We have to be nice to Lieberman because he’s working with the sane people on the climate bill, he’s leading the investigation into the Ft. Hood shootings, and he has a bill that would extend domestic partnership benefits to all federal employees. Seriously. I call bullshit. If the Obama agenda is going to be owned by one senator, I’d prefer it be Olympia Snowe rather than Joe Lieberman. I am sure most progressives agree. Do you agree?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I can’t stand Lieberman either, but results are results. If he wants to carry the flag for repealing DOMA and DADT and actually carries some of the load to get it done, then good for him (or anyone else, for that matter).
n/t
I’m sure as hell not holding my breath waiting for Holy Joe to take the lead on LGBT issues (too much of a risk of making liberals happy), but my point was that anyone who does so deserves due credit, whoever he/she may be.
It’s always excuses with Reid .. always … remember when he said we needed 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done? … and now that we do .. we are held hostage by Holy Joe
Except we obviously don’t have 60 votes. I’m no particular fan of Reid, but how exactly was he supposed to make that fact go away?
Let’s get rid of the super majority business (60 votes to pass anything of importance). Otherwise, our Senate is no better off than California’s legislature. Paralyzed. Unable to do anything of merit.
I entirely agree. Getting rid of it is apparently not a simple process, though. Nobody seems to know what it would take to accomplish it.
The Republicans seemed to think it was no more than flipping a switch when they were in the majority – I say find out what is required and then do it. Of course, I also say just do single payer, so we know how much my $0.02 is worth.
I wouldn’t prefer Snowe to Lieberman in terms of liberal policy, but I think her vote is more reliable and she’s not on a personal vendetta. I believe her vote would also be more reachable than Lieberman’s.
…and frankly, I am with him. That Medicare codicil would have benefited me, as I am lucky 55 right now.
Fck Lieberman. I’m willing to go all the way and say that when Obama campaigned for Lieberman over Ned Lamont, we were had right there and then.
Well, that’s not exactly what Dean is saying. According to Greg Sargent, this is what he said:
He wants to keep the better parts of the bill, like Medicaid expansion and subsidies, and presumably attempts to regulate the insurancecos. If Dems can sell this honestly as insurance reform but not what they wanted, they may even have a case to make to the voters. I think it should be seriously considered as the best we can salvage in a Senate stymied by corrupt senators. But I don’t see how they can keep the mandate in this scenario.
Not sure what he’s talking about with reconciliation. Must mean budget reconciliation using the House bill?
you could offer to suck Joe Lieberman’s dick 24/7 and it wouldn’t be enough. it’s revenge, plain and simple. And mark my words, he is going to scuttle both.
daily Kos has Howard Fineman’s appearance on hardball:
Someone should ring up John Hinckley and tell him Jodie Foster’s a big supporter of health care.
Totally agree. It would be better to make compromises with a moderate Republican than to bow before Lieberman’s all-mighty ego. Just because he’s working on a climate bill right now is no guarantee that he won’t turn against it three months from now. The next guy down the list can probably investigate Ft. Hood as well, if not better, than he can. And, someone else can put forward a bill to replace any he might decide to withdraw. I want HoJo stripped of all power and rank in the Democratic Party.
At least you could have some trust in Snowe’s word because Lieberman has none. He will still find a way to grave dance on the liberals over Health Care. He is not finished being an ass hole and this episode only emboldens him to keep behaving in this dishonest manner.
It is funny that if someone acted like Joe in other social/family/work settings, he would have no friends, family would hate him, get fired, or he would get his ass beat for going back on his word.
Instead, Senator Ahole gets to be quoted in NY Times. “My wife said to me, `Why do you always end up being the point person
here?’ ” he said, flashing a broad grin in an interview on Monday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/policy/15lieberman.html?_r=1
How do you spell relief?
r-e-c-o-n-c-i-l-i-a-t-i-o-n
Lieberman can’t be trusted with any of the responsibilities you name, or any others. If he gets away with what he’s been doing, there is no more Democratic Party. The only choice I see is to pass a strong health insurance reform bill and not pretend it’s healthcare reform. Campaign on having ended the worst of the private insurance scams as a first step to comprehensive healthcare reform. Hold Lieberman and any other filibustering Dems to account for shooting down reform now and campaign for more Dems to put us over the top on real reform.
Use every political weapon available to destroy Lieberman to the point that he’s of no use to either the GOP or his corporate fuckbuddies. There’s no point in any further pretense that 60 is bettern than 59 if that includes Lieberman. His only use now is as a bloodied example of what happens to elected Dems who choose to block votes on core Democratic legislation.
Don’t forget: he’s with us on everything but the war, health care and presidential elections.
Joe is like Hitler. You give him one country, then he wants another. He is toxic and poisoning the process. He needs to be eliminated. Obama, Rahm, Harry and the rest of them are enabling his behavior. They need to tell him that he will not get to lead ANY investigations or be the point person for ANY legislation unless he gets in line. But that would mean they want him to stop what he’s doing and I’m not convinced that they do.
They need to tell him more than that. They have to kick him out of the caucus and take away all the power that being a member gave him unless he gets in line.
The idea of him being the Judas goat for what the Dems really want to do makes for a good conspiracy theory, but do you really think every Dem in Congress is silently going along with the plot to secretly kill healthcare reform? That’s what it would take to make your theory plausible.
I’m not saying that “every Dem in Congress is silently going along with the plot to secretly kill healthcare reform”. But when Rockefeller caves, Harkin caves and Schumer, Dodd and Whitehouse are silent, you have to wonder what is going on. I thought Franken’s takedown of Thune was interesting yesterday. He could have directed that at Leiberman. “You’re not entitled to your own facts.” Joe seems to be entitled to his own facts and NOBODY in the caucus is calling him out. So let’s focus less on Leiberman and instead focus on the other members of the caucus and the Administration. Can you explain their behavior?
I think the explanation is simple. They’re trying to come out of this with something instead of nothing. I’m talking here about the majority, not the corrupt sellouts of the Lincoln Nelson Landrieu kind. What good does it do to call out Lieberman at this point unless it’s going to change his mind?
I wholly support that tack, if only for clarity’s sake. Compromises with Snowe are going to make much more sense and damage the party less than these embarrassing and excruciating concessions to Lieberman. Especially since we see here that he doesn’t seem to mind coming down on the right of her.
Of course, this is all a game of chicken and who has the will to do what.
But, personally, I want to see which Democrats besides him are also willing to go to the right of Snowe.
Negotiating with Snowe may help neutralize Lieberman and not make it so effortless for him to blindside legislation like he seems to have done here. Obama and the leadership were right to court her. Lieberman is a loose cannon. Snowe, not so much.
At least not yet.
In all honesty, I don’t care. His mendaciousness is grossly unacceptable. I’m in the strip him of all seniority, perks, chairmanships, everything, then for good measure, take him out behind the Capitol and beat him to within an inch of his life.
It’s kind of too bad we’re not the GOP. Then we could arrange the Berlusconi Solution for Holy Joe.
This is interesting, and makes sense to me. Lieberman is jockeying for something – but what? Read Robert Parry’s thesis here:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/121509.html
I’m not sure the “crippled Obama loses power to hardline Israel” thesis makes much sense. Unless Lieberman is trying to make some explicit Israel deal in return for cooperating.
Which brings up something that occurred to me: tie good HCR to whatever appropriations bill authorizes the next installment of Israel’s handout.
.
I like the analysis. Lieberman’s Israel is a socialist state in regards to its health care plan for 99% of the population, Arabs included. On the abortion issue, Hadassah as ambassador for the Komen Foundation, appears to have a liberal view. A media statement suggested Rahm advised Democrats to give Lieberman what he wants, not what he deserves.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
VIDEO – Lieberman Close to Supporting Bill.
Furthermore, possible amendment to permit import lower cost prescription drugs.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Does “major player” mean “powerful supporter” or does it just mean “has to go through his committee”?
He’s with us on everything but the war. Right?
How long until he sticks the shiv into these other initiatives?
.
Voting record this year: Lieberman more liberal. Even though Al Franken and Richard Durbin sit lonely at 100%.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."lieberman’s next project
that’s right, it’s the “let’s get rid of social security” game!
we need a new party. the current choices are no longer effective avenues for good policy, good government, or governing PERIOD.
a new party won’t solve the problem.
We need a new MEDIA. Only through education can we change the system. And the right understands this and has seriously funded their media efforts for years. Dems seem to throw money at every lost cause but the one that could change the game, sigh.
I guess if I were some folks around here, I’d assume that the liberals are a conspiracy to prevent progress.
… “you live in the world’s most thoroughly steeped and “thought-deadly” television/internet culture –even more than that in Japan or Israel.” …
this was intended to appear under RealHistoryLisa’s comment, rather than here, where it is.
It’s worse than that. If it’s true that “Only through education can we change the system” then I suggest you start your plan to sell the house, the car, (if you have those), the kids, etc. and make your plans to find refuge somewhere because if you live in the U.S. you live in the world’s most thoroughly steeped and “thought-deadly” television/internet–even more than that in Japan or Israel. This means that even if education were a salvation, the chances that it might be effectively used to break through the culturally-based and mind-numbing prevailing ignorance is, I reckon, about nil.
Moreover, much of what’s rightly and wrongly referred to as “education” is a key factor in the growth and spread of national ignorance. The longer you are in school, the more thoroughly, in general, you are indoctrinated to the prevailing culture of idiocy. Most of those who are able to think, or who have been able to recover from their formal schooling to regain the ability to think have been able to do that because they escaped a fatal dose of schooling.
The supposedly keen insight that Lieberman’s motives might be those of helping give Israel invaluable bargaining leverage is something that should have occurred to people from the moment that the current Congressional election results (with their ensuing policymaking divisions) were apparent.
Besides, more ideological indoctrination (for that is what the right wing does) is not a safe or long-term answer to current political problems; it’s more part of the problem than the solution. What’s needed is a public that not only might think, read, analyze, and reason effetively and with sane, humane intentions, but one which actually sees the importance of doing so and for that reason decides to take on the effort in a regular and sustained way.
That is what’s needed and that’s why I suggest it’s way past time to pack up the house (if you still have one), the kids, the dog, and move—unless you have the kind of money or other influence which makes you a serious contender in leading and influencing mass public opinion, in which case you might decide it’s worth staying and using your abilities to fight the rot. If, instead, you’re a very average person with little or no reasonable chance to help effectively change the course of affairs, then your choices are very clear: you can abandon a ship of fools or you can remain aboard and go down with it.
Of course there are plenty of places in the world where circumstances are just as dire or even more so. So what? That fact will neither save you, your country nor, when things are bleakest, provide much comfort in the midst of social ruin.
cut that mofo off at the knees. period. get rid of him.
Seriously, life isn’t that easy. These guys aren’t white hats and black hats. They all have similar shades of gray, that were blackened in different ways at different times.
Obama says “there is evil in the world”. There’s evil in America, too, and one of its names is Lieberman. The other is The Republican Party. It ain’t always shades of gray. If there’s nothing wrong with killing “insurgents”, there can’t be anything wrong with destroying Lieberman’s political life.
EZRA KLEIN ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT:
This question was making the rounds on Twitter today, so may as well answer it here, too. The conference report — that is to say, the consensus bill that emerges after the House and Senate conduct their negotiations — is subject to the filibuster. It is, however, not subject to amendments. You can vote to filibuster, vote against, or vote for. You cannot vote to remove, say, the Medicare buy-in proposal.
On the bright side for reformers, that means there’s more pressure to vote for the bill in its entirety, as you can’t hide behind small disagreements. The downside is that there’s no reticence on the part of Senate Republicans, and some Senate Democrats, to filibuster. If their delicate agreement suffers during negotiations, there’s every reason to believe they will filibuster. My hunch is that the bill that emerges from conference is going to look a lot more like the Senate bill than the House bill.
So this really provides an explanation of why I didn’t think it would be much easier to pass in conference (the BooMan strategy, note, he never said it would pass that way, only that it’s prospects were improved by a non-trivial amount).
The only thing that I want Joe Lieberman to own is a one-way ticket to Baghdad.
Without the security clearance to get into the Green Zone.
If the Obama administration is going to be controlled by one Senator, I would prefer it be Bernie Sanders. They need him too to make 60 votes.
until the end of his term.