Not just Lieberman: at least four Democratic Senators operating in bad faith

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 13:23


There is rightly a lot of focus on how Joe Lieberman is acting in bad faith on the health care bill.  He apparently had told Reid he was open to the deal, and he supported a Medicare buy-in only three months ago.  However, it is wroth noting that he isn't the only one.  Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson haven't exactly been consistent and forthcoming in their dealings on the public option, either.

  • Mary Landrieu. Landrieu has said she is a no vote on the public option for for quite some time, instead demanding a trigger:

    Count Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) as a "no" vote on the public insurance option.

    "I am not open to a public option, however I will remain open to a compromise - a full compromise," Landrieu told reporters Tuesday. "A public option is not something I support i don't think its the right way to go."

    However, not long before she said that she opposed the public option, she said that she supported it.   Landrieu signed a statement with Health Care for America Now, celaring the following:

    Our government's responsibility is to guarantee quality affordable health care for everyone in America and it must play a central role in regulating, financing, and providing health coverage by establishing...

    • A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.

    But hey, what do promises like that mean to Mary Landrieu, given that she is not up for re-election again until 2014?

  • Blanche Lincoln.  On November 21st, Blanche Lincoln declared on the floor of the Senate that she would filibuster any bill with a public option:

    I have already alerted the Leader, and I am promising my colleagues that I am prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.

    At the exact same time that she said this, her website declared that she would be just fine with the public option:


    Another with Landrieu, Lincoln also signed the HCAN statement supporting a public option.

  • Ben Nelson: Last week, Ben Nelson was one of the ten Senate Democrats tasked by Harry Reid with developing a compromise solution on the public option.  Their eventual deal included a Medicare buy-in.

    And yet, as Greg Sargent notes, Ben Nelson is still raising red flags about the Medicare buy-in on national television:

    "I am concerned that it's the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option," he said.

    This is even though Nelson himself was one of a very small group of Senators who actually developed the Medicare buy-in compromise.  Nice.  If you are going to strike a deal, then defend that deal.

All four of these Senators have acted on bad faith in the public option.  If they were consistent, at the very least we should have 60 votes for a Medicare buy-in for the Senate bill.  They all recently supported such a buy-in.

Senate Democrats are meeting at 5:30 p.m. to discuss what to do next.  At least one prominent insider claims that Lieberman's continuing bad faith will renew the push for reconciliation, but I am less optimistic.  Even Senators like Tom Harkin and Russ Feingold seem pretty opposed to using reconciliation for health care, which might explain why the leadership doesn't seem open to it right now.

Chris Bowers :: Not just Lieberman: at least four Democratic Senators operating in bad faith

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not just Lieberman: at least four Democratic Senators operating in bad faith | 96 comments
Sorry - Think You Miss the Point (4.00 / 1)
Have to disagree here - while it is true that it is not just LIE-berman that is the problem.  It certainly is not just the 4 you have identified either.

Since the start meaningful change has been a no-go.  Without any dialog, single-payer was taken off the table.  This was a major concession (actually capitulation).

Since then, there has been virtually no meaningful dialog other than to constantly cave to those that prefer to see no reform at all.

Anyone that pretends snow, joe, lincoln, nelson, and the rest of the obstructionists somehow have played a defining role is refusing to acknowledge that team obama and democratic leadership put these shills in the driver's seat.

When obama appointed rahm, he was telling us that his rhetoric was not going to match his actions.  The obstructionists you have identified are just performing their role in this sham process.

Yeah, I totally don't get that (4.00 / 3)
I mean, how could I understand that it was actually other Democrats who put those four in the driver's seat? It's not like I wrote an article stating exactly that last night or anything. And it's not like that article is still on the front page, or anything.

Really, you have pointed out something entirely new to me.

[ Parent ]
Yes, you're right, you said so (4.00 / 1)
"It is a great deal for Lieberman, and it would not be possible without the ongoing consent of the majority of the Democratic Senate caucus."

Howevr, just as an idea for improvement, it may have been good to include such a statement in this story, too, for the not-so-regular visitors who don't read every frontpage story.

"Vote Carefully" didn't comment on your other story, so it's quite probable he (she?) simply missed that point...  

[ Parent ]
No Need for Snark (4.00 / 1)
Guess I don't read all of your posts - guess it's the condescending attitude like somehow I should.  Even if you did state it clearly - it deserves to be part of this topic.

But thanks for reminding me why I usually scroll past when I see CHRIS BOWERS.

[ Parent ]
Come on, stay cool pls. (4.00 / 1)
I'm sure Chris didn't mean this personally. Everybody's a bit touchy here recently. The effing back and forth of healthcare reform is ruining our nerves.
[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter how he meant it... (0.00 / 1)
Point is, it is extremely arrogant to assume everyone has read everything you have posted online, as if it is the final word and now we are done.

There are many opinions on the Internet but only a self-absorbed hack thinks each one is a MUST READ.  Like I said - these are the folks that scroll wheels are meant for.  

[ Parent ]
Excuse me pls, but this is nothing. (0.00 / 0)
There have been more serious outbreaks of misgoided anger here recently. And I guess that's true for most of the progressive blogosphere. People simply are totally pissed about all the crap happening in Congress. And that anger has to vent somewhere...
[ Parent ]
You Miss Point (0.00 / 1)
Can't have a meaningful dialog about where the "anger" you refer to belongs if a few know-it-alls proclaim they already blogged about it and now it is "off-limits".

But the point I am trying to make isn't about anger - its about misdirecting the dialog, in this case, because someone can only defend their post (which left out underlying issues) with snark and self-absorption - yeah, like I (or anyone else) should read everything he says...

[ Parent ]
Probably why it's taking so long (0.00 / 0)
It's easier to swing the axe once a day than to mourn the condemned.
[ Parent ]
Petition to remove Hadassah Lieberman..... (4.00 / 5)
from the Komen Cancer Foundation board.

Please do it!

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12...

Done. (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for the link.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Why are they opposed? .. (0.00 / 0)
Even Senators like Tom Harkin and Russ Feingold seem pretty opposed to using reconciliation for health care, which might explain why the leadership doesn't seem open to it right now.

Does anyone, outside of the DLC assholes, realize that not passing a good HC bill is going to lead to a slaughter next year?  Or do they not care?

Two reasons (0.00 / 0)
1) It sets a precedent for using reconciliation that "opens the floodgates," so to speak.

2) The bill would have to be altered structurally to meet reconciliation requirements.

Not offering an opinion on these rationales, but that's what they are.

[ Parent ]
We need to remove thr filibuster. n/t (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
For an insurance industry bailout? I respectfully disagree n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
re: reconciliation (4.00 / 3)
1) It sets a precedent for using reconciliation that "opens the floodgates," so to speak.

how can it it set a precedent if it has been used before?

if I eat something, will that set a precedent that I need to eat?

[ Parent ]
It hasn't been used for something like this (0.00 / 0)
it's been used for tax cuts or welfare issues, stuff that effects the budget.
[ Parent ]
the po effects the budget (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Which is all that can be passed (4.00 / 1)
the rest of the bill, like the ban on recession, regulations, etc. gets stripped and would need to be passed through normal means.  
[ Parent ]
ok, pass the po via reconcilliation (4.00 / 1)
don't worry about the mandates

big health will make sure they get passed

[ Parent ]
Don't forget that Harkin is FOR seriously reforming the filibuster! (4.00 / 4)
As has been reported in the QHs:
"I think, if anything, this health care debate is showing the dangers of unlimited filibuster," Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. "I think there's a reason for slowing things down ... and getting the public aware of what's happening and maybe even to change public sentiment, but not to just absolutely stop something." [...]

Regardless of its origins, Harkin said the filibuster has outlived its usefulness. "Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.
...
Harkin proposes a new procedural model: the first go-around, the minority could demand a 60-vote majority, as is the case now. But if 60 votes aren't there to end debate, a week or so later, 57 votes could bring the bill to the floor for a vote. If 57 votes aren't there, it drops again and again, and after a month or so, a bare majority could approve cloture.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

See? If Harkin had his way, Lieberman would only be able to delay, but not destroy anymore!
So, let's be careful not to point fingers at the wrong folks, pls.

[ Parent ]
Maybe they have different concerns (4.00 / 3)
And are willing to take a stand on principle.  We'd laud them if they voted anti-war on principle, even if it cost them re-election and they seemed not to care.

Feingold seems to me to be the sort of Democrat who should win re-election in 2010 but has the potential to be a shocking casualty if the public gets pissed and it looks like 1994 all over again (which I doubt will happen).

Those on the left who oppose using reconciliation strike me as the Democratic Senators who should lead a movement to weaken or eliminate the filibuster.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
It would tear the bill apart (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Innocuous (4.00 / 3)
Put the public option in the reconciliation bill and everything else in the regular bill. Simple and straightforward. If the main bill doesn't pass, the public option would have to operate in the current healthcare market - but that would still be a big benefit to the public, so no problem passing it on its own.
[ Parent ]
Assuming the regular bill can pass (4.00 / 1)
and the Joe Liebermans and Ben Nelsons don't kill it in a fit of rage over reconciliation. You know they will.  
[ Parent ]
Uh, the po would be in the bill requiring only 50 votes, I understand. (0.00 / 0)
So, didn't you miss the point a bit? If the other bill fails because of Neverman and NoSon, "only" the subsidies may be lost. But the rest is still a huge improvement.
[ Parent ]
the non-reconciliation bill won't fail (0.00 / 0)
big health won't allow the mandates to not pass
[ Parent ]
Hmm, that's a good point, TBH! (0.00 / 0)
I guess you're right: If Lieberman can't prevent the po, he HAS to let the subsidies pass in order to deliver at least something to his friends in the insurance business!
[ Parent ]
Big Health wants the status quo (0.00 / 0)
They'd gladly give up the mandates for no end to rescission, pre-existing condition clauses.
[ Parent ]
They might well have a fit (0.00 / 0)
But Collins and Snowe would probably be OK with the stripped bill - it's what they're asking for. Quite possibly even some of the other Republicans would support it. So, we have some votes to lose. And the stripped bill is a net benefit to the insurance industry with the mandates. So I think it will go through. And even if it doesn't, a decent public option (of whatever stripe) will have substantive benefits, and the remaining reforms will probably come along soon enough. The rest is Romneycare, more or less, so it could even get though under a nightmarish 2012 conservative backlash.
[ Parent ]
You mean like .. (0.00 / 0)
HoJo's done already?
[ Parent ]
I swear I read it on this site at some point, (4.00 / 2)
but the key to understanding this whole thing is that voters are not the customer, they are the product.

The job of politicians is to deliver the product (us) to the customer(donors). Kind of puts the whole 2008 race, and everything that's happened since, into perspective, doesn't it?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Hmm, are you working in marketing, Sadie? (0.00 / 0)
That's a very interesting way to look at this. Good point.  
[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 1)
I just read too much.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Follows from the observation that (0.00 / 0)
the task of any ad-supported entertainment medium is to deliver the eyeballs to the advertisers, no?

Two-party true believers really ought to sit for a bit and ponder the consequences of that one...

[ Parent ]
Reconciliation Puts A Vote Off Until January! (0.00 / 0)
That's ONE reason that Reid will attempt to put together a deal that Lieberman will vote for.

They might as well cast around for a "magic formula" for a few more weeks until Congress re-convenes in January -- then go straight to reconciliation.

Lieberman doesn't WANT a successful health care bill! He's gleefully blocking everything -- just to block everything and give liberals the finger. He's still mad about losing the primary and wants revenge in his own egomaniacal way.

I don't think there's a deal to be had.  He opposes a public option, even WITH Triggers designed never to be triggered. Now he opposes Medicare buy-in. What's left to be had? Co-ops designed to be had?

The CBO won't score co-ops favorably, so that won't save any money. And they are useless anyway.

Lieberman probably wouldn't accept anything at this point.

Obama just tried to win Snowe's vote -- sitting down with her for hours. Result: Nothing! She's still totally opposed and in her own words there's "probably nothing Democrats can do" that would win her vote.

The other three: Lincoln, Conrad and Landrieu are just waiting until Lieberman gives them cover to bail out. If they were going to be the ONLY One to block HCR they wouldn't dare -- but as long as Lieberman is. . . . why not?

There's NOTHING to do but make it clear to Lieberman that he's about to be thrown out of the caucus and then go to reconciliation.

[ Parent ]
"Vote Off Until January!" So, what? There won't be a Reidmas anyway! (0.00 / 0)
Really, January wouldn't be bad, if a bill including the po could be passed then.  
[ Parent ]
But Bill Doesn't Kick In For Years (4.00 / 1)
What's the rush - the bill is written to change nothing meaningful until after 2012 anyhow, isn't it?

Better to kill this bill and make it the dominant issue in 2010 and every year beyond that it takes.  There is not downside to waiting.

Remember, if nothing passes and this becomes the key issue for 2010, perhaps we can elect leaders that will deliver before this POS does anything anyhow.

Remember - the public overwhelmingly supports a public option.  Don't let obama, reid, and dem leadership sell us out on the biggest issue we have.

[ Parent ]
Thank you Ralph Nader (4.00 / 1)
If you hadn't ruined Gore/Lieberman's run for the White House in 2000, this guy could be our President!

We really dodged a bullet, eh?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Ah, no (4.00 / 2)
1) as bad as Lieberman has always been, that Lieberman was much better than this one.  History matters.

2) have we already forgotten 8 years of Bush?

Of course, this post could have been snark, in which case I'm sorry and a bit embarrassed that I responded by taking it seriously.  It is so hard to tell these days.

[ Parent ]
Half serious (4.00 / 1)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I have a different take... (0.00 / 0)
This may have been snark - but a real good question is WTF was up with al gore choosing this hack!

Given that obama does the opposite of just about everything he says, makes ya wonder - RALPH WAS RIGHT!

Course, the stolen election(2 - 2000 and 2004) was not his fault either.  Ya gotta blame the crooks on that one (and perhaps the "losing" side that accepted it TWICE!)

[ Parent ]
Horrible But True! (0.00 / 0)
He would have been the vice president with lots of "bi-partisan" credentials.
Actually though it's FAR more likely that Gore would either have lost in 2004 after Republicans blocked his every move (the way they are doing with Obama -- except they controlled Congress so a Gore Administration would have been more open warfare like the Clinton years) -- or else McCain would have beaten Lieberman in an election between two horrible cronies in 2008. Either way liberals and Democrats would have been totally disillusioned after Gore's weak and ineffective administration.

IF you thiink Obama is weak, he's a TIGER compared with Gore 2000!

(One good thing is that McCain would never have chosen Sarah Palin -- so she'd still be an unknown former AK governor).

The public would have been disillusioned with Gore and the right wing would have accused him of treason after 9-11. Instead of "rallying around the President" they would have attacked him in the most vicious manner for "creating 9-11".

The ONLY thing that prevented right-wing conspiracy theories about 9-11 from really taking off was that Bush was president and they'd be accusing a right-wing REPUBLICAN!

THey would have LOVED to accuse Gore of staging the whole thing and the media would have devoted months of coverage to that question "Did Al Gore really have a hand in planning 9-11? 36% of our viewers believe he did!"

[ Parent ]
About the Only GOod Scenario! (0.00 / 0)
Would be Hillary Clinton beating Lieberman in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

THAT could have happened.

But, running after 8 years of Gore she'd have lost the general election.

Or, facing an incumbent McCAin with the entire media behind him, she could have lost too.  

[ Parent ]
Analysis so incomplete it hasn't even begun (0.00 / 0)
Cheney clearly had a role in foreign policy with regards to 9/11, so it is improper to not similarly factor in Lieberman.  Would the attack have been called off?  Would the attack have been stopped?  Would Saudi Arabia hold the same favored status as it did?  Would Saudi Arabia even exist as an Arab state today?  Would this sort of swift, decisive action not have satisfied Rupert Murdoch, who is married to the R party only as a conduit of conservatism?
[ Parent ]
yeah ... well ... (4.00 / 1)
One More Go With Lucy's Football

Politico tells me the White House is telling Reid to cave in to Lieberman's demands and strip out the Medicare buy in and that there's an emergency caucus meeting today.

I wonder if Lieberman is invited to the Democratic caucus meeting where they will discuss the strategy for dealing with Lieberman?

-Atrios 13:50


Reconciliation (4.00 / 1)
While using reconciliation would be very hard for the whole bill, the Medicare buy-in could easily be added in, I believe.  I don't trust Reid or anyone else, but the best possible solution, short of dropping the filibuster, might be to pass the core bill that these a-holes will sign onto and use reconciliation to add in the other components.
via dday (FDL) (4.00 / 2)
White House to Harry Reid: Cut deal with Joe Lieberman

Lieberman threw health care reform into doubt Sunday when he told Reid that he would filibuster the bill if it allowed Americans ages 55 to 64 to purchase coverage in Medicare. His comments on CBS's "Face the Nation" set off a series of private meetings Sunday between the Senate leadership and top White House aides, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who encouraged Reid to cut the deal with Lieberman, the official said. The White House declined to comment. [emphasis mine]

How much more evidence do we need that Obama isn't on our side? (4.00 / 3)
Or does anybody here want to argue the prez don't know what his chief of staff is doing?
Grrr....
[ Parent ]
This really begs a question: Is Rahm the most important obstructionist? (0.00 / 0)
Does he have to be removed before there will be any progress? Is his resistance even more important than that of all the naysayers in Senate? Can that deadlock be broken up when he is working to prevent that? That's a question I would really like to see discussed in a frontpage diary!
[ Parent ]
Remember, it may only take a single scandal to get rid of the jerk! (0.00 / 0)
That asshole has made so many enemies with his manners, there are so many stories putting him in a bad light, that the media would have a heyday if he would come into the focus because of a serious screwup. Once the the sights become trained on him, this could be like shooting a duck nailed to the wall.

And imho his chiegf of staff being forced to rsign would leave an impression on Obama, too. Really, isn't Rahm the most important target now?

[ Parent ]
Not Likely (4.00 / 1)
Those that do the "heavy lifting" for the corpocracy and military-industrial media complex are more likely than not given a free pass.

Witness "ignore 2 subpeona" kkkarl rove - there was plenty to go after, but he got a free pass.

Its obvious why repugs ignored the criminality, but the dems did too.  Now he has a cushy job as a pundit taking potshots at them.

Don't expect rahm to get much negative media - he serves his masters too well.

[ Parent ]
Not really (0.00 / 0)
Rahm isn't the obstructionist here.  Sure, he helps them out, but I don't think he was happy with this.  I really believe Rahm when he says the only failure is to not pass something at all.  I don't get the impression he has any opinion of the final legislation at all.  Or, any opinion he does have is far lessor than his desire to get something.

Rahm's role is important to understand, but it is different and more subtle then what you suggest.

[ Parent ]
Simply passing ANYTHING is obstructionism! (0.00 / 0)
The point isn't to simply pass some crap that happens to be named a healthcare bill. The point is to pass meaningful reform that will have a positive impact on the lifs of the majority of the people. And Rahm once again torpedoed that by giving Lieberman yet another shot at watering an already horrible bill even further down. Damn, if this goes on any longer, all that's left in that lgislation will be a huge bailout for the insurance companies!

Really, how can there be any discussion about Rahm being an obstacle? I'm flabbergasted! The only point of discussions should be if Rahm is the most important obstacle. Seriously.

[ Parent ]
Just the wrong word (0.00 / 0)
We should be discussing Rahm and his role.  I just think that "obstructionist" is the wrong word.  While there is some truth to that, in general I think the term obfuscates reality more than illuminates it.  Now, I haven't come up with the perfect, single word I would use, so I realize I'm not helping as much as I would like.  I definitely think Rahm is a large part of what is wrong with this administration.
[ Parent ]
"Rahm is a large part of what is wrong"YES! But we shouldn't call this obstructionism? (0.00 / 0)
Really, Mark, I can't follow your logic. We're seeing things from a progressive view, right? And the administration is working against letting progressive reforms happen, true? So, sry, but why the eff should this not be called obstructionism???

Again, sry, I guess I'm a bit cranky now, but I really don't see your point.

[ Parent ]
Conclusion (0.00 / 0)
My logic would be easier to follow if I had the alternative word or phrase.  How about one of these:

Capitulater
Relinquisher
Renouncer

Or jump from sort of made up words to completely made up words like:

Conservacquiescer

But someone actively engaged in getting something to pass is not well described as an obstructionist.  Even if you assume is he actively trying to obstruct some component of the bill, the word is not the most accurate, as it leaves out his primary purpose which is the opposite of obstruction.  Republicans give a very clear example of what a true obstructionist looks like and Rahm does not come even close to fitting that mold.

[ Parent ]
That way, we're back to the e-word. ENEMY. (0.00 / 0)
That's someone actively working against you. Which Obama and Rahm do. So, this seems to be the correct word. However, I don't think it will go down well with the less informed public (many of which voted for Obama).
[ Parent ]
Cognitive dissonance (4.00 / 1)
will ensure that those who voted for him continue to defend him.  Sigh.
[ Parent ]
Dangerous assumption: (D) means he's fighting FOR the left (0.00 / 0)
It's a very profitable assumption for corporatist Ds to forward, though.  Best to loosen that meme's traction.

Enabler, infiltrator, turncoat, tool, ... try some of those on him and see how they fit.

[ Parent ]
(not saying you ARE a corporate D, mind you) (0.00 / 0)
Just take care not to throw your lot too far in with them...
[ Parent ]
Can't Blame Rahm (0.00 / 0)
Sorry folks - have to assume that he is doing what his boss hired him for.  Eventually, the dialog needs to shift to the guy that put rahm in charge.

This is really all on obama.

[ Parent ]
True. But Rahm isn't a hesitating servant. (0.00 / 0)
All we know about him shows he LOVES to do what hois boss hired him for. They're totally in sync. Rahm is well known for always having an intrigant, centrist, powerhungry bitch. And Obama more and more shows his true colors, too.

However, Obama can't be removed (at least, not without ruining the Dems). Rahm can. And should.

[ Parent ]
What loss? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, if the D party were really interested in giving life to the leftist elements of their platform, they wouldn't even talk to conservadems...
[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
"loss"? Who said anything about a loss? Getting rid of Emanuelle would be no loss at all!
[ Parent ]
Ruining the Dems (0.00 / 0)
Getting rid of Rahm also wouldn't be much of a loss; there's a line out the door of conservative toadies who will never have to live under the policies their class promulgates...
[ Parent ]
Strategy -- Attack the Servants (4.00 / 2)
Eventually, the dialog needs to shift to the guy that put rahm in charge.

This is really all on obama.

I keep changing my mind on the full reality of this, but I do believe one thing strongly; attacking Obama directly is not in progressives best interest.  Like it or not, the world outside of Open Left thinks Obama is a progressive liberal.  Knocking down Obama hurts ourselves in the process.

But a time proven technique around this kind of problem is to attack those giving the "king" his advice.  I think we will be far more successful attacking the conservative, corporate wing of the Obama administration than Obama himself.  1) We get less collateral damage backlashed at us and 2) it makes it easier for this administration to shift leftward without it seeming like anyone is caving in.

So regardless of any actual truthiness to your point, it is still better to keep your guns aimed at Rahm (and Geithner and Bernanke and the generals and Summers and...).

[ Parent ]
Makes No Sense (4.00 / 1)
rahm is doing what he was hired to do, shielding obama.  If you believe obama hired rahm as an "advice giver" that is your choice.

It doesn't fit with the facts and playing the little game you suggest only enables obama to continue to escape accountability.

If you think this administration is going to "shift leftward" you are not paying attention.  

[ Parent ]
Rahm has always been a piece of shit (4.00 / 1)
Day he was named by the Obama transition team I knew things were not going to go as I had hoped.
[ Parent ]
I remember wondering if the idea was to get Rahm out of the House... (0.00 / 0)
...by putting him into the WH. I thought maybe Obama is crtain that he could control him there, but that Emanuell would be an obstacle to real change if he stayed in Congress. That was when I still gave the president the benefit of the doubt. Damn, was I wrong!
[ Parent ]
Victim of Lies of 13-D Chess (4.00 / 1)
Like many - used to accept the conventional wisdom around here (and other places) that everything was some grand strategy that mere mortals couldn't understand.

Now I know that is a lie - we have been sold out and obama make it clear the day he appointed rahm.

Meaningful change will start when we recognize that the dems take our money, accept our votes, and reject virtually everything the progressive community stands for.

[ Parent ]
Yup, somewhat. (0.00 / 0)
And that insight seems to sprad recently. People wake up and are PISSED!
[ Parent ]
Clearly, the Force isn't with us. (4.00 / 2)
Insurance Stocks Soar With Joe Lieberman's Statements
By: Jon Walker Monday December 14, 2009 10:26 am

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that health insurance stocks are up dramatically today after Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster health care reform....


Amazing (4.00 / 2)
The more you see Senators bought and paid for by business, the more I realize how ungreedy these Senators are.  I mean seriously, Lieberman is worth billions to this industry.  What's his cut?  A few tens of thousands in campaign contributions he can't even spend on himself?  I hope he has a good job lined up for himself for 2013.
[ Parent ]
43% of former Members of Congress do. (4.00 / 1)
http://www.citizen.org/pressro...

Besides, an amoral weasel like that is worth his weight in gold to a lobbying firm.

[ Parent ]
The Health Insurers (4.00 / 1)
have spent $600 million on lobbying.  

Look like a good investment.  This chart compares Cigna's stock price versus the S&P 500.

Photobucket

[ Parent ]
So as of right now (0.00 / 0)
we don't have the votes for reconcilliation, and the bill is looking worse and worse.

So what is better: this Bill or the Status Quo for the next 4 years?


You and others never seem to admit there is a 3rd option (0.00 / 0)
Worse than the status quo. The bill is now in that territory. I know you don't believe me or whatever, but please do some research on the non-partisan reports about the issues involved in health care regarding a) cost containment and now b) coverage. On top of that they are watering down other provisions and including more loop holes while still requiring mandates.  
[ Parent ]
I am NOT (0.00 / 0)
a health care economist.  Period.  I know enough to know this is enourmously complicated.

I don't know if this bill would be a step forward or not.  Or a step back. If you have links to reports post them.

Do not assume I have made a decision one way or another on this bill (Not that anyone cares...).  As an initial matter any bill that significantly reduces the number of uninsured would appear to be an improvement but I don't understand the ins and outs of health care economics to have an opinion particularly on a bill that is still in flight.

[ Parent ]
I just suggested you do some research on the subject (0.00 / 0)
Everything is complicated. That's no excuse not to try to understand it. And, when you leave out an option- things could be worse under the bill- it can lead you to assumptions that we need a bill , any bill, rather than asking whether a bill will make the situation better or worse. Forcing people to buy junk insurance is not better. It is worse.  
[ Parent ]
Junk (0.00 / 0)
I read somewhere that millions die because they don't have insurance.  (I think someone in congress gave a speech on the study.)  This would be that junk insurance you are talking about, compared and contrast with no insurance at all.  Turns out that junk is good enough to save millions of lives.

So yes, it really is more complicated than some make it appear.  The fact that insurance from corporations that practice murder by spreadsheet is still much better than no insurance at all is a complication.  How can something be good and bad at the same time?  Yet... there we are.

So yes, expanding those insured by evil corporations while making it less legal for them to murder people is a net good.  It is still a long ways from becoming the net best, but a net good nonetheless.

[ Parent ]
People would still not have the incentive to see (0.00 / 0)
their doctors if they have junk insurance. You and others do not seem to get that, and frankly, if you did the research as you claim- you should know what I just said is true. The problem is that if the insurance is prohibitive of actually going to the doctor people will get sick and die.  
[ Parent ]
Research (0.00 / 0)
One should back up such claims with links.  Claiming insurance  some how removes the incentive to see their doctors makes little sense.  You can't simply state something counterintuitive like that and then call someone ignorant for not knowing it.

I certainly realize that preventive care is not emphasized enough, but that is a long way removed from "prohibitive" as you claim.

[ Parent ]
I don't notice any links by you (0.00 / 0)
And just because you have no heard about this issue, does not mean it is not real. Google junk insurance and incentives on behavior.
[ Parent ]
45000/year is the current statistic (0.00 / 0)
Problems:
1) Current bills do nothing to stop insurers from not paying out on any particular claim.
2) Current bills do little to ensure that insurance will be affordable to use when it is needed.
3) Current bills prevent competing models (direct consumer-to-provider capitation, for instance) from gaining any foothold.
4) Current bills do nothing to keep costs down.

So, really, the only difference here is that providers have to take you in (so basically Reagan's EMTALA applied to non-emergencies) -- and, in the grand tradition of compartmentalization, having to sell off your retirement nest egg when the insurer denies your claim and there are no regulators around to do anything about it is your own problem.

How many people die because the rich own government?

[ Parent ]
Oops, sorry (0.00 / 0)
yep, millions uninsured, not actual deaths.  The deaths are "only" in the tens of thousands.
[ Parent ]
"deaths are "only" in the tens of thousands" Per year! (0.00 / 0)
Over all those decades, this sums up horribly.
[ Parent ]
Don't look now, (0.00 / 0)
but appears obama has LIE-berman's backside!

White House pressuring Reid to negotiate with Lieberman?  

Citing "an official close to the negotiations," Politico reported Monday:

The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill.

===================================

Yeah - I know they are lying liars at politico, but would this surprise anyone?

Which gets back to may original point - are the 4 just taking the heat off the white house?

Could you at least mention (0.00 / 0)
that the link starts with the following sentence:
"The White House is denying a news report that it is pressuring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to negotiate a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman on health care reform.

"The report is inaccurate," White House communication adviser Dan Pfieiffer told Greg Sargent at the Plum Line.
"

[ Parent ]
"The report is inaccurate" (0.00 / 0)
When a PR hack's lips move, start digging for loopholes.  "Oh, no, the Administration's not encouraging that, it's demanding that... but I'm not allowed to say that."
[ Parent ]
The White House always denies its trial balloons (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
and as someone just stated elsewheer (0.00 / 0)
the way you will know whether it is true is whether or not reid follows suit when the heat dies down a bit. The point is for the WH to never have their finger prints on anything that they think is potentially a hot potato. Think about the pharma deal that they denied having done, and then recently trying to shut down the debate in the Senate over the exact same issue in a way that favored Big Pharma.  
[ Parent ]
Kill the bill- sorry the latest update on Lieberman is the last straw for me. (0.00 / 0)
This White House is now acting irreponsibility.  
bad faith? on the contrary (0.00 / 0)
No, they are not operating in "bad faith" at all.

On the contrary, they are, instead, quite faithful to the folks who bankroll their political careers, their jobs, their source of income.

Until progressives are much, much, much more effective in exposing the deeply systemic nature of crony capitalism between Washington and New York they will never succeed in "shaming" these corporate lapdogs.

Forget that. Elect men and women who are not lapdogs. Then the issue of "bad faith" will hardly come up at all.

The issue here is not morality. It is power. The Bilderberg crowd follow a simple ethos: greed and grift.

Sure, some may not admit that, of course. Indeed, some may actually embrace crony capitalism with the best of intentions. But in the end it is about money...about following the money to its source.  

Follow the SOFT money to its source (0.00 / 0)
See, you gotta elect parties that aren't lapdogs and haven't proven themselves such over the past few decades.  I firmly believe that the conservadems and the right-wing Ds are there for a reason and doing exactly as the party puppeteers call them to do.  Lieberman's self-interest is just an excuse -- which is all the D party has delivered for many years now.
[ Parent ]
Not just Lieberman: at least four Democratic Senators operating in bad faith | 96 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox