The reason this is a little scary for Democrats is because the usual things that serve to motivate a Congressman don't seem to motivate Joe Lieberman.
Would voting to filibuster the Democrats' health care bill (if it contains a decent public option) endear Lieberman to his constituents? No; Connecticutians favor the public option 64-31.
Would it make his path to re-election easier? No, because it would virtually assure that Lieberman faces a vigorous and well-funded challenge from a credible, capital-D Democrat, and polls show him losing such a match-up badly.
Would it buy him more power in the Senate? No, because Democrats would have every reason to strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.
Is Lieberman's stance intended to placate the special interests in his state? Perhaps this is part of it -- there are a lot of insurance companies in Connecticut -- but Lieberman is generally not one of the more sold-out Senators, ranking 75th out of the 100-member chamber in the percentage of his fundraising that comes from corporate PACs.
Are there any particular compromises or concessions he wants in the bill? He hasn't stipulated any, at least not publicly.
Might he have a legitimate policy objection to the public option? Certainly there are some legitimate objections -- whether or not you agree with them. But Lieberman's objections don't make any sense. He says he's worried about blunting "the economic recovery we’re in" even though the public option provisions wouldn't kick in until 2013. He says he's worried about debt-reduction when the public option would make the bill more deficit-neutral. And he campaigned on a public-option type alternative called "MediChoice" in 2006.
What Joe Lieberman wants, in all probability, is attention. He wants Harry Reid to have to stand up and say things like : "I don't have anyone that I've worked harder with, have more respect for, in the Senate than Joe Lieberman." He wants face time on Meet the Press. He wants to make liberals feel some pain -- especially those who tried to get Ned Lamont elected in his place. He wants everyone to know how maverick-y he is.
But even if Lieberman will probably cave, this creates real problems for Democrats. For one thing, Lieberman has said he won't oppose the motion to proceed with the health care bill. Instead, he'll filibuster the end result, if he doesn't like the outcome. This is actually very devious. If Harry Reid determines that he doesn't have 60 votes on the motion to proceed on a bill with a public option, then he doesn't have to bring it to the floor. Progressives will be apoplectic, Reid will lose some face, pundits will talk about Democrats having lost momentum -- but the prospects for health care reform will probably not have seriously been damaged. The opt-out will get replaced by an opt-in or maybe a trigger or co-ops or whatever and Olympia Snowe will be very happy and the debate will proceed.
But if, on the other hand, Lieberman filibusters the vote for final passage, that will have come after weeks of floor debate, amendments, and compromising on all sorts of issues. This would be a very, very serious blow to health care reform. And it makes this a much more expensive bluff to call.
The other way that this is damaging to Democrats, of course, is that it may embolden an Evan Bayh or a Blanche Lincoln or a Ben Nelson to adopt Lieberman's stance. None of these guys want to be the lone Democratic member to filibuster -- but it's much easier to defray individual responsibility on a procedural vote against your party when you have someone else joining you.
But while a Nelson or a Lincoln is liable to have a fairly rational set of concerns -- basically, they want to ensure they get re-elected -- it's tough to bargain with people like Lieberman who are a little crazy. In certain ways, he resembles nothing so much as one of those rogue, third-bit Middle Eastern dictators that he's so often carping about, capable of creating great anxiety with relatively little expenditure of resources, and taking equal pleasure in watching his friends and enemies sweat.
10.27.2009
Somebody Buy Joe Lieberman a Puppy
@ 4:01 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
136 comments
Is Joe possibly trying to strong-arm the administration in some foreign policy stance he is at odds with in return for a vote on cloture?
This has been waiting out there for a long time. President Obama clearly saw it, which is why he's been coddling Senator Snowe.
Is it time to seriously consider the nuclear option?
Lieberman does not believe that this bill will be "deficit neutral". Nor does anyone else with a brain, except here, where the normally acute critical abilities are jettisoned whenever the health bill is discussed.
More drivel from fivethirtyeight.com.
I don't buy that the move is obviously against Lieberman's interests.
Is his move unpopular in the state? Sure. But just taking an issue poll misses two other big issues.
1. Fundraising
2. The state economy
Health insurance companies (esp. Aetna) are big backers of Lieberman. Moreover, Connecticut is probably a net winner of the status quo in health care.
Lieberman risks a short-term backlash (his primary/senate race isn't going to heat up till at least after midterm elections), but gets some long term assets in return - lots of cash, and possibly the preservation of economic assets for his state.
Finally, as to the seniority issue, Lieberman may have more power in positioning himself as vote number 60 than as a relatively senior senator.
The analysis here is overly simplistic - Lieberman did something (or promised to do something) you don't like, so you have decided it must be against his own interests.
Mule Rider: "More drivel from fivethirtyeight.com"
Thank God American heroes like yourself are here to comment so quickly and render judgment.
Without casting a yea or nay on Lieberman, the "blunt the recovery" rhetoric is more credible than you are supposing. You could have linked to page one of today's WSJ ("Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze on Small Businesses" by Gary Fields) to explain why, if you were interested in being even-handed.
The bottom line here is that Lieberman is playing hard to get. If you read his words, you'll see that he hasn't outright said he won't support the public option. I think he's looking for some sugar.
There are two ways to apply force: the carrot and the stick. Clearly, he expects the carrot.
But first I think we need to apply the stick. I suggest we write our Congressmen, and Harry Reid, and make it very clear that we expect Lieberman to be punished for this. We need to show our level of indignation. Maybe even try to get him impeached.
In the meantime, we need to push the bill through as planned. According to Nate, Lieberman won't filibuster the motion to proceed. So push it through, and let the momentum in its favor build.
Then if he still threatens to bring it down, regroup, push through what can be pushed through, and play for the future when there's no Joe Lieberman around to stand in the way.
Thank God American heroes like yourself are here to comment so quickly and render judgment.
Just doing my part. So, you're welcome!
PS: Lieberman may actually be more threatened by a credible Republican candidate in Connecticut than by a liberal challenger in the primaries. As he has demonstrated before, he can lose the primary and win the general, so long as the Republicans don't have a strong candidate in the race.
If political uncertainty is hurting small business, then the best thing Joe Lieberman could do is draw the process out as long as possible and then filibuster the bill.
I would hope that Nate would be slightly more non-partisan in his posts in the future.
We'll address Nate's points.
1. "Favoring the public option". Jay Cost over at RCP does a nice analysis on these polls, by and large saying that many people don't exactly know what the "public option" is, and what it would mean..so they're taking their cues from the question. "Public Option" sounds good. "Governmentment run Health Insurance"...not as good. I'd take that poll with a grain of salt.
2. Lieberman's gonna be hit with a Democratic challenger anyway. On the other hand, this might scare off any REPUBLICAN challenger, ensuring Lieberman gets those vote from the right in Conn. that would've gone to a Republican candiate instead.
3. The Democrats do that, he defects to the GOP. They want to keep him marginally friendly, and the chairmanship of the HSC does that.
4/5. No real comment.
6. The CBO does say the Public option would make the bill more deficit neutral (IE, it'll be "profitable"). Of course, that depends on how it's instituted, whether it can charge medicare rates, things like "Guarenteed issue", ect...
7. Maybe attention will help him get re-elected. Bring more GOP and independent votes in Conn. to vote for him.
8. And yes, it does confuse the democrats a lot.
@Pat;
The best thing that could happen is for Lieberman to jump to the Republican Party. He became a successful Independent because he carried a lot of moderate Dems with him, as well as capturing the moderate Reps and a good chunk of the Independents.
And insofar as public support for the public option, people are pretty clear on the concept by now. And as time goes by, support is growing. I actually expect this to increase support. People don't like the idea of having the clear majority's choice being upended by a single vote.
@ Joe,
Actually, I believe Lieberman is best off where he is now.
Jumping to the GOP would put that dreaded (R) after his name in Conn. and a fair number of Democrat voters wouldn't vote for him based on that alone.
By staying independent, he picks them up.
As for the "Public Option", here's the link to Cost's analysis.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/10/does_the_public_want_a_public_1.html
Just keep in mind, that while 10-20% of us are paying close attention to the debate...many just aren't paying much...if any...attention.
I’ve got a crazy hunch that the media’s strange new respect for free-thinkin’ independent-minded centrists like Snowe and Susan Collins won’t be extended to Joe Liebs.
Something's missing here.
When Lieberman was accepted into the Caucus with his previous seniority -- and with his prestigious committee chairmanship -- it was precisely for the purpose of assuring the that this would make a filibuster-breaking majority was achievable.
I can't imagine that even such a jelly-spined pusillanimous weakling as Reid should not have made that deal in terms something like:
"OK, Joe, the Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship is yours. But the terms you agree to are clear: you may vote your "conscience" on votes to pass legislation. But you may never, ever, under any circumstances, vote against cloture on a filibuster. If you ever fail to support the caucus on a filibuster vote, you can kiss your chairmanship goodbye, and you can go caucus by yourself. Agreed? OK, put your hand on this here stack of bibles, and sign here, here, here, and here. Oh, and here. Yes, in blood please, here's a pin."
Assuming that did in fact happen, and Lieberman wants to keep his perks, and he's not totally psychotic, I expect that he's making noise now just to cover his bases. He gets the attention, he gets to posture as a fiscal hawk (incoherently, but whatever), then when cloture comes up he toes the line, and finally casts his vote on final passage depending on his reading of the political wind at that time. Now he can claim that he was for it or against it, depending on what he needs come the primary and general elections.
Ha - it seems whatever momentum the Public Option has picked up in the last couple of days has now been wrecked on the reef of Joementum. Yo, Joe! I hope he sticks with it. Only only do I agree with him that the deficit is the biggest danger to the US right now, it's fun to watch all those frustrated liberals go crazy.
You're right Mule Rider - same old fivethirtyeight liberal BS. Libs please try the nuclear option! I can't wait to see how that blows up your arrogant condescending asses as well!
You cheer on Lieberman when he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with massive insurance corporations against the will and benefit of the American people, and we're the arrogant asses? You're either a brazen ideologue, or your sense of right and wrong has been warped beyond reason. Either way, you've got some serious cojones.
If it gets to that, then I'd say, let Joe actually stand up and filibuster. Not vote to filibuster, but make the SOB stand up Jimmy Stewart-style and just talk and talk till he falls asleep.
Then pass the dang thing and move on. And strip him of his chairmanship, for goodness sake.
It seems increasingly clear that Joe is not planning another run for his Senate seat. He's turning into a constituent-less bomb thrower.
Time to contain him, even if it means the Dems no longer have that 60 vote majority. In fact it would help Dems, once healthcare is passed, to have 59 votes - the R's can't claim the D's have carte blanche (since, really they don't).
@Pat that rcp article doesn't really make sense. He finds fault with the word "compete" saying that republicans argue that it will drive out private insurance. How exactly does it do that without competing? Compete is a neutral word here - both sides acknowledge that the option will provide competition.
If you set aside this nonsensical problem with the word "Compete" then the very first poll he lists, ABC/WaPo, finds 57-40 support without using the supposedly "feel good phraseology" of public option.
What's his incentive to go Republican? He's of greater use to the Republicans as legislative stick-up artist who doesn't have to call himself a Republican. Lieberman can get everything he wants out of the GOP (negligible GOP contention at reelection) being an independent-whatever. It's a win-win relationship -- so much so that the only thing Lieberman lacks is a credible threat of defection.
Give Israel another couple billion dollars and Joe will do whatever you want.
Only only do I agree with him that the deficit is the biggest danger to the US right now
Funny how good conservatives like you don't care one whit about the deficit when the money is being used to cut taxes for the richest 1% of Americans and blow up brown people, isn't it?
Just because someone is not anti-capitalism does not mean they "stand shoulder to shoulder" with anyone.
I think it's hilarious that Harry Reid is being championed for standing up for what he thinks is right, but Lieberman is being ridiculed by the angry left for standing up for what he believes in because it doesn't fit into the liberal ideology.
Similar to Obama having a hard time accepting the fact that not everyone is going to agree with him. You're not in Kansas, I mean the corrupt Chicago political machine anymore. Some people are going to disagree with you out here in the real world.
Given that Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew--I doubt he made any promises (that he intended to keep) on a stack of Bibles.
OTOH... maybe Harry Reid forgot about that bit...
Regarding the "nuclear option"--doesn't that only apply to things like confirmation votes, where an argument could be made that the Senate has an affirmative duty to cast a vote on an issue? The threat of the R's going nuclear was against a potential Democratic filibuster of a Bush nominee, IIRC, not a bill or a procedural motion.
My goodness, the trolls are out in force today aren't they?
The simple fact is that the public option is a popular proposal. Polling has proven this. Public opinion of the various reforms is very positive if you look at the polling for each individual policy that would be implemented.
However, ask about "Obama's Healthcare Plan" or about "Congress' Plan" and the numbers change. Why?
Something isn't adding up. If people like each individual proposal, but don't like those proposals taken together something is weird.
The reality is that when you attach "Obama's" name to a piece of legislation you're asking for partisan results. Same thing with Congress. It would be like asking (and yes, I'm somewhat invoking Godwin) "Do you like the idea of an Autobahn/ national highway?" and "Do you like Hitler's Autobahn proposal?" How many people would honestly say they support an idea of Hitler's (take this in today's world, not in 1930s Germany)?
Secondly, I find it spurious to poll based on an "Obama plan" or "congressional plan" since as of right now, there isn't one. There are numerous congressional plans, and none of them are written by Obama. By attaching a name, not only does the poll attach it to a polarizing figure or group, its incorrectly informing constituents as to what the bills actually are.
That's why you see differences in polling.
As for Lieberman, I have no idea. He's basically been given everything he could want in terms of power, especially considering his conduct within the party. I'm gonna hold off on final judgement until the votes are in. He might just be playing hard to get, or who knows.
Can someone (preferrably Nate) add more detail about the theory that the public option would be profitable?
What is its initial capital (I assume it's a loan that comes directly from the treasury, interest-free) and how much does it need to take in over the first 5 years to break even?
How much cheaper than insurance would it actually be?
Anyone would be doing us a great service by actually analyzing the accounting done on this.
Funny how good conservatives like you don't care one whit about the deficit when the money is being used to cut taxes for the richest 1% of Americans and blow up brown people, isn't it?
This is the only defense I have ever heard (which has been thousands of times)for Obama's mammoth deficits which is basically, "Bush did it so we can do it, too."
Trigger is better than opt out, anyways. It will either get the results of a public option, or will cause a public option. There's a reason Rahm Emanuel proposed it.
DEC1960 wrote: Libs please try the nuclear option!
This is what I love about Conservatives. Collective amnesia. You guys act like budget reconciliation is the nuclear option, whereas the nuclear option was ACTUALLY an attempt by the Republican Party to remove the filibuster from the Senate ENTIRELY.
Reconciliation isn't the nuclear option.
Harry Reid either needs to deal with the "Lieberman Problem" or we need a new Senate Majority leader. I say take everything away from him. His committee seats, his seniority and his status within the Democratic caucus.
He asked for it the second he campaigned for downticket Republicans.
If need be, the public option can be stripped from the Health Care bill and passed on it's own via reconciliation. (preferably the same day) Although, I would prefer that the entire process be done by reconciliation.
What he actually said, is that he'll filibuster it if he has to to get a debate about it. Just like Baucus, he's slowing things down. During the delay, he gets Rahm to talk to him directly and he gets something else out of the deal. No biggie.
-Jeff
@Grog
Can't we just be bipartisan and agree that Leiberman is a total Narcissist and only does what is in his best interest. I really don't think he cares what is "right" he just cares about re-election and face time with the public.
@ Arvind,
First off, compare the difference between "Public Option" and "Government Run Insurance plan" in terms of wording. While the first generally has a 60% acceptance, the latter has a 50% acceptance.
Second, Americans tend to believe things like "Choice" and "Competition" are good things...often without thinking of the consequences. If the potential consequences are mentioned (as in the Rasmussen follow up question), support can drop dramatically
GROG said…
“I think it’s hilarious that Harry Reid is being championed for standing up for what he thinks is right, but Lieberman is being ridiculed by the angry left for standing up for what he believes in because it doesn’t fit into the liberal ideology.”
What Lieberman is doing has nothing to do with “what he believes in”. His first job is to represent his constituents in CT, who have expressed overwhelming support for a public option. Instead he apparently “believes in” the mountains of cash that the private insurers have already given him and will continue to do so if he supports their point of view.
Lieberman is a jerk hack, and so is anyone who thinks he operates from “principle”.
@Pat;
I said: "The best thing that could happen is for Lieberman to jump to the Republican Party."
You said: "Actually, I believe Lieberman is best off where he is now. Jumping to the GOP would put that dreaded (R) after his name in Conn. and a fair number of Democrat voters wouldn't vote for him based on that alone."
Yep, that's what I meant. The only thing you got wrong is that I really DO want Joe Lieberman to jump ship to the Republican Pary. I say that as a life-long Democrat.
BTW, President Obama is look pretty smart to have coddled Senator Snowe as much as he did.
Funny how good conservatives like you don't care one whit about the deficit when the money is being used to cut taxes for the richest 1% of Americans and blow up brown people, isn't it?
What a dipshit like you doesn't understand is that I was and still am diametrically opposed to those things as well. So your use of that as a comeback has exactly ZERO sting, because it simply doesn't apply.
I'm against tax cuts for the rich (under Bush...or anyone else).
I'm against unnecessary war in the Middle East (under Bush...or anyone else).
I'm against exploding deficits (under Obama...or anyone else).
Got something to say about that?
Didn't think so.
This is almost certainly going to have to go the reconciliation route.
Dropping the public option doesn't work for Reid because it might gain him Lieberman and Snowe but it would likely lose him people like Feingold and Rockefeller.
The threat that Mitch McConnell made that using reconciliation would be a 'declararation of war' is spurious because the Senate GOP already has been doing everything they can to slow down the Obama agenda. Threats like that only work if you aren't already at the end of your chain and have something left in reserve.
Ironic word verification: messe
If Lieberman supports filibuster at any point, his seniority and chairmansip should be stripped.
Filibustering and de facto requiring super-majorities is not in the Constitution and perhaps should be zapped once and for all, though the Senate will remind a profoundly un-democratic and anti-democratic institution (which the Founding Fathers did intend).
At this point, I can't believe any of the more conservative Dems would vote against cloture. They're all aware what the health care reform means to the near-term and intermediate-term future of the Democratic Party - and probably long term too. Once passed and people start seeing the benefits, health care reform will be one of the solid planks that will cement a Democratic majority for a generation.
Lieberman - I think he does want attention. Since I don't think any of the conservative Dems will vote against cloture, I can't imagine Lieberman wants to go down in history as the man who killed health care reform. Some combination of carrot and stick will turn him around, and give him some cover, too.
And if not - make him stand at the podium and talk until he has a heart attack.
(P.S. I love watching the angry right go apoplectic over Obama's upcoming victory on health care reform. As every day goes by, they increasingly marginalize themselves. The nuttier they get, the more we are sure we're on the right track. This is change we can believe in!)
@Stephen
I'm not sure if Senate Seniority can be stripped by a party. They can certainly kick him out of the caucus, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate
For your first point - the ABC/WaPo poll says "government... health insurance plan" and still finds 57-40 support (which is a lot closer to 60% than 50%...)
Second, including potential "consequences" in a poll explicitly biases it - since what the consequences will be vary dramatically depending on your political orientation. If the polls specifically mentioned "creating a public option to compete with private insurers and lower costs" I am sure support would rocket up to 70 or 80%. But they don't do that, even though many people think that will be the result. What they do do is ask an objective question - and find support for a public option.
...isn't Lieberman (I-srael) up for reelection in 2012? Like, three years from now?
We carp about how Obama can't be judged nine months into his term, and how it's useless to prognosticate on his chances of re-election just yet. Lieberman is equally as far away from the next time he's up - why try and read the tea leaves for him this far out?
I mean, yeah, Lieberman is probably thinking about re-election. He's a politician - of course he's thinking about it. But this is very far out for voters to care about - even if it is a huge domestic policy initiative.
Interestingly enough, a slightly related story. So, I was walking around Ridgewood (which is 1) in North Jersey, 2) in Bergen County (which is fairly Democratic), and 3) is pretty gentrified) last night.
So, anyway, I'm walking in front of this drive-thru, and this Nissan SUV is the front car. On the hood, there are two magnetic decals.
The one on the left says "Impeach Obama." The one on the right says "Worst. Ever. Already." The driver is a guy with a mullet. I'm a tall black guy.
I hope I ruined his night. ;)
That comment above is @Pat, oops.
Bull. He's gunning for a spot as the Republican presidential nominee. He sees the landscape and thinks that a centrist right winger is the only shot and knows that he's in the best position to don that mantle.
On reconciliation,
This is regarded as "Nuclear" because it bypasses the Senate filibuster rules, and rather violates the spirit of the ruling which was meant for year to year budget matters, not new ginormous entitlement programs.
Second, there's the pesky Byrd Amendment that limits any use of Reconciliation to a 10 year window. What happens in 10 years?
@ Joe,
Ah. I misunderstood. I thought initially you meant "The best thing for Lieberman". Not "The best thing for you".
Nate,
Joe Lieberman never campaigned on a public option. His MediChoice plan was to open the Federal Employees Benefits Health Plans to all Americans. The FEBHP is a menu of different PRIVATE health insurance plans. Get the facts right, please!
"The simple fact is that the public option is a popular proposal. Polling has proven this. Public opinion of the various reforms is very positive if you look at the polling for each individual policy that would be implemented."
Yes, but public option isn't the ballot box question. The ballot question is something like "do you support the health reform package proposed by Congress/the president". Polls on that are closer to 50-50.
Since this debate has been initiated in July, Obama's approval ratings have nosedived, and Harry Reid looks like he may be doomed. Obama's specific numbers on handling of healthcare have fallen too.
Moreover, assuming Lieberman's preference is for something like a Baucus bill with no public option, it isn't clear to me that there are a lot of people who both, prefer a public option to just health reform AND are likely to vote for Lieberman.
"Maybe even try to get him impeached."
How does one go about doing that? I'm for that option. How quickly can Connecticut replace this weasel with a real Democrat? I don't know if America can make it through three more years of Joe Lieberman.
Pat, 10 years? After 10 years of the public option there is no way in HELL the Republicans would be able to remove it. They know that it will be an immensely popular program. That's why they are trying to do everything they can to kill it.
Folks, this is the critical issue that the country faces. This bill should be brought to the floor yesterday and the Republicans (and pseudo-Dems) told that if they want to filibuster they better be prepared to see no other business transacted and they better be porepared to talk 24/7 and let their constituents se them obstructing on C-SPAN. The public will always be turned off by people wasting time and obstructing, whatever the merits of the issye. Clinton called the Republicans bluff in 1995 and shut the government down and his trajectory was straight up from there.
Is there something I'm missing? If they want to filibuster, let them do so from now till the election if they want....
The Republicans passed Iraq spending bills and the Medicare drug program under reconciliation rules. I'm sure it won't stop them from crying like babies when Democrats use it similarly, of course.
Personally I think its time to kick Lieberman out of the caucus, 60th vote or not. Personally I am not sure Lieberman doesn't want to be kicked out of the caucus before reelection. I don't think he wants to run as an indy in 2012, but he can't go tail between legs back to the Democratic voters of Connecticut.
But anyways on Grogs point about Lieberman standing up for his principles, well Nate showed that Lieberman has already backed some form of public option in 2006. This is all ego. Not principle. He is after something.
This isn't fresh news, I remember reading something about Lieberman threatening a veto on the PO before. I don't know if it is his way to keep his visibility high, or what. But its interesting that Lieberman is the one to do this, not some moderate Democrat, not a Bayh or a Nelson. Someone who has to run on a Democratic Primary at some point in the future is not going to do anything to endanger the Bill. They may not support the Bill, but they won't kill it. Lieberman is threatening to kill it.
I don't think Reid would go forward unless he was pretty confident of being able to get the bill through. My own guess is that a few GOPers have promised a vote for cloture. (The advantage of that is that it means they can vote against the bill I suppose!!)
@BDP -
Thank you for making your position on VA health care clear. While I disagree with you, I commend you on your consistency on this point. I assume you would also dismantle Medicare and Medicaid, yea?
I got it mule rider: you're essentially opposed to several decades of republican platform, but you hate liberals so you vote for the GOP. You are a coward. At least you're in good company, most mainstream DFL members are as well. Progressive democrats <-- LoL.
@Pat
Government run health insurance is incorrect. It's government insured healthcare. People have no problem with government insuring their bank accounts, why would they mind if government insures their healthcare. Insurance is one of the things the government does really well.
"Maybe even try to get him impeached"
You can't impeach a senator.
Well at least Lieberman's got balls - you've got to give him that much. In a blue state like CT this isn't going to help him with the electorate. It takes much more courage to go against the liberal leanings of his constituents than for say, Olympia Snowe, to side with the dominant liberals in her state.
@Happy GOPer
Well at least Lieberman's got balls
I'm not sure that "balls" is the same as "psychotic".
I really have to say, I love the title of this post.
Marvy, et. al.: there's no legal (constitutional) mechanism by which a state can remove its senator before the end of his/her 6-year term. Impeachment is for the President and judges (including Supreme Court justices), not for members of Congress.
Oh come on now. If Jim DeMint (who I am sure many of you think is psychotic) were to reverse himself and magically support the health care bill - you'd be touting how principled and fearless he is.
Lieberman was shown the door by leftwing activists and kicked in the ass but managed to hold onto power. He has no incentive to lisen to the likes of liberal Democrats. Whatever he does, there will still be attempts to off him when he is up for reelection. He's probably having fun.
Could Lieberman actually filibuster? I am thinking if folks wanted to be nasty about making him stand and talk there is no requirement that the Senate adjourn before sunset on Friday for the weekend. For the most part, the two sides have been courteous and avoided scheduling votes between sunset on Friday and sunset on Saturday. But there is no requirement that the Senate extend Senator Lieberman (or any other Senator) the courtesy of recognizing religious obligations.
Back up a step, folks.
The underlying question is interesting: what motivates a Senator to vote the way they do?
Genuine policy preferences? Sure, that's a part of it. Given Lieberman's voting record, which has generally been center-left on economic questions (not foreign policy or social), it does seem odd that he would oppose the current proposal on policy grounds.
Electoral considerations? Sure, but those seem odd here. He's not up for 3 years, he's getting up there in years (so might not be running again), the polling and blueness of CT at least push against this (if not flat out contradict it), and PAC money from one industry is hardly necessary to a Senator with his name recognition (most senators get most of their money from individuals). So, all these electoral reasons don't seem to be enough to put him in this position.
Power inside the chamber? This one makes the most sense to me. With 60 a close reality on a lot of votes, Lieberman might actually not be objecting to health care because of health care, but because he's demonstrating that his is an ego that must be stroked. What I think he's up to is getting a few concesssions (I doubt the bill is EXACTLY what he wants personally, as it isn't for anyone), but he's also establishing that, in the Obama years, you'll need to get Joementum to pass major laws. I think he's trying to establish his fastball.
Roy said...
I got it mule rider: you're essentially opposed to several decades of republican platform, but you hate liberals so you vote for the GOP.
No, he pathology runs deeper than that. He hardly ever votes, and claims (though some doubt it, I can see it) to never have voted GOP. He has these fantasies about non-politicians running for office. It this wildly naive view that everything would be great if government as it is went away and was replaced by some sort of all-the-positives-without-the-drawbacks thing he's created in his head. He doesn't want to pick up both ends of the stick, he just wants to pick up the "good" end. So he bitches insessently about the bad end, so that actually following through on this view would lead to an absolute paralysis of inaction.
There have been some governments throughout history that are measurably worse than nothing, of course. (Somalia's last one is a handy example.) But the USA hardly has one.
Oh, and on "forcing" Lieberman to do an actual filibuster:
It's impossible. Lieberman's power doesn't come from HIM filibustering but from his vote to support one. The GOP has plenty of senators willing to filibuster this. The rule of thumb is that you need around a dozen (9 in a pinch) to actually physically sustain a filibuster, to allow for bathroom breaks, naps, etc. Thurmond's command performance is truly rare in the history of the chamber. But, Lieberman could just pop in for the cloture votes and let people who hate this with every fiber of their being (ie, southern Repubs) do all the actual talking.
@Happy GOPer
"Principled and fearless"? Not at all. I'd say they saw some political realities and went with what was necessary for a) their position in the Dem caucus, b) what a significant portion of their constituents want, c) what the majority of the American public wants and d) what was necessary to maintain a Democratic majority in Congress. In the case of these conservative Dems, I'd say that they accepted political realities, and voted against their own personal views.
Lieberman likes the spotlight, and is playing some political game that he thinks will gain him some personal advantage. Or else he has a lose grip on reality. Or both. He thinks that he can influence things from a position of caucusing with the Dems but propagandizing (and maybe voting) with the Repubs. A prior poster theorized he was angling for a Republican presidential nomination - and maybe so. As I said, loose grip.
HappyGOPer…
Is that “happy” as in “happy farm”? Because you would have to be insane to think that Joe Lieberman is displaying courage by refusing to let his colleagues vote for the health care reform bill.
If he is opposed to the bill, fine, then he should vote against it. There is no principle involved in supporting a filibuster against the bill. There is insurance company money involved however, and accepting it and delivering the stand they want regarding cloture has nothing to do with courage, in fact it is the exact opposite—selfish, money-fueled cowardice.
@ Arvind,
First off, we're dealing with public response to a question the pollster asks, and how the wording of the question affects the question. Especially if the person doesn't know that much about the question. Certain words strike positive notes. Certain words strike negative notes. And word order matters.
Your initial point, please don't use "..." to leave out words. Having the Government create something (as opposed to "run" something), is quite different in the public mind. Even dropping "Government" in there seemingly dropped the poll 3 points. The NYTimes threw the buzzwords "Like Medicare" in there...( Note, "Medicare good") , driving it up a little. Your second point, you're probably overstating the rise, as the CNN poll is pretty close to your suggested wording.
Second, on a broader subject of polling... People respond to cues. For example given the question "Do you support the "Keep America Safe" act?"...a majority of Americans would support it...without even knowing what it is. You and I might say "Wait, what is it?" but in the context of a phone administered poll, a normal person would say "Sure...." And guess, because it sounded good.
The second thing is...people don't think about the consequences when polling. For example, if asked "Would you like the government to provide you free health care"...a majority would probably say sure... Without thinking that it would COST them more money in taxes.
@Glix,
There is a world of difference between the FDIC and a health insurance company. I can't help you if you can't see this.
Lieberman likes the spotlight, and is playing some political game that he thinks will gain him some personal advantage. Or else he has a lose grip on reality. Or both. He thinks that he can influence things from a position of caucusing with the Dems but propagandizing (and maybe voting) with the Repubs. A prior poster theorized he was angling for a Republican presidential nomination - and maybe so. As I said, loose grip.
You guys don't have the first damn clue about Joe Lieberman or what his motivations are. The guys been a good man and an honest politician for his entire life.
But you guys think you have him all figured out. It's quite hilarious to watch.
You guys don't have the first damn clue about Joe Lieberman or what his motivations are.
Pray tell, all knowing GROG, just how do you know that they don't have it exactly right? Wouldn't that require you being pretentious enough to claim to know exactly as much about Joe and his motivations? How else could you be so sure they don't have a clue?
Don't worry, I'll save you the trouble of letting us know that you, like others, can only judge someone based off their actions and comments, and are thus every bit as clueless as to who Joe Lieberman is as those you claim have no clue.
I think Nate is wrong, yes maybe he likes the attention and drama and yes maybe he is ignoring the normal, public political pressures but I don't think he is crazy.
First, Lieberman's lame, inaccurate "reasons" for being against public option are too stupid for even him...he is obviously trying to malign the public option to the less-informed.
Believe me, there is something rational and practical he is angling for, probably something dearer to his heart than the citizens of CT, such as zionists in Israel. By the way, we provide mega foreign aid to Israel, and Israeli citizens have health care, but Joe wouldn't want his citizens to have what Israelis have, because it has cost Israel so much, increased their deficit so much and has hurt their economy during recessions (oops, guess that has happened to Israel but it still might happen to US, Joe is here to protect us)
If you see Lieberman and Obama coming out of a meeting room smiling and Lieberman saying he supports the public option, you know Obama gave him something slimy deal neither of them they would like the public know about.
What would be the impact of his failing to get the Democratic nomination, taking the GOP nomination instead, and gathering the CT Blue Dogs to his bosom. Last time he ran, it was against Lamont and a very weak Republican. He got the Blue Dogs, many Republicans, and a big chuck of independents. My belief is the only way to get Joe is to have a single-issue recall-- h/c. That's where he would be vulnerable.
Oooops. One mistake I made. A Republican governor would pick his successor if the recall is successful. Joe is in a strong position, insulated on all sides. New Supreme Court nominees coming up. Dems need Joe.
Good men and honest politicians don't advertise themselves as supporting a policy when they're in a tough reelection campaign, then filibuster that precise policy less then three years later.
Dishonest whores do that.
You have typically Republican standards when it comes to goodness and honesty, GROG.
I haven't been here in a while. Is "Mule Rider" the guy who used to write "McCain Landslide!" all the time?
Or he could just be consistent.
Here's what Lieberman said about the Clinton healthcare plan: "a top-down, welfare-state kind of program" (see Almanac of American Politics for 1996).
Reid may have brought this upon himself by going for the opt-out instead of the trigger. It was always a risky move. The risk? That moderate dems (if you consider Lieberman a dem) would do this.
PS: I know Lieberman said he would filibuster any public option, but he waited until just after Reid declared he was going all in for the opt out.
Joe Lieberman has friends?
Wall Street
Art students
9/11 snow job
Chicken hawks
Moving company
Propaganda media
DNC stealth neocons
Anti-semitism accusers
The chosen the superior
2-3% of the US population
Extortion blackmail bribery
By deception ye shall wage war
AIPAC's Israel-first dual-nationals
For profit NotFederal NoReserve scam
~ Words are plentiful deeds are precious
@ John
"A Republican governor would pick his successor if the recall is successful."
You can't recall a senator.
Kankan,
Stop being an anti-semite.
One thing I can see holding back the Dems (at least some Dems) from taking LIEberman's chairmanship on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee:
The no. 2 Dem on the committee is Carl Levin, and no. 3 is Daniel Akaka.
Dems go by seniority most of the time. GOOPers don't necessarily go by seniority, but more often by popularity (which means that Susan Collins doesn't have much chance at the gavel if the GOOPers ever regain majority status, especially since Coburn and McCain are 2nd and 3rd ranking GOOPers on the committee).
Mike in Maryland
inferno told a tale thusly:
So, anyway, I'm walking in front of this drive-thru, and this Nissan SUV is the front car. On the hood, there are two magnetic decals.
The one on the left says "Impeach Obama." The one on the right says "Worst. Ever. Already." The driver is a guy with a mullet. I'm a tall black guy.
I hope I ruined his night
You should have told him you were gay, too. Then kicked his ass. THAT would've ruined his night. :-D
(disclosure: Tongue in cheek. I'm not really into violence)
Reid needs to stop going back to the well for compromises and bi-partisanship. There is no bi-partisanship with Republicans. They operate under the old Soviet negotiating position: What's mine is mine...what's yours is negotiable. They would do very well in todays Russia.
No compromise. No quarter and call the Senator from Aetna on his bluff. If he stands with the enemies of the Republic then strip him of everything. Oh. Except dignity. He lost that when his brain vanished. He's gone in 2012 anyway.
That Lieberman is a detestable rodent is beyond debate. I think he wants to curry favor with his true friends in the Senate, McCain and Graham.
That said, I seem to be missing something here. It's my understanding that once the bill gets past a filibuster and reaches the floor, a simple majority is all that will be needed for passage.
Am I mistaken about that? Or are we actually worried that 50 Democrats cannot be found to vote "aye" on health care with a public option?
It doesn't seem like there would be more than 8 or 9 who would break with the party...
Hall, you are correct. The question is, without Liberman, can the Dems break a filibuster?
@Richard Shepard -
Good analogy. Indeed, Repubs have acted like totalitarian dictators for decades. Interesting that they now accuse the Dems of "socialism" - as if they had a clue as to what that word means.
To get Lieberman's attention, and possible vote --
Add an amendment to some bill somewhere that freezes aid to Israel until there's a freeze on settlements.
Lieberman is a Jewish Pig. And this from a fellow Jew. For the harm he will do to countless people, I hope G-d sends him to the deepest levels of Hell. May he personally experience the torment he will cause others for his selfishness. There can be few greater sins than his crime against humanity.
Nate, I think you're looking at this through your partisan glasses and not your clear ones.
I don't think Lieberman is planning on running in 2012. He had to know in '06 when he defected (more or less) from the Democrat party that they'd go all out to defeat him next time around. And next time, they won't have to beat him twice. He knows this is his last Senate term.
I think the most likely answer here is the one Lieberman says. He doesn't like the idea and wants it dead.
I agree that Joe must be planning on retirement or he plans to be the pivotal vote on passage and then running as a democrat with white house backing in 2012.
Either way I doubt he would end up being the pivotal vote on health care failing unless he is actually a republican plant who has been put in the democratic caucus to be used at the appropriate time to cause Obama's failure!
I've seen a number of theories about why public option pulls 60/40 support, but "Obaama's" plan or "Congress's" plan barely breaks even, if that.
But maybe of the 50% who don't like the so-for-nonexistent plans, 4/5 don't like them because they go too far and 1/5 don't like them because they don't go far enough, i.e. not a robust enough public option. I know plenty of people who would fall into the latter category (e.g., me).
I'd like to see a poll that asks NOT just yea or nay, but gives three options: bad idea, good idea, too timid. Bet things would be much more consistent.
You should have told him you were gay, too. Then kicked his ass.
Don't forget to carve a backwards 'B' on his cheek.
Nate:
I know this might be a shock to an observer of the Democrat Party, but maybe Lieberman is not motivated by media polls, re-election or power and simply thinks that Reid's proposal is simply bad policy which would harm his constituents?
JFK used to call this a profile in courage.
Steve Rogers:
You can in fact impeach a Senator - if they've committed crimes. But it takes a 2/3rds majority vote in Congress to impreach and expell. Have you forgotten 1998? Same applies to any member of Congress. The whole problem with the "impeach Lieberman" crowd is that they forget that CT has a Repub gov - Mary Jody Rell. Who'd appoint a Repub (probably Shays who actually could get elected to a 6-yr term in Joe's seat) to replace him at least until the special election of 2010. It is likely, however that Dems can get to 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate and get rid of this anachronistic filibuster rule forever in the next election precisely by forcing one on a big issue like this and gaining popular support for such. Which, I'm convinced is entirely the strategy here. No Dem in NV (now a majority of the state) is going to agree to vote out Harry Reid if it means having to put up with continued possibilities for filibusters. Get 67 Dems (or 66 Dems and one absent Repub, like Coleman's delaying recount stunt with Franken) for even one day in the Senate and Schumer can change all of this forever with one quick vote to change the rules. Then they can't be changed back until there's a new 2/3rds majority.
-Jeff
If someone bought Joe Lieberman a puppy, he'd just kick it until he had to put it to sleep. Then he'd walk away.
maybe Lieberman is not motivated by media polls, re-election or power and simply thinks that Reid's proposal is simply bad policy which would harm his constituents?
Lieberman wasn't elected to go vote on his own thoughts, but rather, to represent his constituents. If all available metrics suggest that a majority of his constituents want the public option, then his personal thoughts on the matter are completely irrelevant. He was voted to be their representative to the senate, not to be their mother.
"This is the only defense I have ever heard (which has been thousands of times)for Obama's mammoth deficits which is basically, "Bush did it so we can do it, too.""
@Grog. No, no, no. What we're saying is, "Bush and his Congress blew off fiscal responsibility on a scale and in a way that no one had ever done in decades. Poorly thought out tax cuts, crazy trillion dollar+ military commitments, excessive and poorly-thought out school testing schemes, and a medicare drug benefit designed to enrich big pharma on the US Govt dime."
By comparison, Obama is using stimulus to get out of a depression-scale recession, and designing a deficit-neutral health plan to bring the US (almost) up to the standards set by the rest of the industrialized world.
Fellow Dems, it is debatable that Lieberman was elected to represent his constituents. As a Senator in a Republic, he gets to disagree with them (and get thrown out of office down the line).
I hate what he's doing, but he's well within his rights.
Fellow Dems, it is debatable that Lieberman was elected to represent his constituents. As a Senator in a Republic, he gets to disagree with them (and get thrown out of office down the line).
I don't think it's debatable that that is what he was elected to do. I agree that he's certainly not bound by any law to do it. What I take issue with is the suggestion that by going against what every available metric suggests his constituents want, he is properly representing their interests.
Lieberman has every right to vote his own conscience, but let's not pretend that by doing so he is automatically representing his constituency. The only person we know Lieberman represents is Lieberman.
More and more I'm convinced that this whole issue boils down to one of two possible futures:
What Joe Lieberman wants
or
What Olympia Snowe wants.
And we'll just have to wait and see who offers the Dems the better deal.
Exactly, Nate. My first reaction to Liebermann's threat to filibuster was, "what an attention whore!" That's Joe Liebermann. His voting record does tend to support the Democrats most of the time, but every so often he takes a major issue and makes a huge deal out of bucking the Democratic party on it. He's doing it for the attention and he's doing it for the power. He knows damn well that as the potential 60th vote, the Democratic party has to kiss up to him like never before.
The Democrats should have learned when Liebermann campaigned for McCain. He's an attention whore who only cares about one thing: Joe Liebermann. They should have yanked all his committee appointments after the elections and told him not to let the door hit him in the arse on the way out.
I've been trying to look at this from all angles. My initial reaction is one of anger. I thought Lieberman was a poor choice for Gore. I was annoyed at him for defecting from the Democratic party but I understood that it was for political expediency. I was pissed at him for siding with McCain but I gave him a pass because McCain is the least insane of the Repubs and I respect him. But this little episode is the proverbial camel's broken back. I suspect there is more than one Connecticut Democrat who made the decision yesterday to run for Lieberman's seat in 2012.
But let's say for argument's sake that I'm going to give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt one last time (I'm not). I can think of several reasons Lieberman would want to kick sand in Hairy Reed's face but it basically boils down to this:
1. Lieberman actually believes that this particular piece of legislation is wrong, or
2. He's objecting for some other ulterior motive.
The first scenario is pretty cut and dried. If he's voting his conscience and really thinks this would be bad for his constituency then it's a textbook case of doing the right thing.
But I; and I don't think I have to go too far out on a limb here, like most others believe the latter is the case. For one thing, why would it be necessary to announce your intention to block Hairy Reed the day after he actually grew a spine and introduced the limited public option idea unless you were purposely trying to steal the thunder? This begs the question, 'what are the motives behind it?'
Holy Joe is motivated by several things -- Israel, where Obama has a 4% approval rating; his wallet, maybe he wants to be CEO of the insurance cartel down the road; relatives, does he a relative who wants to run or get a judgeship?
Joe has proven that the he is the only constituent who matters. Jerk.
What Joe Lieberman wants, in all probability, is attention. He wants Harry Reid to have to stand up and say things like : "I don't have anyone that I've worked harder with, have more respect for, in the Senate than Joe Lieberman." He wants face time on Meet the Press. He wants to make liberals feel some pain -- especially those who tried to get Ned Lamont elected in his place. He wants everyone to know how maverick-y he is.
How, exactly how, do you know this in all probability?
I'm now picturing Joe Lieberman as Kim Jong-Il, another attention-craving grandstander who uses threats of destruction to get more attention than his status would otherwise warrant.
I wonder if we could get Joe to get the same haircut?
Joe Lieberman is grandstanding Pt. II
So this brings up a second point: Does Lieberman expect to be Senator from Connecticut in 2012? If yes, this is a really reckless gamble. He has to be cognizant of the political backlash this stunt will create. Another side exists to this question and that is could Joe be positioning himself to finally transform into the REPUBLICAN Senator from Connecticut? If he gets booted off of his chairmanship, he can certainly play the victim card.
If he isn't planning on being the Indie Senator (either through fear of defeat or retirement), then Lieberman has nothing to lose by stirring the pot except perhaps tarnishing his legacy. I think that ship left the dock awhile back though.
Perhaps he is just between a rock and a hard place. Connecticut is a bastion for the health care industry. Heck even one of it's companies is named Hartford after the capital. That's a pretty big lobby to go against. Better to appear to have their interests in mind than not if you're planning to continue your future political career. But this seems an odd move, particularly for someone who recently campaigned as a champion of health care reform in a state which has a fairly comprehensive health care program anyway.
There is a third scenario. Could this be a collusion among the Dems to flush out the Blue Dogs position? No Democrat in their right mind is going to buck the party alone. Could Hairy Reed and Joe have orchestrated this move together? Whip the public and media into a frenzy? Force the Blue Dogs to tip their hand and risk the ire of their constituents?
In the end I think Joe was in danger of becoming irrelevant. Nate is probably right in that Lieberman just wants the limelight. If that's the case it's a really selfish move that does a disservice to Connecticut, America and history in general. If Lieberman's actions cause Health care with a public option to fail he may go down in history as a pariah or an enemy of the state. Careful what you wish for, Joe.
This so-called “public option” presents serious challenges for us. As Consumers we should be able to compare the cost and quality of health care services. How much is a specific surgery at one hospital, as compared with another? http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/media/
Then again, he may be giving the appearance of being the pariah in hopes of casting the 60th vote in order to redeem himself for his past misbehaviour.
Hell, who knows what goes on in Lieberman's head? Dude has got to go in 2012.
@Maura
You're going to pay for health care one way or another whether through premiums at work, loss of raises at work due to escalating, runaway premiums at work, out of pocket costs due to denial of services for pre-existing conditions or some other such BS, or through death if your circumstances change such that you are out of the loop on health care and have already depleted your savings and foreclosed on your house.
You really want the cartel to be in charge of it all?
+His voting record does tend to support the Democrats most of the time, but every so often he takes a major issue and makes a huge deal out of bucking the Democratic party on it.+
Which is almost exactly how McCain used to operate towards his party from the other side of the aisle before he knuckled down to gaining his party's nomination. No wonder they're friends.
@Ickey
While either house of congress CAN expell a member by a 2/3 vote in that chamber (for any reason), that is NOT the same as an impeachment. The impeachment process specified in the constitution (in which the House brings charges and the Senate conducts a trial) applies only to "The president, vice president, and all other civil officers of the United States."
I have only one question....
Nate, what do you have against puppies?
Make Serious and fastest Money in Paying hyips
The Best Low Risk - High Return Investment I Made Several Millions Profit with Liberty reserve and perfectmoney money in paying hyips
Make millions liberty reserve and perfectmoney in paying hyips fastest Real Investment
Many people today feel like they don't have enough money in their lives. These days having only one stream of income isn't enough. People are always looking for more. Life is getting expensive. People want to be able to go out and do what they want, take vacations, have fun, and in general enjoy life. The problem is that they usually don't have enough money or time to enjoy these things. This is where E-Currency Investment comes in.
Becoming a HYIP Investment expert is not easy, but it can be very profitable, you can be able to gain monthly interest as high as you will never find in any other investment opportunity! See more information at HYIP Investments.
http://www.yahoomsngroup.com/
http://www.makecurrencyonline.com/
http://www.hyipfunding.com/
http://www.libertyreserveforex.net/
If you've been having a hard time keeping up with your bills, you feel like you want more money, or you feel you need to grab a hold of your life, then I recommend checking out E-Currency Investment.
First,You need to have one liberty reserve or perfectmoney account
If you don't have liberty reserve or perfectmoney account, please sign up a free account
https://www.libertyreserve.com/en/
http://www.perfectmoney.com/
Second, you need fund your liberty reserve or perfectmoney account. We recommend some good e-currency exchange sites for you
http://ebuygold.com/
http://www.superchange.ru/en/
Last I got paid and made serious profit from following hyips
http://www.mountainmininginvestment.com/?6016375
http://www.fastlibertyreserve.com/?6016375
http://www.profitinparadise.net/?6016375
http://www.seriousinvestorhome.com/?6016375
http://www.libertyreserveinvestment.net/?6016375
http://www.libertyreserveinvesting.com/?6016375
http://www.richestinvestment.com/?6016375
http://www.perfectlite.org/?6016375
http://www.noriskinvestors.com/?ref=payinghyiponline
http://www.highreturnatinvestment.com/?6016375
http://www.perpetuityincome.com/?6016375
http://www.citrusfinance.net/?6016375
http://www.vividfinance.net/?6016375
http://www.sureprofits.net/?6016375
http://www.gleenmanagement.com/?6016375
http://www.workinglr.com/?6016375
You can choose some sites make your first deposits and become rich fast
mail to me if you made a deposit use my referral link.We will return 25% of your spend instant.100% guaranteed money back.mailto:services@payinghyiponline.com
http://www.payinghyiponline.com is an expert investment advisor and can help with investment services. Choose a Service: online investment, investment make money online, online investment advice, online stock investment, online investment service, trading investment online, online investment magazine, online investment broker, online investment services, online investment banking, online investment club, online investment company, business introduction, online investment opportunity, online investment calculator, online investment information, online investment bank
538.com: owner says Joe Lieberman is like a Middle Eastern dictator, readers attack him referencing the fact that he's an observant Jew.
Joe is pushing 70. He may be retiring after this term is up in a few years. That could be very liberating for him in how he votes.
I think, in addition to the article, alot of the posters here are missing a simple, key point taht is sometimes only alluded to. Sure, Joe likes the attention and attendant power, but just as importantly, Joe loves the money. Having basicly been a corportist all his life (could be a D or an R after his name...almost irrelevant), Joe predictably, like all his Republican brethren, wants to derail the bill as a potential threat to Big Health which he will defend to the near death, no matter the public's interest and desire. So, we should all stop deluding ourselves about what motivates many Democrats ("Independent" in Joe's case). Follow the money. It's really all not that hard to figure out.
"This is the only defense I have ever heard (which has been thousands of times)for Obama's mammoth deficits which is basically, "Bush did it so we can do it, too."'
It's not a defense, but merely pointing out that conservatives don't exactly have a lot of moral authority on the issue.
"
I think the most likely answer here is the one Lieberman says. He doesn't like the idea and wants it dead."
Considering he has expressed support for it in the past, I doubt that.
Great post here, haven't hear any better analysis from the major media on this.
Quick thought, any possibility this is Lieberman looking for some more revenge against the netroots people who backed Lamont and in his eyes have taken over the Democratic Party and pushed it leftwards?
I do think Lieberman can act on principle, and possibly this is a principled stand on the deficit. But personally I think its just as likely as Lieberman massaging his own ego.
As for BDP's reference to this being a 'profile in courage', I think that is rubbish. I think in a lot of ways this is a very cowardly act. Everyone knows that health reform is necessary. Lieberman wants to block that in its entirity over this one detail. He's not fighting for a compromise, or looking to do what needs to be done. He is out there blocking the Congress from doing its job.
I do think Lieberman can act on principle, and possibly this is a principled stand on the deficit.
But that doesn't make sense for blocking this portion of the Bill. Yes, I know that's what he's saying. But a lot of what he's churning publicly doesn't actually make much sense.
The "creating the competition by entering a screwed up market rather than trying to add a bunch of regulation is different than what we've done before in America" does have a little more basis, although that's not exactly true either. Fire fighters were once private and that industry was screwed up enough that it's been replaced.
No, it's hard to take what he says entirely at face value.
What if we just rename the public option to Medichoice or whatever and put his name on the bill, will that shut him up?
Nate, can you please deep six the spam that was posted by bullionsInvestor?
Thanks, Bill
So what are Joe's chances of re-election in 2012, anyway?
Assuming the Repub in he race is not a crook like the last one and assuming Dems renominate Ned Lamont and Joe doesn't get enough hate-mail over the next 2 yrs to get him to retire already, you've got a 3-way race, haven't you? And who knows who'd win that?
Let's assume Dodd wins re-election next year narrowly. This encourages his Repub opponent to run again in 2 yrs, right? Does Joe act as a Dagget/Scozzafava and steal enough moderate votes to put Lamont over the top? Or does he steal more from Lamont giving the GOP their only NE Senate seat (or possibly their second if Ayote wins). Or can he get to more than 35% from stealing from both parties to win another term? He's kinda in a Specter-like position right now, since Lamont has not stopped campaigning in 3 yrs, he knows he'll be challenges from the left again. I think his math is telling him to run to the right and win another narrow 3-way as his only chance of keeping a job. Can he be convinced to leave the Senate in 2012 so he can run for Ct Gov in 2014? Doubtful. I don't have a solution for keeping his vote, really. But certainly any negative actions taken toward him by Dems other than his voters will have the opposite of the desired effect. As mad as I am at him, I can't think of a way to not need his vote now and in future. He has to be convinced, somehow.
-Jeff
Steve Rogers:
While I think that that power is defined under the section regarding Impeachment powers, I think this whole point is moot. Yes, the Senate can get rid of one bad apple, as others have said when you told them (incorrectly) that this was not the case. It is. The Constitution does give congress the right to do so. But it's still irrelevant, because 40 Repubs aren't going to vote to get rid of Joe as long as he's voting their way and joining their filibusters - they get to win an election without winning it, essentially. And even if they did have someone better in mind they'd like to give that seat to, Gov Rell would easily appoint that Repub to replace Lieberman if it did come to that and Joe not being around for that week or so of time does Dems no good because a non-vote for cloture is all that is needed. Absentees are counted the same as those in the filibuster, so even having him gone is not a win scenario. But since Droopy Dog is never going to do anything worthy of getting him kicked out of the Senate and being sent packing back to CT (unlike the very Impeachable Vitter and Ensign), it's even more of an irrelevant point. You can't just ignore him and you can't get rid of him. You need to appease him somehow. Maybe Reid and Obama can make a deal with Joe to call off Lamont (whom they don't really have any control over) in 2012 to at least get his votes now and then go back on such a deal in 3 yrs. That'll force Joe to jump the aisle for a year, but it'll be too late then. IS that the only win scenario I'm seeing?
-Jeff
Two additional motivations for Lieberman's stance come to mind:
1. He actually BELIEVES in what he's saying. I know... it's counter intuitive, but every once in a while politicians - and I think Joe more often than others - do what they think is right, rather than what they think is politically expedient.
2. Lieberman realizes that maintaining policy independence from the Dem party is his best shot at winning re-election - once again snatching the bulk of the Republican vote and a decent share of the Democratic vote.
A puppy? Nate, you want I should buy Lieberman a puppy?
Well, there are several things I'd like to buy Lieberman, but a puppy isn't one of them.
Here's a couple of things I'd like to buy Lieberman:
A clue.
A conscience.
"Is Lieberman's stance intended to placate the special interests in his state? Perhaps this is part of it -- there are a lot of insurance companies in Connecticut -- but Lieberman is generally not one of the more sold-out Senators, ranking 75th out of the 100-member chamber in the percentage of his fundraising that comes from corporate PACs."
As Glenn Greenwald has reported recently, Lieberman's wife 'consults' for that industry (pharmaceutical division of a PR firm) and therefore his family seems to directly benefit from his decision-making. Crooked to the core.
Its simple, Lieberman is serving Israel over the US. He's decided the Obama administrations lack of total 100% blind support to Israel is unacceptable.
Sen. Lieberman (I-IS) needs to be stripped of his chairmanship and removed from all committees that deal with foreign policy. I think we should put him on some committee in charge of committees or on the ethics board or some other janitorial post for Senators. I'm sick of Lieberman. I am willing to travel from Michigan in 2012 to help destroy this ridiculous sob. He's so pro-Israel he forgot which county he is supposed to support. I hope Rep. Murphy is ready to run in 2012.
I suggest we get a few burly colleagues of Joe's, Shumer, maybe, with others, to rough him up a bit. Lieberman looks like he would cave fast to a little violence.
Give Lieberman a puppy and the ASPCA would be on you a like a cop on a doughnut. Lieberman bites the faces off little puppies. If he's hungry for Chinese - it's a Chow-Chow. If he wants Mexican - it's a Chihuahua. If it's Canadian - it's either a Labrador or if he's feeling real hungry as well as nasty - it'll be a Newfoundland. If he's dining with Catholics of course he orders the St. Bernard puppy. He bit the head off a German Shepherd - not the dog. A real shepherd --- from Germany!
"Connecticutians" is not the word used here in CT or by the US government Printing office. The USGPO Style Manual recommends "Connecticuter," but most local media here use the term "nutmegger" from the State's old nickname of the Nutmeg State. Here is an interesting article on the subject from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/17ctcol.html?pagewanted=print
As the line goes: "some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Joe Lieberman will not be re-elected, and he knows it. He is angling for a post-2012 gig as the token Jew on FOX.
While they may be in the minority, there are a considerable number of Jews who are neither religious of ideological Zionist Likudniks, so I think the distinction should be made.
Who is more hypocritically antisemitic than the religio-ideological Zionists who have for more than 60 years engaged in terrorist, ethnic cleansing, genocidal, barbarism against the indigenous Semitic Palestinians, whether Christian,Islamic or free thinking secular.
"I'm against exploding deficits (under Obama...or anyone else)."
What evidence do you have that deficits are exploding as a result of Obama's policies?
Much of the supposed increase comes from simply being honest about accounting: (in other words not an increase at all).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
Much of the rest is not bad deficit, it represents investment in the future:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/fiscal-perspective/
Deficit phobia makes no sense.
Post a Comment