window to quit and receive years of health insurance industry kick backs from being hired to give $100,000 speeches as the savior of the industry? One screw ball action and he is set for the next 20 years - he is going to lose the next election anyway.

Eric Wolf
Storyteller

GROG said...

Whatever Lieberman's motivation -- a desire for attention, a desire to protect an insurance industry that has a large presence in his state...

Yeah, because these are the only 2 possible reasons anyone would be against health care reform.

markymark said...

GROG, the odd thing with Lieberman is that he has a generally progressive voting record on domestic issues. His opposition to health care reform does not SEEM to be principled. He is no small government conservative.

GROG said...

According to opensecrets.org, Democrats received over $178,000,000 from lawyers' donations during the 2008 election cycle -- three times what they donated to Republicans. Over $43,000,000 of that went to the Obama campaign.

Shocking that tort reform, the basic and essential component of health care reform is completely missing from all Democrat proposals. Perhaps, just perhaps, Sen. Lieberman is taking a stance on the long standing tradition of Democrats being in the tank for trial lawyers.

Maybe the Senator is against the Fed Gov taking over 17% of US economy.

Maybe the Senator believes the bill has a greater chance of raising the cost of insurance than reducing it.

Maybe he favors a more pragmatic and responsible approach to healthcare reform, rather than the ram it through approach.

Naw. He must be looking for attention.

joel said...

I guarentee you if a bill comes down to his vote he will vote for it. He owes Obama who saves his political ass.
The only other reason I can think of is he thinks the GOP can pull close to even in the senate and he will then have a lot of power.
He knows if he has anything to do with killing healthcare he is toast. He may want to look like a hero and say he got healthcare passed. Who knows how his warped mind works.

James said...

Isn't it a bit odd to equate "a rational perspective" with a "politics-only-and-policy-free prespective"?

whitetower said...

This is a terrible analysis.

Your own data contradicts your premises: Lieberman's approval ratings have stabilized or even slightly increased as he criticizes health care reform.

Say that again slowly.

Dwight said...

Lieberman is the contemporary Benedict Arnold.

A genuine war hero, pivotal player, leading for the win in a key battle to win the Revolution that then got screwed over so hard by his own cause he sold out so he wouldn't die in poverty?

Judge C. Crater said...

"...a more pragmatic and responsible approach to healthcare reform..."

Would this be the do-nothing approach of 2001-2008? Or the look-the-other way approach as another 44,000 Americans die unnecessarily? Given that the latter is around 15 times the toll of 9/11 and no R said 'boo' when trillions of dollars were irretrievably poured down the resulting rabbit hole in Iraq, presumably NOT actually paying for health care reform would be considered "more pragmatic and responsible."

Rahmsputin said...

There's really only one believable explanation for Lieberman'ss complete reversal in ideology when it comes to domestic policy: the man has a personal vendetta against Democrats for supporting Lamont.

That would be fine if he campaigned as an economic conservative in 2008, but he specifically campaigned as a liberal, telling Democrats in the general election that he was with them on economic issues even if they disagreed on foreign policy.

This, as we can now see, is an enormous lie, as he's emerged more conservative than Snowe, Ben Nelson, and perhaps even Susan Collins.

To that extent, Lieberman won't win reelection for a simple reason: he won't be able to pull the same trick on Connecticut voters again.

Rahmsputin said...

Shocking that tort reform, the basic and essential component of health care reform

Since when is a 0.5% reduction in health spending "basic and essential?"

http://washingtonindependent.com/63471/cbo-tort-reform-would-cut-health-spending-by-0-2

Rahmsputin said...

Maybe the Senator is against the Fed Gov taking over 17% of US economy.

The Baucus bill doesn't have any kind of federal insurance program, so this comment is, frankly, laughably ignorant or depressingly disingenuous.

With that said, I'm really interested in hearing the GOP's tortured explanation for how mandating people to buy private insurance will lead to a Beveridge-style health care system.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Liebermann is playing political games for Israel. He wants this administration to let them do what they want, ie, expand settlements to their hearts content, use Iraqi air space for an attack, etc.

He knows he can get concessions on Israel on his HC vote.

GROG said...

Judge Crater:

So your argument for healthcare reform stems from the fact that you didn't like Bush and you were against the Iraq war???

I don't mean to be a smartass, but what am I missing?

Judge C. Crater said...

Grog: What are you missing? Pretty much my entire post since you made up a couple of 'facts' that aren't actually in it. Read it again and get back to me.

Richard said...

GROG: I think his point was that Republicans don't bat an eye when trillions get spent for the purpose of killing people in a country that did nothing against us, but when its billions to save lives in our country, suddenly its a problem.

I'm confused by that too, to be honest. Why is it ok to spend more money to kill people for no benefit to us (frankly, I'm sure its bred millions of people who now hate the US even more than they did before, for whatever reason), but its NOT ok to spend LESS money to help people in our own country?

And, I'd also like an explanation from someone why conservatives trust the government to decide who or where to invade with no questions asked, who to lock up, etc., but then when the government tries to help the uninsured, its a big problem. Isn't that a horrible disconnect? If the government is so horribly untrustworthy and manages everything so terribly (which is often the case, I agree), why do they get the benefit of the doubt when they're deciding who to kill or lock up indefinitely? Shouldn't we be less likely to give them that benefit?

Jacob said...

Hard to say what Lieberman's looking for with this betrayal. LDF, I doubt it's concessions on Israeli settlements--but probably something related to foreign policy. Or maybe he just likes the attention of being an independent wannabe. Maybe he's looking to complete his defection to the GOP and this is the price of doing so while keeping his chairmanship.

One thing is certain: this cannot stand in a place like Connecticut. Whoever plans to run against Lieberman should start fundraising right now. We cannot let this attention-starved Judas, this smarmy Benedict Arnold, this sniveling Brett Favre of a man hijack the debate yet again and lend an aura of "bipartisanship" to the agenda of the far right.

Whoever is running against him needs to start now.

Dan Warren said...

"Flirting" with suicide? JUMP, you worthless turd!

dcm03005 said...

Not that it's too important, but it is "Nutmeggers," rather than "Connecticutions."

It's pretty annoying that the only thing we ever get noted for in electoral politics is Joe Lieberman. He should be afraid of Blumenthal; a man who's got a cleaner reputation than any other politician in our state, I bet a ton of wealthy Republicans would favor him over Lieberman.

Jay Lapidus said...

I don't think that Lieberman is concerned about re-election.

What he should be concerned about is losing his committee chairmanship. If he's not concerned about that, then Reid better make him concerned.

shma said...

Amol: "It's worth noting that Lieberman only said he'd vote against the bill, not cloture."

"Not vote for cloture? I wouldn't rule that possibility out - not at all," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats.

From politico.

wv:exswat

Pat said...

Couple Points, to various people:

1. Lieberman's not technically a "Democrat." He's technically an independent, ever since the Lamont fiasco. It freed up his perspective somewhat.

2. There are various reasons why he may not support this bill. Maybe because he believes it won't be deficit neutral, because there's no way that Congress will let the cuts to Medicare stand in the future. Maybe because the Unions are against taxing their members plans. Maybe because he sees it as a "giveaway" to the health insurance industry. Maybe "No Reform" is better than a "Reform" that makes things worse?

3. In regards to Tort Reform, the CBO has estimated it would save the US Government over $50 Billion over 10 years. Not exactly chump change, especially for something many states already have, and hasn't affected care any.

juvanya said...

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Liebermann is playing political games for Israel. He wants this administration to let them do what they want, ie, expand settlements to their hearts content, use Iraqi air space for an attack, etc.

He knows he can get concessions on Israel on his HC vote.



Israel has no master. It does not need US permission for anything. It just informs the US out of courtesy.

James said...

@GROG:

Shocking that tort reform, the basic and essential component of health care reform is completely missing from all Democrat proposals. Perhaps, just perhaps, Sen. Lieberman is taking a stance on the long standing tradition of Democrats being in the tank for trial lawyers.

Wait a minute. Are you saying Lieberman is "in the tank for trial lawyers" because he's opposing the Baucus bill, which doesn't contain tort reform? Or are you saying Lieberman, a trial lawyer, is against the Baucus bill because it's favorable to trial lawyers? Neither way makes much sense.

Also, more generally on tort reform. The issue isn't just that it's a really small fraction of costs, and one that's not increasing any faster than inflation...although that's true. But there are three much bigger problems with tort reform:

1)It protects bad doctors. A very small fraction of doctors cause the vast majority of medmal damages. Their mistakes also incur huge costs in other parts of the healthcare system. It always amazes me that good doctors are so eager to protect their incompetent competitors. But anyway, capping damages creates a moral hazard that will keep bad doctors practising, producing worse medical outcomes and costs that offset the savings.

2)It's an affront to due process. Juries decide damages, dammit! I know we've already screwed this up elsewhere (mandatory minimum sentencing, etc.) but it's still bad policy for the legislature to go sticking its nose in the courts like this. Of course it's promoted by the same people who constantly shriek about "legislating from the bench." It's a two-way street.

3)It's just plain wrong. What, a stupid mistake makes you a quadriplegic and you get $250,000? Seriously?

Jacob said...

Blogger juvanya said...

"Israel has no master. It does not need US permission for anything. It just informs the US out of courtesy."


Well...That's not entirely true. Israel depends on the US for military funding and technology, and for sticking our nose out to protect them from attacks by the international community. Israel does in very significant ways need Israeli support to survive.

And we should absolutely keep supporting Israel. They are an important ally, one of only a few democracies in the mideast and perhaps the freest(all of which--including Israel--are admittedly flawed), and they have faced attacks on their very right to exist like few other nations.

But to say that the US should not intervene when Israel threatens to undermine our Iran policy, to say that we have no clout to influence Israel's decisions regarding the Palestinians is sorely mistaken.

I want the US to keep supporting Israel, but if we seriously threatened to withdraw all military and political support today, there would be a Palestinian state tomorrow. We need to use our clout more effectively, as in most international situations.

Jacob said...

*I meant to say that Israel needs American support, not Israeli support (although they certainly need that too).


Well said, James. The left needs to do a better job of exposing the anti-tort movement for the dangerous and comical farce that it is.

Redshift said...

I would think it's that it's because he's given up on reelection and expects a plum insurance-industry job after he's voted out, but I honestly doubt that Lieberman's ego would permit him to believe that he won't be reelected.

shrinkers said...

@James -

Let me add a point 4) - high damage awards hardly ever happen anyway. No more than 30% of botched medical procedures are ever taken to court, and of those, no more than 12% ever get any damage awards at all. And of those, no more than about 2% are over $1,000,000, despite the seriousness of the infraction.

So "tort reform" is a solution looking for a problem.

And, in fact, it's an argument in favor of "doctors' insurance reform". Basically, the insurance companies wo protect doctors from lawsuits are vastly overcharging the doctors. What is driving up doctor's costs here is not the high costs of malpractice suits. It is the high cost of malpractice insurance, which (like health insurance) delivers little to no value at inflated prices.

Yaakov said...

Lieberman is 67 years old and will be 70 by the time he is up for re-election in November 2009. He barely managed to win the general election in 2006, despite the fact that Ned Lamont wasn't a particularly strong candidate and lacked support among many of the local elected Democrats even after the primary.

Lieberman's subsequent right-shift in his senatorial voting record and his ardent support of the McCain campaign hurt him significantly among Democrats at all levels. His attacks on Barack Obama, who won Connecticut with 60% of the vote, hurt him among both Democrats and Independents. Lieberman has virtually no shot at winning a primary against an even slightly reasonable Democrat. Connecticut has about a 59% DPI, and hasn't elected a Republican senator since 1988, so his chances of winning as a Republican or Independent again are probably unlikely.

Rell is up for re-election in 2010, but would probably stand a better chance jumping into the race for Chris Dodd's seat (in which the presumed Democratic nominee, Dodd, has been severely weakened over the past year) than running against a Democrat who will have an open field to attack Lieberman (whose unpopularity among Democrats will probably translate into a lot of momentum for a strong 2012 candidate such as Attorney General Blumenthal). This would also not require Rell, who is 63 and is a cancer survivor, to run 2 major campaigns in 2 years. Additionally, Connecticut's massive budget problems over the past year have been eating away at her approval ratings, meaning that the 2010 gubernatorial election would likely be fairly negative were she to run for reelection. In other words, even winning reelection in 2010 would probably hurt her chances as winning the Senatorial race in 2012. My guess is that she will either run against Dodd next year and let the Democrats take the governorship, or she will run for reelection but probably not for Senate in 2012.

Jacob said...

Yaakov,

From what I've heard, Rell doesn't seem to have much interest in running for the Senate and wants to stay where she is (CT also has no gubernatorial term limits). Has she indicated an interest in taking on Dodd or Lieberman? She might be a strong candidate against Dodd, but would have to jump in to attack Simmons (already a credible challenger) and the rest of the field late in the game, and might thus piss off the CT GOP. Also, I doubt she would want to take on Blumenthal.


A couple notes:

I think you meant to say Lieberman is up in Nov 2012, and that CT last elected a Republican in 1982 (Weicker, who lost to Lieberman in 1988).

dre7861 said...

Nate, I think you hit it right on the head when you said: "...who's to say whether he's looking at this from anything resembling a rational perspective." Lieberman sents hell bent and determined to commit political suicide. A normal politician who had painted himself into such a corner I would think would be bending over backwards to reestablish their Democratic creds - take a look at Senator Spectre's actions since switching parties.

When the decision was being made about whether to allow Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship everyone kept saying that except in areas of foreign policy [everyone knows he takes his marching orders from Israel when it comes to these matters] that Lieberman would vote very democratic, especially on issues such as health care. What have we see Joe is a willingness to "investigate" all these "czars" that Glenn Beck blathers on mindlessly about and now opposition to any kind of Health Care Reform. So Senate Majority Reid, just why then is Lieberman still a chairman?

The only slightly rational motive behind Joe's going all rogue is that he's using it as a bargining chip to get some kind of pledge that the DNC won't run a candidate against him or that the President will campaign for him. If I was the president I would promise him the moon and all kinds of campaign support but when 2011 came around I would throw my entire support for any candidate running against Lieberman. Et tu, Joe! Lieberman deserves it simply because he is such a douche-bag.

Jacob said...

dre7861,

That's an interesting point about Lieberman. Good analysis.


However, one common misconception that really bugs me is when people refer to neocons as "taking marching orders from Israel."

Lieberman, Kristol, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the PNAC cartel don't push their agenda because Israeli neocons tell them to, but rather American neocons and Israeli neocons push the same agenda because both groups are, well, neocons. And their political muscle and funding come from many of the same sources. By the same token, Sharon and Netanyahu never took their marching orders from the Bush/McCain/Lieberman cabal.

You'll notice that when moderate Israelis like Barak and Livni have lead the government, neocons have not risen to support their agenda. Neocons roundly attacked Sharon's disengagement plan when a large majority of the Israeli government (and citizenry) supported it.

The insidious neoconservative agenda isn't any better for Israel than it is for the US or for anywhere else. In fact, Israel's greatest threat is probably the militancy and corruption in their own far-right government. The difference between Israeli and American neocons isn't that one group gives orders to the other, but that neocons are still in power in Israel.

jonathan said...

Given the current administration's reaction to those who oppose it, Lieberman's filibuster of health care reform may well be a ploy to win the endorsement and active campaign assistance of President Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

Ian said...

What ever he's doing, I don't see how anyone can take him seriously. Granted, there's something to be said for being open to changing your mind on key issues. That's entirely different from hopping from one platform to the other. To me, he looks like he's just going with whatever team he thinks will win next time. That, in my opinion, makes him a shill of a man. Precisely the type of person this country needs less of and less representation from.

Michael said...

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/experiments-in-tort-reform/?pagemode=print

Covers the ideas being floated for tort reform.

Personally, I think the 'Special Health Court' sounds very promising...

Mike said...

Dick Blumenthal is a legend in the state of CT, speaking as one who grew up there. He is a bit of a contradiction in terms, both attention-grabbing and hard-working, someone who simultaneously appeals to the rich fairfield county elite, the middle class suburbs and the poverty ridden cities. If he ever wants to run for Senate, or Governor, he will probably win easily, even over the popular Jodi Rell.

shiloh said...

Judge C. Crater said...

Grog: What are you missing? Pretty much my entire post since you made up a couple of 'facts' that aren't actually in it. Read it again and get back to me.
~~~~~~~~~~


Grog apparently didn't have time to reread and get back to you lol, shocking! Although, being a frickin' fool, it would have made no difference as reading/comprehension are not strong points for conservative wingers ...

Marvin8 said...

Oh MAN would I love it if Obama seduced Snowe into the Democrat fold by offering her Lieberman's committee seniority. DO IT, BARACK!!!!!! Lieberman IS a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

Mike said...

Something I haven't seen covered that I can recall — or possibly at all:

Someone (Nate, this would be right up your alley) should look into the hypothesis that the disparity between support for the public option and support for the Senate legislation is not an indication of an uninformed populace or a symptom of cognitive dissonance; rather, it is the result of people on the left deserting the present half-measure.

I am one of those people: If I were asked by a pollster whether I support the current bill, I would not say "Yes" in some partisan attempt to countervail the "Party of No" at any cost. To the contrary, I'd say "No" because I don't support it. But I would certainly support a version that included a public option, provided it wasn't neutered in every other respect.

If you have written about this, I missed it; and whether you have or not, it probably bears (re)examination...

Leonard S said...

Lieberman will be supported by the Democratic Party and its top operatives and politicians no matter what he does. They have already proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. If they decide to no longer back him against a bona fide Democratic candidate, that would be change I could believe in.

Mike in Maryland said...

Leonard S said...
Lieberman will be supported by the Democratic Party and its top operatives and politicians no matter what he does. They have already proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Leonard S,

In no way do I support that scum bag LIEberman, but when you say "Lieberman will be supported by the Democratic Party and its top operatives and politicians no matter what he does. They have already proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt", in the famous words of Congressman Wilson:

"YOU LIE!".

LIEberman last ran for an office in 2006.

[Then Senator] Obama was NOT a candidate for President, let alone the actual President, at that time, but only the junior Senator of Illinois, not even two years into his term. Thus Barack Obama was not a part of the 'Democratic establishment'.

The major members of the 'Democratic establishment' who backed LIEberman were Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama did NOT campaign for LIEberman.

Maybe someone has "proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt" in your mind, but that does not make it THE TRUTH (unless you are the delusional KKKarl Rove).

Mike in Maryland

masanf said...

Lieberman committing political suicide? Yeah, because those low approval ratings he had in 2006 obviously did a lot of damage to his political career.

Nathan said...

I agree with everything Nate said, except this:

Indeed, I don't see how Lieberman has any leverage to speak of, although who's to say whether he's looking at this from anything resembling a rational perspective.

Doing what he thinks is right for the country, regardless of political implications, might be taken as a rational perspective.

Politics is about using power well, not just accruing and protecting it.

Nathan said...

Lieberman is a contemporary Benedict Arnold.

Sure. And the Democratic Party is a contemporary Continental Congress.

Nathan said...

Richard @9:35am,

I think you make an excellent point. Republicans are always upset about the scope of government when they're out of power; when they're spending trillions on war and locking up citizens without trial, it's supposedly no big deal. It's a chief reason I'm not a Republican.

But as with most allegations of hypocrisy between the parties, it cuts both ways. Democrats complained about the cost of the Iraq war, but they don't mind piling health-care reform on top of close to a trillion dollars in new spending in less than a year. Those who back single-payer plans want to tell doctors they must work for the government--does that really jive with civil liberties?

(Yes, I know this isn't single-payer or even close. But many liberals see it as a step toward that, and it ought to be part of the discussion.)

Marvin8 said...

Doctors are NOT forced to see Medicare patients, and thus many don't...especially if they're not happy with Medicare reimbursement rates. Personally, I'd love to see the government fund doctors' education, then have them work within the single payer system. The AMA is also to blame for how they tightly regulate how many med schools and doctors are released into the public each years. The government should build more med schools. :)

Jacob said...

@ Nathan

You make a good point that Democrats perhaps focused our complaints about Iraq too much on the cost, given that we're willing to spend billions on health care (although that is deficit neutral or close to it). Even so it does tend to look like hypocrisy.

Democrats need to emphasize that the problem with the cost of Iraq is that we're spending money there to accomplish nothing, and have made the world a far more dangerous place at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Health reform, while a large initial investment, will help our economy and more importantly length and quality of life, as well as global competitiveness in the long run.

Progressives and other Democrats need to make this distinction far more clear. It's not about big spending and not. It's about smart spending and not.

Also, strictly speaking doctors are not required to work for the govt in a single payer system (they would still be employed by private clinics and hospitals), but the govt would provide the largest (though not only) source of available income to the hospitals and clinics.

One more note: Lieberman may have thought pulling back on a modified PO was right all along, but he never indicated that he might filibuster such a bill. Now that passage looks more likely he suddenly decides to leap into the spotlight with a fresh list of objections? Hard to say that's using power well.

Inferno said...

@masanf - Well, there were the low approval ratings among Democrats...which corresponded almost 1:1 to high approval ratings among Republicans and unchanged ratings among independents. His approval rating probably shifted a few points down, but considering he had a weak challenge from his right if anything, he managed to hold on.

Now, Lieberman's halfway into his current term, meaning that predictions are absolutely shit. But assuming that the election was today, things don't look too good for him unless he joins the Republican caucus (where his approval has held more or less steady since 2006). Even then, it'd be a clusterfuck.

Essentially, since 2006, Lieberman has lost:

0% of his support among Republicans, who make up 32% of the CT electorate.
a bit over 10% of his support among independents/other parties, who make up 29% of the electorate.
20% of his support among Democrats, who make up 39% of the electorate.

Assuming a stronger candidate than Lamont runs in the general in 2012, and assuming that Lieberman pulls the same stunts as he did in 2008 (which is...not at all likely, since that's going to be even more tricky when he's running for re-election as a Democratic caucus member while campaigning for a Republican), he's not going to get much more than 40% of the vote. Since so much of his support comes from the right, and since - let's be honest - people don't really think about seniority as a plus in Congress, he's probably in more danger from a strong challenge from his right than from his left.

But since Connecticut is ostensibly a very left-leaning state, this is largely academic. If he moves to the right, he becomes too Republican for Connecticut. If he moves to the left, he may pick up some support from Democrats, but will definitely lose support amongst Republicans. (How much is unclear.)

Marvin8 said...

That's right (pun intended), Leiberman's stuck in the middle, and in this highly partisan atmosphere, he won't be able to pull of the same tricks again that he did last time. The right WILL end up hating him unless he parts with Obama...and soon. The left already hates him. He's got nowhere to hide. His only weapon is the threat that he'll run as an independent against a Democrat. Of course, he'll end up splitting the independent and democrat vote, and a republican will win. Never forget; I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about.

Snowman said...

Leiberman is off his nut.

I watched him in the Sarah Palin love-fest in St. Paul in back August of '08, and he looked so pathetic and tiny and old.

But the pity vote is probably only good for 5 or 10 points.

Marvin8 said...

and he doesn't even deserve THAT. :P

shiloh said...

Marvin8 said...

he'll end up splitting the independent and democrat vote, and a republican will win.
~~~~~~~~~~


No, as CT is highly independent which leans left ie Obama over McCain 61/38 and the Rep party is a passing thought, Lieberman was a unique case in 2006.

The voters of CT have since seen what a putz he has become supporting McCain/palin and giving a speech at the party of No!'s convention leaving him in no man's land ...

Ned Lamont should win fairly easily in 2012 if he decides to run, regardless of Lieberman

Did I mention New England is very progressive ie no Rep congress folk left in the NE. :)))

Jacob said...

Shiloh, you mean no Repub Reps left in NE (and only 1 district out of 22 with a Repub PVI).

They do have 3 1/2 Repub Senators out of 12, which is something more of a marvel.

Nathan said...

Never forget; I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about.

This made me laugh. Reminds of a Neitzchze essay I read in college that ended with: "And on this subject I have much to be silent about."

shiloh said...

Yes, congress is congress and the senate is the senate ...

carry on

p.s. when wingers talk about the left coast it is interesting New England, where this country was formed is more progressive than the west coast.

Also, the (6) states which voted for Hoover in 1932 were MA, NH, VT, PA, DE, CT as Maine and Vermont weren't close and Maine was totally red. Times have changed, eh.

As Maine goes, so goes Vermont lol, I digress ...

shiloh said...

Correction: Maine = ME, not MA

carry on

Nathan said...

"Progressives and other Democrats need to make this distinction far more clear. It's not about big spending and not. It's about smart spending and not."

Absolutely. The question then becomes, can Congress achieve smart spending?

It may be theoretically possible for federal intervention to improve the quality and value of health care, but it is also possible to make things much worse. Why should we think these guys are going to get it right when the main qualifications for Congress are raising dubious money and crafting 30-second soundbites for gerrymandered districts. Until that changes, I really don't trust them to do more good than harm. Why do you?

Jacob said...

Trust them? Hell no. But we are past the point where doing nothing is acceptable, and Congress is the mechanism we have to implement new laws. That's why we need to lobby congress as hard as possible to pass a good bill. I don't know that they will, but how else can we fix the HC system?

Nathan said...

Do nothing? That would not be ideal. But Baucus, Rockafeller, and nothing are not the only three options.

Why not start by severing the relationship between health insurance and employment? When people choose their own insurance, instead of having it chosen by employers, the insurance companies will have to offer plans that satisfy them. We can also make insurance mandatory and have a public option, but without anti-competitive subsidies that would give the public plan an unfair market advantage. I think a lot of Dems and not a few Republicans would support those three measures, and it isn't really that far from Obama's rhetoric.

What bothers me about the Baucus plan is the bizarre decision to subsidize medical care with specific taxes on medical equipment manufacturers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. These taxes are bound to drive up the cost of health care, and they threaten to cripple innovation in an industry that accomplishes miracles every day. If the companies that make drugs and MRI machines have to pay more than half of their profits to the government, do you really expect them to keep inventing MRI machines and drugs at the same rate? Democrats like to demonize pharmaceutical companies, but I would like them to show me a Congressman or a government program that has accomplished as much in the last fifty years. Those people should be rich, as many lives as they've saved, and paying for health care with taxes levied only on them is immoral, besides threatening progress.

Miracles are expensive. If we want them, everyone has to pony up, not just the miracle workers. The American healthcare industry has a lot of problems, but there's also a great deal of good being done. We could easily make things worse. Doing nothing is an option, if the alternatives being bandied about congress will do more harm than good.

Marvin8 said...

"Why not start by severing the relationship between health insurance and employment?"

The Right would suggest that it's an incentive to work. If you have insurance on your own, you're a more mobile worker, which increases competition between employers, which increases wages, which employers don't like. It's actually a conundrum for them. Employers would have to weigh the costs of insurance versus the increase in wages they'd have to pay to attract you if you could get insurance on your own...especially for those with pre-existing conditions who HAVE to work to get insurance. In MY opinion, work should have no association with health insurance, the same as with car or homeowner's insurance.

Walter said...

PRIMARY HIM! He and Specter are about as welcome to either party as a disease-infected maggot.

Marvin8 said...

True Dat!!!!

Matt said...

Grog : The CBO released a score on tort reform and found that it would only save 54 billion over 11 YEARS.. That is an extremely small amount compared to what you're trying to claim. The Bush administration was trying to push tort reform too and dropped the idea once their own studies showed the same lack of return..

Marvin8 said...

I'm in favor of tort reform as well, but until somebody figures out a way to maintain protections for consumers while cutting back on frivolous lawsuits, I'll keep the frivolous lawsuits. Tort lawyers are a necessary evil, but if not for them, NOTHING would stand between the little guy and the giant corporations. In addition, once you can peg a specific number to jury awards, corporations will calculate into their business model. "Let's see...if only 6300 babies are killed in this stroller each year, and the jury award is maxed out at x, and we build 700,000 a year, etc. etc. "
As for tort refrom in regard to health care, whaddya say to the family who's son was made a vegetable by an anaesthesiologist's slip-up and you can't determine what medical costs will be 60 years from now? Without the big jury awards, no way will his health costs be covered.

Nathan said...

Matt,

Tort reform isn't just to save the government money, but also to protect doctors from frivolous attacks and skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums.

Marvin, I agree that a fixed number isn't the way to go. The point you raise about unethical companies just calculating the lawsuits from dangerous products into their business models is well taken. We have to find a way of protecting innocent people from being harassed while still leaving juries the power to punish malicious behavior.

Maybe loser-pays laws are a good first step? I don't understand why this isn't already law. It would put an end to the wicked practice of burying an opponent under legal fees, even when they have the best legal case. In the case of the kid you describe, we could ensure juries have the option (and maybe they already do?) of simply making a company liable for any-and-all medical expenses related to their error, regardless of how large or small costs may be, as part of a judgment.

Marvin8 said...

"Loser pays" will thorougly intimidate folks from filing lawsuits if there's even the tiniest chance of them losing. Not good. As it stands now, judges can award attorneys' fees to the winning party if they determine that the suit is frivolous and throw it out. That can, of course, be appealed by the plaintiff. As for a judgement that covers extended medical costs off into the future, that's what big jury awards do, because it's too hard to determine future costs with any degree of accuracy. Sometimes costs increase 10-15% a year. Too hard to determine 50-60 years from now, although admittedly, we're dealing with a very unique case example. The only way I can think of to cut down on frivolous cases is to have one's case presented before a non-biased court of professionals in order for them to determine if the case has merit. No, not just doctors, but maybe retired judges or attorneys AND doctors.

Jacob said...

Ultimately, tort reform is an attempt to limit the ability of the civil justice system to dispense justice, much like mandatory minimums in the criminal justice system. And "tort reform" is just as much of a policy disaster as mandatory minimums.

We have courts because of externalities and unusual circumstances. If there was a set amount that could be deemed appropriate for every instance of medical malpractice, we wouldn't need courts to decide the matter; it could work like Workers' Comp. As in all things, circumstance mattters. And of course, Marvin8 is right that courts can and do force plaintiffs to pay legal fees for frivolous cases.

But in reality, malpractice suits do not often end in unreasonable judgments, so much as amounts set to the specifics of the case. To take the power to set reasonable damages away from the court system would cause a lot of unnecessary suffering.

It also seems strange that conservatives would attack a market mechanism that works as well as contingency. Most baseless cases end up going nowhere because higher-quality attorneys don't want to take the risk of losing.