TPM LiveWire

Lieberman: Take Public Option Off The Table, Come Back To It In Four Years

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told Fox News today that Congress should strip the public option from the health care reform bill, and come back to the idea in three or four years.

"Take it off the table," he said. "Come back in three or four years, if other reforms aren't working. That's my position and I'm sticking to it."

Lieberman contended that the public option is "just not necessary to reform health insurance."

The senator, who votes with the Democratic caucus, says he won't vote for any bill with a public option in it. He said yesterday that he may help Republicans filibuster the bill.

"I hope we can all work together to get health care reform done, because we need it," he said today. "I'm doing this because I think it's right, and I hope people will respect me for it."

He also stuck by his fuzzy math on the public option, claiming it's an "entitlement program" that will be paid for with higher premiums to private insurers.

Join the Conversation!

94 comments

Recommend Recommend (3)

October 28, 2009 12:57 PM   

Bye bye Joe. Enjoy your last year in office because it will be your last. I hope they strip his committee chair

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 12:59 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

If he no longer chairs the Homeland Security committee, you can bet his value to Connecticut will be seriously diminished.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:50 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

Well, I just sent my email to Harry Reid telling him that if Lieberman keeps his chairmanship Reid loses my vote next year. Cant wait to get my standard issue response back.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TM

user-pic

October 28, 2009 1:55 PM    in reply to btbradley86

Imagine the joy I have sending letters to DeMint, Inglis and Lindsey Buckingham Graham. My tax money paid for Inglis to invite me to a telephone town hall this week! Yippee.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:09 PM    in reply to TM

I fell your pain. At least now I've got Kay Hagan, powerless freshman. Otherwise, it's Burr and Virginia Foxx.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:09 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

"Feel," of course. Not "fell."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:03 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

He won't care. He'll simply collect whatever was promised to him in the private sector.

It's astounding that we've spent months, dickering and strategizing and uprising and working to save the public option.

Then, when all is said and done, along comes Joe Lieberman, and simply orders the Democrats who represent the majority of Americans on the public option: "Take it off the table."

He gives the orders, now. He's his own fucking branch of government.

If we must lose the public option (we can't even have it watered-down to the point where it's useless, either. Joe has spoken!), let's accept defeat and then primary the living fuck out of Harry Reid, if he doesn't strip the little son of a bitch of his chairmanship AND boot his ass out of the Democratic caucus.

I mean it. We have to make an example of someone, and it's Reid... if he refuses to make an example of Lieberman. No one will play "slap the hippies" with the progressive wing, anymore, if we make one truly terrifying example out of someone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rwc

user-pic

October 28, 2009 5:14 PM    in reply to Barry Champlain

Meanwhile, with Leiberman totally alienated, he'll always, always side with the GOP and absolutely nothing will get done, the GOP will run on that lack of progress and make gains in 2010. I'm with Reid on this one, his plan (as far as it has been explained) for a PO with an opt-out is truly the best this Senate will ever approve. Get that (and hopefully move up some activation dates so voters can see something tangible) and the Dems will win even more seats in 2010, especially in the Senate where there are several open/vulnerable GOP seats, and then the Dems can impose a well-earned banishment on Liebersmuck.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 12:58 PM   

When have Democrats profited from following the advice of Joe Lieberman? That guy is such a walking pile of fail, I'm glad he's no longer a nominal Democrat.

For that matter, I wonder what booting his ass from the caucus would do to Senate Dems' poll numbers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 12:58 PM   

Of course he will help the Republicans to filibuster. That is what Sen Lieberman lives for - to help Republicans. Remind me again why it was that he was allowed to keep his chairmanship.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:13 PM    in reply to A Missouri voter

He dd it before and he probably will live up to his promises again. This man should ostracized . reference that one of the sites I think I saw a listed all of the outrageous things he has done as a so-called Democrat even though he is not a dem anymore.

This guy is really scum.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 12:58 PM   

Is it wrong for me to have violent fantasies right now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:19 PM    in reply to Ethan

No it isn't. I am having them too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:11 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Yup. Right here. It is wrong, but I can't help it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:37 PM    in reply to Ethan

Maybe wrong, but perfectly natural. It's better than having to constantly suppress the gag reflex I feel everytime I see or hear him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:00 PM   

What a vile and contemptuous animal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:00 PM   

Funny. He said the same thing about health care reform in 1993.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:00 PM   

Speaking of Fox, on their popular TV show COPS the bad guys always say "That's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:00 PM   

My favorite part: "I hope people will respect me for it."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:01 PM   

Ring ring.

"Hello"

"Hello, Joe? This is the President"

"Hello, Mr. President"

"Joe, remember last January when the caucus wanted to kick you out on your ass?"

"Yes"

"Remember who saved your hide?"

"Ummm..."

"Well you can talk publicly all you want about how health care reform isn't necessary. But when it comes time to vote, I hope I can count on your vote."

"Well, I'm not so sure..."

"Or else next time, you're going to find yourself chairman of the spittoon-emptying committee. Do we understand each other?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:23 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Here's the way I'd put it to Joe Lieberman:

"Hey, Joe, you ought to recognize that for Democrats, this moment is what it is for a bride on her wedding day. We've waited 60 years for this moment, and now you want to ruin the wedding."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:03 PM   

Joe Lieberman is being deliberately provocative. It is time to pose some questions about what really is going on here.

-Is Lieberman's "nyah nyah nyah" intransigence positioning him to request something? And if so, what?

Or, more nefariously,

-Is Lieberman playing Barack Obama's stalking horse as a way to "settle" for a "trigger" rather than push for the Public Option?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:10 PM    in reply to CF2K

-Is Lieberman playing Barack Obama's stalking horse as a way to "settle" for a "trigger" rather than push for the Public Option?

Yeah, that's some nice Obama Derangement Syndrome there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:32 PM    in reply to Stroszek

A bad case indeed

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:46 PM    in reply to aimzzz

You can ridicule all you like, but don't ignore the facts. Joe Lieberman kept his position as chair of Homeland Security simply due to Barack Obama. That means one of three things:

-Obama is a naif who got punked by Lieberman
-Obama allowed him to remain in that position in order to put pressure on him
-Obama allowed him to remain in that position in order to serve some other function

I don't know which of these is the case. But if Strozek and aimzz want to call names rather than game out the possibilities, then I'll call them "Obama Worshippers" for refusing to consider what OBAMA'S OWN DECISION suggests is a plausible reason--namely, that Joe Lieberman provides a convenient way to deny the liberal base of the Democratic Party what IT wants. And Obama has, again and again, made a point of attacking what Digby calls the "DFH" of the party. So don't try to present him as some Liberal Lion. He's not.

And frankly, given Obama's lukewarm performance regarding the Public Option, there is ample reason to assert that he is willing to throw it under the bus in the interest of "bipartisanship."

If you are interested in factoring these things into your analysis, great. If not, I'm really uninterested in your cheerleading, thanks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wyt

user-pic

October 28, 2009 1:54 PM    in reply to CF2K

Your list is not exhaustive, so your whole argument fails. Obama, for instance, may have let Lieberman have his chairmanship merely as a result of Obama's known "big tent" philosophy.

There's not always a narrow motive in actions like that. Sometimes the motives are quite broad - broader evidently than your horizon. The three motives you list are plausible and possible, but just because they are the only three you've imagined yet doesn't make them the only ones available to Obama at the time he made his decision.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:37 PM    in reply to wyt

Fair enough: Obama does seem to place a premium on of "bipartisanship" for its own sake. But the fact that Obama may have other motives than I've listed does not mean that plausible cases can't be made for taking latter ones to be his motives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:01 PM    in reply to CF2K

Could Obama's attempt to include someone like Snow, in this light, be the realization that he did not have Leiberman's vote and needed one more to get 60?
If so, that doesn't explain why he let traitor Joe off the hook without a severe punishment when he had the chance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:44 PM    in reply to dustbunny44

Actually, the overture to Snowe seems to me like it *would* explain Obama's leaving Lieberman in place, since he may have thought Lieberman would be compliant out of gratitude. But when it turned out that he wasn't, as you suggest, Obama then would have been forced to go seeking another vote.

All of this may commend the "naif" interpretation above. Which, if accurate, permits a really joyless round of "I told you so" to Obama and the Beltway assholes over Lieberman.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:20 PM    in reply to CF2K

CF2K: well, I see your point with bells on.

The rest of you, ask yourselves: When President Obama just went poof and forgave Joe for opposing him in the election, AND he got a fucking gavel from Harry, as well... how did you feel, really?

When the spin started spinning about why we had to shut up and live with this... "Oh, we NEED a majority! We have to hold our noses! Joe's going to have to behave himself now that he knows Obama is watching!"... now, honestly, did ANY of you believe that???

The MSM and maybe some fellow Democrats may be scratching their nuts in wonder, today... but really, who among us ever trusted Joe? Even for a moment?

We have always been considered the least credible (and generally unheard) side in the discussion. And yet again, progressives were the ONLY ONES WHO WERE RIGHT.

Dunno about you, but I'm getting goddamned sick and tired of always being bitch-slapped by the political elite, for the crime of always being right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:03 PM   

You know who we have to blame for this---Obama. Remember after election, insiders were fairly certain that Reid was going to do something to sanction Lieberman--if not removed his chairmanship. But Obama rode in to keep Lieberman in place, because he figured they might need his vote for such a time as this. Well, looks like Obama miscalculated. Big time.

They should have gunned Lieberman when they had the chance, and before he could do real damage. Now, this shit could go to hell because the Dems didn't act when they should have.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:08 PM    in reply to dragnet

And to what end? Joe would still be trying to block. This way the Dems and WH might have some leverage by threatening to or actually tossing from the caucus and stipping him of his Homeland Security Chair

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:09 PM    in reply to dragnet

He could have ended up caucusing with the Republicans. There, he could have opposed the stimulus etc...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:13 PM    in reply to dragnet

WTF? So if Lieberman caucused with Republicans, he would have supported a public option?

It looks like Obama Derangement Syndrome isn't just for right-wingers anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:37 PM    in reply to dragnet

Gosh, that's stupid! As if the Lieberman problem would be solved if he had been kicked out of the caucus or stripped of his chair.

He would REALLY be supportive of the public option then. {rolling eyes}

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:03 PM   

Would somebody PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE take away his chairmanship now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jcd

user-pic

October 28, 2009 1:04 PM   

The senator from the Insurance Industry is just protecting his constituents. He hasn't forgotten '06--he wants every last dime in fat cat contributions he can shake out. Making sense--and helping out the poor fools in Connecticut who think they're his constituents--are far down his "to do" list.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:06 PM    in reply to jcd

He got voted in by Republicans mostly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:37 PM    in reply to tonnyb

He did get voted-in by Republicans, in one of the most dishonest Republican campaigns ever (and that's saying a lot).

The whole wink-and-a-nod amongst CT Republicans that you all know who to vote for! was simply a rape of the democratic system. These fuckers actually ran a nominal "Republican" candidate, along with a big loud dog whistle (which, apparently, many Democratic voters were too fucking dense to hear) that psst! Vote for the other guy!.

It's a tribute to their cohesion as a party, that every.last.Republican. heard that dog whistle and acted accordingly.

What put Joe over the top, however, was the additional percentage of Democratic voters, who, gosh, just could not bring themselves to believe that Joe was not the same Joe who "marched with Martin Luther King". It's like your brother, the crack addict, who you just will not admit has a problem. Attention CT Democratic Lieberman voters: you are IDIOTS.

Without a solid Democratic vote for the Democratic candidate, it was the equivalent of a fragmented Democratic electorate, combined with a solid Republican electoral opposition: the Republican wins handily.

Which is exactly what happened in 2006.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:05 PM   

Makes me want to move to CT and vote this clown out of office. What a joke.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:05 PM   

I read this and it makes me wnat to throw up. This guy is my Senator too. And no, I didn't vote for him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:06 PM   

Maybe this is a bit picky, but Lieberschmoe didn't say Healthcare reform isn't necessary, he said a PO isn't necessary for reform.

The guy is a turd all by himself. Why does TPM need to dress it up with a misleading headline?

He even said he believes reform is necessary. The quote is right there, "because we need it". Of course his version of reform is handing our souls over to the Insurance Industry, but I thought I was about to read something absolutely stunning in its vileness. Instead I just reread how Joe doesn't like the PO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:08 PM    in reply to Dorn76

OK they just changed the headline from "Reform not Necessary" to "Public Option not necessary for reform". My nit-pick is satisfied.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:09 PM    in reply to Dorn76

And Joe is still a snake. So not much has changed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:11 PM    in reply to Dorn76

And reform is bullshit without the public option. Why? Cause whatever a public-optionless reform will do, it won't control the cost. We will end up paying for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:12 PM    in reply to tonnyb

I agree with you 100%.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:12 PM    in reply to Dorn76

While I'm talking to myself, let me point out that it's not crazy to suggest the President doesn't believe the PO is "necessary" for reform either.

I have a feeling that if push came to shove he'd settle for reform without it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:29 PM    in reply to Dorn76

your honesty is admirable. For certainly this is true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:45 PM    in reply to Dorn76

Have to agree for tactical reasons that should be obvious. However, it doesn't mean Obama doesn't recognize the difference between reform with a public option and reform without a public option, and it doesn't mean that Obama would "gladly" give it up, and it doesn't mean Obama isn't trying to get the public option in there.

The trick has always been trying to get the best possible bill out of Congress. The disagreement arises over how we get there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:17 PM   

Senator Joseph Lieberman
Fax: (202) 224-9750
Re: All About You

Dear Senator Lieberman:

It's all about YOU.

“You know that the people who worked to defeat you in 2006 want this. So you want to block it. There used to be shame, but that's pretty much out the window in this day and age.” – David Waldman, http://www.congressmatters.com

”Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” – Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1954.

Yours truly,

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:18 PM   

Is Lieberman a traitor.. yes...
Did i think the other day when CNN was showing that balloon in the air thinking a boy was in it.. that that was a wide shot of Lieberman's head?... yes... but that's not the point...
For those who don't understand how politics in this country works.. Lieberman ONLY keeps his "chairmanship" as a favor to Isreal. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:18 PM   

Here are his phone numbers: DC (202) 224-4041
Connecticut (860) 549-8463.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 28, 2009 1:18 PM   

Shorter Joe: If you won't do reform my way, it's fine by me if the uninsured continue to die! @KillerJoe

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:21 PM   

LIEberman is a LOST cause folks. We need to find 60 Senators without him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:24 PM    in reply to Maritza

Amen to that. LIEberman will vote however Snowe votes. If he can kill reform he will. But if Snowe votes for cloture and Democrats don't need his vote, Lieberman will vote for cloture just to hang onto his committee chairmanship.

One thing Democrats might do is to convince LIEberman that Snowe will vote for cloture so that he will too. Since the roll call vote is taken in alphabetical order, he won't realize he's been hoodwinked until it's over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:22 PM   

It's because of his wife!

What a scum bag!

Since March 2005, Hadassah Lieberman has worked for Hill & Knowlton, a lobbying firm based in New York City, as a senior counselor in its health and pharmaceuticals practice. She has held senior positions at the Hospital of Saint Raphael in New Haven, CT, the American Committee for Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO), Pfizer, National Research Council, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Lehman Brothers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:36 PM    in reply to rbeats

it isn't just his wife -

here's a great piece on his HCR "reocrd" of the past 15 years

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/11521/liebermans-15year-record-of-killing-health-care-reform

jaysus whatta pig

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:48 PM    in reply to rbeats

Can someone please explain to me how this isn't a major conflict of interest?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:59 PM    in reply to rbeats

In a more legitimate government, this kind of conflict of interest would be a crime. The two of them would be in prison.

As it stands, however, Joe gives the rest of us the orders.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:25 PM   

Rape Gurney Joe strikes again.

The health reforms won't even be in place for four years, so the time needed to "test" them will be three or four MORE years down the road. Eight more years of medical bankruptcies, people dying, before Lieberman will deign to say, "Gee, maybe we should have had that public option, I was wrong."

Go home, Joe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:33 PM   

OMG. Please get that mug shot off the front page.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:34 PM   

When these old geezers start dying off, we'll begin to see true change from the senate and the house. We really need to start exacting term limits on these chairs so that these old cronies will not get too comfortable. All they do is sell us out every time they take money from the lobbyists. Time to make that illegal too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:23 PM    in reply to hologram5

You may be right but since the only body invested with the authority to set term limits is Congress itself, we'll never see it happen.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:26 PM    in reply to agio

Quapropter Doctor Manhattan?!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 4:03 PM    in reply to hologram5

Don't get too attached to the concept that all this betrayal is a result of "old geezers".

The coming generations will all have their share of corrupt politicians and con men, don't you worry. The poor may always be with us, but so are the scumbags. Age has shit to do with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:34 PM   

Lieberman is really just angling for the deal Spector got w/ regard to campaigning when he's up for re-election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:37 PM   

As Joe mandates that everyone must purchase insurance

and since the industry has all ready produced three studies (bad studies, but nonetheless) to show why they will be raising premiums after HCR is enacted (afterall there is nothing to precent them from doing it)

and since as premiums rise, more and more US treasure will be given to the industry

and since the industry is not even under anti-trust laws

and since many people will not be covered by sudsidies (or recieve insufficient subsidies (and some may be forced to spend more than 20% of their income on insurnace)

and if the Finance Committee's exchange is little more than a yellow pages, according to reports, since Kerry withdrew his ammendment

What is Joe's plan? The American people must suffer and be penalized for four or so years?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:06 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

"...As Joe mandates that everyone must purchase insurance."

This is actually a real good point. I hope Brian Beutler will ask him if he will drop this mandate if there is no PO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:42 PM   

This is good news for President McCain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:43 PM   

LIEberman on October 23, 2006:

"I have offered a comprehensive program. Small business health insurance reform, plus something I call MediKids (a government entitlement) to cover all the children in America on a sliding fee basis up until the age of 25. MediChoice (a public option) to allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have."

LIEberman on October 27, 2009:

"I can't see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,"

LIEberman is a slimy liar and why Harry Reid didn't see this coming I'll never know. This is really about Reid's incompetence. We already knew, by experience, what sort backstabber LIEberman was.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:44 PM   

Hey, Alan Grayson, here's another prostitute!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 1:53 PM   

I can tell you what he wants.

He wants unflinching support for Israeli policies in the Middle East. A surge of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. And much more pressure on Iran to stop their nuclear program and a green light for Israel should they decide its within their interests to preemptively bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

Give him that, and he'd vote for single payer right now if you wanted him too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:13 PM    in reply to willia451

I doubt there's anything more that Democrats could give LIEberman that would satisfy him. His goal is the Republican goal - to hand Democrats (and Obama) a defeat and to keep himself in the spotlight in the process. The only way to handle LIEberman is to take away his chairmanship and kick him out of the Democratic caucus. When he's just another Republican vote with no power or relevance or future, then and only then will he desperately try to get back the spotlight and the power by voting with Democrats. That's just the way he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:01 PM   

"Take it off the table," he said. "Come back in three or four years, if other reforms aren't working. "

Uhm.... might the 'other reforms' not be working for this reason?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:13 PM   

Okay folks. Looks like Obama will have to kick his butt then.
We were promised that Lieberman would be with us on domestic votes. He's not and should pay for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:14 PM   

One more thing: How many have to die, Joe before you see how wrong you really are??????????

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:19 PM   

"I'm doing this because I think it's right, and I hope people will respect me for it."

The last thing you will get is respect for this, especially from the American people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:20 PM   

By the way, if you call his office, the voice mail is full.
He's not listening. Never was.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:21 PM   

Lieberman Schleberman. I grew up with this man as my Senator. Dodd should challenge him to a throwdown and give him noogies until he relents on the public option. Lieberman is an unreasonable man. The only thing he understands is ridicule from his colleagues. Tell your Senators to exert direct pressure on him, as calls to Lieberman are minimally effective. He is completely sheltered from any feeling of obligation to his constituents and the rising tide of public opinion. He does understand relevance and power. He needs to know he will really lose his chair this time. An open letter from 30 Senate Democrats would do it. If that doesn't work, I'm getting my ninja suit and going back to the land of my birth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:25 PM    in reply to falafelboy

I agree! noogies are key!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:24 PM   

Obama, his conservative entourage and congressional democratic leadership are largely responsible for losing control of the health care debate back in July and August, and dooming Congress to whittle away at a basic, then-consensual idea, the public option. Obama's deferential approach to health care legislation, designed to lower his own political risks, was a virtual guarantee to draw out latent internal democratic divisions, that would be further exploited by the right-wing extremists. Senate Democrats, by the very nature of the anti-democratic representation of that body, are collectively much more conservative than the average democrat constituent. Obama's silence, and divisions in democratic ranks left a large gap for Republicans to dive into and drive an ideological wedge. For for fear of repeating Clinton's mistakes on healthcare, Obama has fallen prey to the other extreme. Unless, Obama finally comes out swinging for health care, it is virtually inevitable that healthcare will be his albatross, not his signature achievement. The multiplication of largely "symbolic" measures designed to quell the party base, such as the federal "hate speech" laws, and a watered-down consumer protection agency, clearly indicate that Obama will not fight for the public option. The democratic base will not forgive him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:26 PM   

Yeah, like we should be taking advice from a guy who wanted to be vice president to John McCain...

John McCain the computer illiterate senator making his next big political move since running for president by offering us the

'Internet Freedom Act' A bill to provide cable companies et

the freedom to charge consumers more money, i.e. make bigger
profits AND 'control access'.

Yes, they would have the right to make Fox download faster and MSNBC download very slowly for example... they would manipulate our choices through cost and speed.

And the argument McCain is using that the current Internet Neutrality being proposed to keep the internet access the same for all is a 'govt takeover of the internet.

I can't place any good advice or decisions from Joe Lieberman. They may exist but are certainly few and far between.

Lieberman has always reminded me of Grima Wormtongue of the Lord of the Rings. He sells his soul to Saruman.

Fortunately Durbin and Reid came right out today saying that reconciliation is still being considered if necessary. Basically letting Lieberman no that he may want something... but he can be overruled or basically ignored and made insignificant.

I agree with others here. This man should be kicked out of the caucus and stripped of his chairmanship.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:36 PM    in reply to synchronicity

"Fortunately Durbin and Reid came right out today saying that reconciliation is still being considered if necessary. Basically letting Lieberman no that he may want something... but he can be overruled or basically ignored and made insignificant.

I agree with others here. This man should be kicked out of the caucus and stripped of his chairmanship."

Exactly. Time to stomp on the weasel.

It's not we will lose 60 anyway. We never had 60. It will get rid of that pretense. Lieberman was always "with us" when we diodn't need him, and betrays us when we do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:33 PM   

I switched from Independent to Dem in order to vote for Obama in the primary, and then the general. I intended to stay a Dem until I had reason to leave.

I dropped my party affiliation within weeks of the election when it became clear that they were going let Lieberman stick around and keep his appointments. I know I wasn't a long-time party member, but I literally left over this one issue.

I hate Lieberman, and I can't have any respect for Reid or anyone else who allows this piece of s**t to push them around. How Reid is still the leader is beyond me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:35 PM   

Agreed.

Better to know you don't have 60 and let the slime caucus with the republicans than let him be the decider on every issue before the senate.

By my count we have 10% conservatives caucusing with the dems so we need a 67 seat majority to have a filibuster proof majority. Can we get 8 more because I am not including Leiberman in that count. I'd rather he were forced to caucus with the republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:38 PM    in reply to synchronicity

And there's also the cost of hurting discipline when you have this traitor lingering around. How can anyone take threats seriously? Being cut off and losing all rank and priveleges will send a message to other would-be traitors.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:40 PM   

If Lieberman has a single Dem committee position after this, it's an outrage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:46 PM   

Sweet Jeebus this jackass makes my stomach hurt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:50 PM   

He was for it in 2006 http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/10/27/memory-lane-on-joe-lieberman/ now he says wait a few more years. Unlike his family and the insurance company pals who finance his campaigns too many cannot wait another 3,4,5,6... years for the government to act.

LIEberman is a truly vile man.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 2:55 PM   

"I hope people will respect me for it." Joe, no one respects you now. Not even the insurance industry. They pay you, but they don't respect you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:00 PM   

I hate to suggest it but what about the nuclear option? The 3/5 rule can be changed to something else. They could even change it to maintain the 3/5 precedent for initial cloture but to add a rule that in the event that debate has occured for X number of days then a simple majority is required for cloture.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:04 PM   

You lie!, Traitor Joe!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 28, 2009 3:15 PM   

There is no larger a-hole in all the Congress than Lieberman. The man's arrogance and hypocrisy are boundless. His presence on the Dem ticket in 2000 contributed to their loss; the groveling, neo-con love fest he engaged in during the debate with Cheney was absolutely nauseating. That this warmongering corporatist is still so influential now is a testament to how corrupt and apathetic our politics remain. I feel like puking every time I see, hear or read about this self righteous creep.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 29, 2009 1:37 AM   

This guy is as repulsive as they get.

He should lose every committee chair and let him twist in the wind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on