Lieberman Twice Says He May Side With Republicans To Deny a Health Care Vote

by: AdamGreen

Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:42


Last week, Mike Stark asked Joe Lieberman if he'd side with Republicans to block a vote on health care reform.

Lieberman's response: "I haven't decided that yet."

Yesterday, Politico had yet another Lieberman response to the same question:

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

With the health care issue now moving into Harry Reid's court, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee will deliver this petition signed by over 85,000 people to Reid today:

"Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care."

You can still sign the petition, and have your name delivered to Reid. Just click here.
AdamGreen :: Lieberman Twice Says He May Side With Republicans To Deny a Health Care Vote

This issue actually came up for Lieberman after he endorsed John McCain for president. From Salon:

  Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders argued for punishing him, but it was clear that Reid and his cohorts in leadership wanted to keep Lieberman in the caucus. When Reid opened talks with Lieberman immediately after the election, the apostate Democrat had said losing his committee chairmanship was "unacceptable."

Now, it's time for Leader Reid to lead -- and to tell Lieberman that keeping his committee chairmanship while helping Republicans block a vote on health care reform is "unacceptable." Help urge Reid to take that step today.

 

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Lieberman Twice Says He May Side With Republicans To Deny a Health Care Vote | 40 comments
Irony watch. (4.00 / 2)
"Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care."

Who wants to bet the Democrats take this moment to recognize Lieberman is no longer a member of the Democratic party?

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
My money's on continued waffling. (4.00 / 1)
The Democrats won't go so far as to play hardball with clowns such as LIEberman.  They want him in the caucus because he represents the corporate wing of the party and because they need every excuse they can to claim impotence on passing things like health care reform or bills that restore Constitutional liberties.


[ Parent ]
They want him to caucus cuz thats where the power to control committees comes from. (0.00 / 0)
While anger is surely justified, it shouldn't obscure reality. For example, the pressure to unseat Spector as a Republican, made a new Democrat. The pressure from a primary made one who publicly supports various progressive causes.

Spector has to be replaced because if his is elected a Senator he will return to his corruptible and right wing ways.

But - I doubt that anyone can, in calm reflection, think that enticing and accepting Spector to cross the floor was based in a desire to 'dilute' the power of the Democratic Party's left.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
No, they want him to caucus with Dems for the reasons I stated. (0.00 / 0)
LIEberman's record is a travesty of right-wing positions and talking points that reflect just how much a corporate-owned extremist he really is.  Such vile filth has no place in a position of influence in a political party that is supposed to represent working and impoverished Americans, yet the Democrats suck up to and defend him every chance they get.  There really is only one reason for this, and it is that they are perfectly content to cater to the hard right and its stooges.

REALITY is that the Democrats have been almost completely bought out by corporations and other right-wing entities.  The pressure to unseat Specter merely gave the party another worthless, corporate politician whose vote for progressive legislation simply cannot be counted upon under any circumstances.  It was welcomed precisely because the corporate wing of the party wants fewer and fewer left-wingers within its organization.  Progressives in the party, especially those who refuses to be bought or bullied into acquiescence, have little or no place in the halls of power today.  Neither major political party abides them, and as events are proving, it's now the Democrats (not the GOP, which long ago purged itself of left-wingers) making the most concerted efforts to eliminate them from the ranks.


[ Parent ]
"stooges" he heh just love the lliterary style. (0.00 / 0)

Progressives in the party, especially those who refuses to be bought or bullied into acquiescence, have little or no place in the halls of power today

On this I assume you mean have no power there, as opposed to suggesting they shouldn't be allowed there, and . . .

Neither major political party abides them, and as events are proving
. . . I wonder if perhaps the lack of attacks on Alan Grayson from within the party, and in fact nothing but defense, might suggest otherwise.

Spector did move left, he is being Primaried (successfully apparently) and Lieberman's drag on the party is being reduced, even as it is used.

Good points all I think.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
If it looks, acts, smells, and sounds like a stooge, it's a stooge. (0.00 / 0)
Wow, that's a "brilliant" demonstration of typical right-wing argument: when you can't come up with an honest, rational, coherent counterargument, resort to attacking the person's "style."  Really, how do you do it without suffering an aneurysm?

There really is no other way of calling a stooge a stooge than to use the word itself.  As the last thirty years and especially the past ten have demonstrated, progressives within the Democratic Party are not wanted.  We believe in working in the interests of the public, while you pretenders are only interested in what you can get out of compromising away your principles.  We got the message throughout the 2000's.

Grayson stood up and told the truth, yes, but he told it about the Republicans.  He didn't criticize the Democrats who have sold us out time and again, and therein lies the crux of the matter.  As long as his truthful diatribes are directed at Republicans for their evil behavior, he is safe.  But see what happens if, like Cindy Sheehan, he dares take his own party to task for constantly supporting the GOP with its endless caving and its willingness to act contrary to the interests of Americans in favor of the corporations.  Then watch his support from you pretenders dry up.

Specter isn't moving left.  His actions are those of a craven coward desperately trying to save his own political career.  If he weren't facing what is shaping up to be a strong primary challenge, he wouldn't even be offering the empty lip service he's given to the left.  As it is, I'm not sure we've seen anything from him when it comes to actual legislative action that suggests he's following through on his save-ass rhetoric.


[ Parent ]
Who is it that you count as "on your side" ? (0.00 / 0)
Who isnt one of the group reviled as "you pretenders" ?

If everyone except.. well maybe not even Weiner or Grayson is ok with you, is a right wing stooge, what group do you expect will assist you in your goals? Are there two hundred in the country? Are there thousands? a million perhaps? Do you like any organization? Have you any allies at all? Do you ever dream of doing anything, achieving anything?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
There's NO Chance of Disciplining Lieberman! (4.00 / 2)
First of all, he's not even a Democrat. He's a "Connecticut for Lieberman" ASSOCIATED member of the Democratic caucus.

They let that ship sail when they all turned out and campaigned for Lieberscum after he LOST the Democratic primary. Then when he won with REPUBLICAN votes, they welcomed him back into the caucus after he campaigned hard and long for John McCain!

What more evidence of treachery could you have? Well, he's about to show his true colors once again. He's a thorough corporate whore who will never change his ways.

He's not going to support the bill Reid and other Democrats will do NOTHING to him for fear he'll bolt to the Republicans. He's so corrupt that he probably would too, and then change his voting style to openly mimic that of Mitch McConnell. They would make him the ranking member on his committees because that would be a huge propaganda coup for them to show their "bi-partisanship" and impress all the nodding-heads in the D.C. cocktail circuit.

There may be some grumbling among Senate Dems, but Reid can't discipline his caucus. He's shown he's utterly feeble and powerless. He doesn't even WANT to instill some discipline, and it's too late to start now.

It's probably worse than that. Lieberman will probably demand the bill be further weakened or he'll get up and filibuster it himself. Then he'll appear on Fox News to explain how he's "shocked" at the lack of "bi-partisanship" in the bill and how he's "opposed to a government takeover of health-care."

Then in 2012 if Democrats dare primary him again, he can run as an Independent who caucuses with Republicans, and win again with Republican and Independent votes. He'd have two years to make peace with the Republican party in CT by voting with Republicans most of the time.  

[ Parent ]
My point exactly. (0.00 / 0)
LIEberman is worthless both as a human being and as a dependable member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate (unless one makes the logical conclusion that he is eminently valuable thereto precisely because he acts against the interests of the public, in which case the boy is simply worthless as a human being).


[ Parent ]
Could provide evidence for the "all" you cite as campaigning for Lieberman aftyer he lost the nomination? (0.00 / 0)
Exactly which ones: with links please, when and where.

Lieberman will NOT be re-elected.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Waiting for the names and dates. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Shall we laugh or cry? (4.00 / 4)
Corruption this spectacular -- and this bald-faced -- begins to resemble that of the old Soviet Union. Different levers, pressed by different people, and different fulcrums, certainly, but as unmistakeable as a dozen overweight septuagenarians in ushankas scowling down on us from the top of Lenin's tomb.

It can't be long now before our own wall comes down. And then what, I wonder -- free-lance gangsterism replaces the corporate kind? If you think that President Obama is far too svelte and sexy to let that happen to us, please remember that in his day, Gorbachev was considered sexy too (although certainly not svelte.)

I am not being critical when I say that implied rich weirdness of the world in this post is delightful. (0.00 / 0)
I have no idea what it means, but I look forward to the novel. Please finish the book, I will buy it.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Don't just do something. Stand there. (4.00 / 2)
You have no idea what it means? Really? In that case, I don't think a book will help. Wait for the movie. Unless I'm very much miskaken, it'll be opening in your neighborhood soon enough.
[ Parent ]
I really did mean this " I am not being critical " (0.00 / 0)
I did like the style, I would buy the book.

But I really dont know what these are:


our own wall comes down

septuagenarians in ushankas scowling down on us

Obama is far too svelte and sexy

But I look forward to the fleshing out of the references and similes. I am enjoying the color, not discounting it.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
The rich weirdness of this world.... (4.00 / 1)
It's the same world. Really. Just a different set of references.

There was an LA sculptor and installation artist, Edward Kienholz, who caused a stir in LA in the mid Sixties with an exhibit called Back seat Dodge '38. He'd chopped a 1938 Dodge so that it only had a back seat, and in that back seat, he'd constructed a wire armature of a fornicating couple.

With all the usual suspects up in arms about the usual trumped-up offenses, I saw Kienholz interviewed. Here's what I remember him saying:

People tell me that my sculpture is weird; then they go home and mow the lawn.

To put it another way, there's the venerable William Blake:

May God us keep
From Single vision
And Newton's sleep

I realize that adults, particularly savvy, political adults, would rather talk about whipping the House, or the pluses and minuses of primarying Holy Joe. All I can say is: I'm younger than that now.

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
A momentary flash of ankle, never to be repeated.... (4.00 / 1)
Except for Oliver Twist, there's alway more:

Canecittà

[ Parent ]
Thank you. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Just Joe being Joe (4.00 / 4)
Lieberman couldn't give a rat's hind legs about health care. He just wants to keep beating the war drums from his perch at homeland security. That and build dozen of nuclear plants. Because next to war, there's nothing a neocon loves more than nuclear power.
when they didn't kick Holy Joe off after he lost the primary (4.00 / 5)
and joined the "joe for joe" party, i knew that was a tool they'd never employ. it just isn't done, in the Gentleman's Club we call the senate. the petition is a great idea, but it won't change a damn thing, in this respect. there's really only one way to get rid of Joe, and we all know what that is. we shouldn't lament the idiocy of CT voters who sent him back after lamont beat him, but instead refocus our efforts and give it another try. really, lamont winning the primary was an incredible victory for us, and we shouldn't mope about the fact that we didn't go all the way that time. no one, including a lot of people involved, ever thought lamont had a real chance at winning. that was then, and if joe votes against HCR (which in its current form isn't something i really support, but has tremendous symbolic value) i think that could be turned into a 'last straw' meme for the people of CT. things are very different today than they were a few years ago; i doubt people are going to be that grateful for the things joe brings to CT while denying them the things they really need.  
hartford is the insurance capital of the world and joe lieberman is a schmuck (4.00 / 3)
These are both facts that have been known for several years and one has little control over.

What is more distressing is how many Democrats helped Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont.  This is a good argument for statewide third parties.

As Joe ran as a third party candidate, the argument is already made. (0.00 / 0)
However historically, as with almost all national candidates,  the third party was a construct to support a specific person, it is thus also a good argument against third parties, which are and have been cults of personality, and not persistent vehicles for change.

The Working Families Party, as the recent spate of attacks on them attest to, is a state level exception.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
i think you missed my point (4.00 / 2)
i was working on the assumption that we meant progressive / social democratic / radical politics - and using this example as how primary challenges don't always work.

however, at the national level, at the end of the day (20 years?) it doesn't matter all that much to me whether a new third party replaces the democratic party as the progressive party or whether the democratic party is fundamentally transformed - the outcome is basically the same (?) in terms of political conversation and the values of the party.  a strategy of pusruing both might be most effective to let everyone have their cake. :)

[ Parent ]
I wasn't so much disagreeing with you, as cautioning those reading you (4.00 / 1)
to not see third parties as a cure-all. I attempted to make that clear with the reference to the WFP.

That we have asshats in the party in places of power, is more a criticism of progressives struggling ineffectively than it is, in my view, a call for starting over. Its hard messy and confusing trying to reform an organization, that because it has power, is as much like 'The Godfather' as any other organization.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
No, LIEberman proved that third party strategies WOK. (0.00 / 0)
Given that he lost the Democratic primary, the only way he could still run for re-election to the Senate was as an independent candidate seeing as how the GOP had its own candidate, whom they dropped support for in the general once it was clear they had a better chance of keeping a solid hard-right vote in there by backing LIEberman.  Their chances of winning with their party's candidate against Lamont were not such that they were comfortable fully supporting him.  By running a third party campaign from the right, LIEberman was able to court votes from Republicans and right-wing independents against the nominated Democrat, thereby assuring himself re-election.

Far from proving the invalidity of third parties as an effective means of shifting political landscapes, LIEberman's antics demonstrated the opposite.


[ Parent ]
*Work* not "wok" (0.00 / 0)
Typo.


[ Parent ]
It may wok, but it doesn't work, this dog don't cook. (0.00 / 0)
As Lieberman's election is one more of a long long line of third party candidates whose only "party" is the cult of personality that follows them.

However here is a list of the ones operating now for you to choose from:
   * American Party (1969)
   * America First Party (2008)
   * America's Independent Party (2008)
   * Boston Tea Party (2006)
   * Independence Party of America (2007)
   * Jefferson Republican Party (2006)
   * Moderate Party (2006)
   * Marijuana Party (2002)
   * Objectivist Party (2008)
   * Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
   * Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
   * Prohibition Party (1867)
   * Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
   * Socialist Equality Party (2008)
   * Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
   * Socialist Workers Party (1938)
   * Unity Party of America (2004)
   * Workers World Party (1959)
   * Working Families Party (1998)

And some of these parties still exist, but may not have run candidates in the last election:

   * American 3rd Party (1990's)
   * American Conservative Party (2008)
   * American Heritage Party (2000)
   * American Patriot Party (2003)
   * American Reform Party (1997)
   * Christian Socialist Party USA (2006)
   * Communist Party USA (1919)
   * Democratic Socialists of America
   * Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1986) (two factions using same name)
   * Freedom Socialist Party (1966)
   * Independent American Party (1998)
   * Labor Party (1995)
   * Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (1997)
   * Modern Whig Party (2007)
   * National Socialist Movement (1974)
   * New American Independent Party (2004)
   * New Union Party (1974)
   * Pirate Party of the United States (2006)
   * Populist Party of America (2002)
   * Progressive Labor Party (1961)
   * Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (1975)
   * Socialist Action (1983)
   * Socialist Alternative (1986)
   * Socialist Labor Party (1876)
   * Unity08 (2006)
   * Workers Party, USA
   * World Socialist Party of the United States (1916)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Here is my bet, Snow will vote for cloture. (4.00 / 1)
Her vote for the Bill signals that extra amount of strength the Bill needs.

I wonder if Lieberman knows. His demand for booty, his call to the lobbyists to try and bribe his vote, is lessened by bell rung by Senator Snow. Having indicated she is capable of ignoring Republican threats, as any moderate in a state whose conservatives are as embarrassed by national Republicans as hers are, should be. She voted for 'a' version of the bill, and now she is defiantly on the record as recognizing the need for "a" bill, and that scuttles the Connecticut turncoat's triangulation.

Snow is 61 votes for cloture.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

I think planet reality with interfere with your hopes (4.00 / 1)
it is quite rare when fascist stooges do NOT do what their string pullers want.

I HOPE you're right, but, if I had to bet money, I'd bet big against you cuz I'd win big.  ;)

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

[ Parent ]
On this topic, (0.00 / 0)
I claim the near acceptance as proof. For any openlefter this is as close to a backhanded disagreement as a comment can get.

On winning big, I suspect the odds makers don't favour big payouts on this yet. Now if a few frontpagers, Nate and a few Senate aids all posted similar points your potential for a "big win" could go up, but this will never be the sure thing that big wins require. Big wins are always from betting against the common wisdom.

This is where you bet $10.00 and win ten dollars and twenty five cents.

On its face, against even unhidden pressure, Snow rang rang the bell that reform like this is necessary. To then prevent the vote for any reform on the floor will be as hard to defend as buckling to Republican leadership would have been in Committee.

This isn't merely, and I stress merely, a blast from the Hope Enforcer on the potential for ponies.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
and she likely brings collins to the table (4.00 / 1)
her support eliminates centristdem leverage. this was the WH objective all along.
[ Parent ]
"this was the WH objective all along." (0.00 / 0)
That may be true. Using moderate republican Senators to subvert right wing "I'll look like a dem if it helps bring in lobbyist cash" Democrats-not-even-in-name, may be part of the plan, but that is eleven dimensional chess thinking and not allowed.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
'more flies with honey' = TRAITORS keep pissing (4.00 / 1)
in your oatmeal.

in front of you. while laughing at you.

this is exhibit #1 AGAINST the positive reward BULLSHIT psychobabble that works wonders in rich neighborhoods - neighborhoods where parents have the money to hire all the underemployed psycho-babblists in the hood, AND the money to keep bribing their spoiled fucking brats.

the REST of us live in a world of consequences. if we let our teeth rot out, we'll be working months to pay the dentist bill. IF we don't work, we'll be living under a bridge.

selfish pricks like joe UNDERSTAND threats AND follow up to threats - (figuratively) next time you pull your pecker out to piss in my oatmeal, I'm gonna cut the f'king thing off and stick it up your ass with a baseball bat.

non figuratively - joe is a greedy fuck. take EVERYTHING from him he values.

or ... ha ha ha ha ... keep rewarding him for being a selfish prick BY giving him more, that has worked great!

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

Why not Ben Nelson? (4.00 / 1)
Ben Nelson is a worse vote and has caused more trouble than Lieberman.  Max Baucus is a worse vote and has caused way more trouble than Lieberman.  I'd sure love to get Baucus dethroned from Finance a lot more than Holy Joe at Homeland Security.

The time to honor the primary was immediately thereafter.  If we did that, Holy Joe would be a bad memory.  Senator Lamont would be a sure vote for a lot of things and Joe would be a lesson that would have kept people like Bayh in line.

That's exactly why the Dem leadership backed LIEberman. (0.00 / 0)
Lamont represented an unknown factor to a political system that can only rest assured that each and every member in a position of greater power is firmly bought off or bullied into craven submission.  Lamont may or may not have represented the very rich in the Senate, but LIEberman was never in doubt where his loyalties to the rich are concerned.


[ Parent ]
Good thing Obama campaigned for him in 2006 (4.00 / 1)
Where would the Senate be without Obama's mentor Joe Lieberman?
Yeah, so "good" of him to screw us all over. (0.00 / 0)
Where would the Senate have been if not for Obama's support of LIEberman in '06 (or, for that matter, the rest of the DLC establishment's)?  Chances are, closer to a sixty-vote majority than Democrats ultimately ended up being, and a lot sooner.


[ Parent ]
Not even asking for anything (4.00 / 1)
What is really hilarious is Joementum isn't even asking for anything.  He has made no demands or suggestions near as I can tell.  He is just being an asshole for the sake of assholeness.
He's bluffing (0.00 / 0)
either that or he's not running for reelection.  There's no way he can make it through 2012 if he filibusters health care reform.

As it is he's in bad standing with CT voters.  Lieberman should be liberals' #1 target in 2012.

Lieberman Twice Says He May Side With Republicans To Deny a Health Care Vote | 40 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox