Video of Lieberman supporting Medicare buy-in three months ago

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 15:46


Here is a video of Lieberman supporting a Medicare-buy in only three months ago:


Greg Sargent has a transcript:

"My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid...

"When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group - post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they're too young to qualify for Medicare.

"What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you're 55 or 60 and you're without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you're older ... you're rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money."

For Lieberman's part, he is calling people who claim he has flip-flopped on this issue cowards:

"Contrary to the claims of anonymous aides, Senator Lieberman told Reid on Friday that he had problems with the Medicare provision," Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittman said in a statement.

"This position was also told to negotiators earlier in the week. Consequently, Senator Lieberman's position came as no surprise to the Democratic leadership. Any contrary charge by aides who cowardly seek to hide under the cloak of anonymity is false and self-serving," he added.

This Lieberman statement was specifically in response to anonymous Senate aides who had claimed Lieberman told Harry Reid that he was supportive of a Medicare buy-in.  Given that Lieberman told the public that he was supportive of the Medicare buy-in only three months ago, it is pretty easy to see who is lying on this one.

Meanwhile, Politico reports that the White House is telling Reid to cave to Lieberman.  However, the White House is telling Greg Sargent that is not true.

Chris Bowers :: Video of Lieberman supporting Medicare buy-in three months ago

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This is ancillary to the main topic (0.00 / 0)
but I for one am sick of all these conflicting reports and anonymous quotes coming out of the White House.  You'd think by now some disciplinarian in the Obama administration would set their foot down about anonymously leaking info to the media, especially when it contradicts the actual facts or WH policy.

THe confusion is part of the strategy (4.00 / 3)
And whatever "official" line they have is meaningless. They denied reports about the Big Pharma Deal too. and yet what happened last week?

[ Parent ]
TPM has Confirmation (0.00 / 0)
Remember the deal with big pharma - obama and white house denied that too.

But the truth eventually comes out - they did sell us out to the mega drug companies.

McJoan at kos, a fairly reliable blogger, reports to have confirmation as well.  As unreliable and biased as Politico is, this one is likely to be TRUE!


And also, the WH dementi is a bit weak (0.00 / 0)
"The White House is not pushing Senator Reid in any direction."
That doesn't say they haven't been talking with him. So, prolly, Rahm visited Reid and spent some quality time there discussing the pros and pros of trying to get the Joeker on board, at all costs. But of, course, he didn't "push" Reid. The Senator is an experienced pro, he did get the message without having to be pushed.

[ Parent ]
The Shifting Story With Joe Lieberman Is Irrelevant! (4.00 / 1)
He's going to twist like a lizard in the sun to block HCR. Period.

He wants to be the one to kill it.

Changing his position from day to day won't faze him at all if he can accomplish that -- let alone altering his views from 3 months ago!

He's positioning himself for a switch to the Republican party and doesn't care what anybody thinks about this either. Just read the adoring comments on Politico about Lieberman being the "only true American patriot left" for blocking "this horrible bill."

If he brings this down he can then join the Republicans, get choice committee assignments, and get TONS of media coverage talking about how the Democrats have "gone too far and lost the middle-ground" and blather endlessly about how his defection is a "sign of things to come in 2010".

He'll be a shoo-in for the Republican nomination in 2012 and have a good chance of winning since Independents and "moderate Democrats" love "bi-partisanship" for some insane reason!

I don't see why he WOULDN'T join the minority -- especially if he believes the "Democrats are doomed" themes in the press. (And he has the power to make those predictions come true by joining Republican efforts to block everything!)


While you have some good points (0.00 / 0)
It doesn't explain why he has been enabled by the dems the entire way nor why obama and white house appear to have his backside now.

Perhaps you are right, but the dem party and obama himself have played along with this charade and made the scenario you have outlined possible.

Draw your own conclusions.


[ Parent ]
2012? (4.00 / 2)
I agree with everything else, but 2012 is getting carried away. Lieberman is a useful idiot for the conservatives, they don't like him at all. See McCain's 2008 VP nomination.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 1)
LIE-berman probably has much more value to the repugs as a dem, especially when the white house and democratic leadership keeps covering for him.

If here were on the other side of the aisle, his value as a propaganda tool diminishes to almost ZERO and the folks that have enabled him the entire way will have to find some other way to quietly undermine the real change that they lie to us about.


[ Parent ]
Lieberman Doesn't Care About "his value as a propaganda tool"! (4.00 / 1)
He simply wants power and to see his name in the news.

But, FOX News would certainly NOT stop putting him on TV just because he's caucusing with Republicans.

Anyway, he'd be a reverse Sen. Jeffords and the propagandaline would be even MORE valuable:

CERTAIN NEWS SHOW COMING YOUR WAY: "In a sure sign that Democrats have lost the middle-ground and are "being abandoned by Independents," Independent Joe Lieberman is here with us on FOX to discuss what's wrong with the Democratic party and what they would need to do to regain the trust of the American people!"

How is this "losing his propaganda value?"


[ Parent ]
Lieberman Was a DEMOCRAT! (0.00 / 0)
When McCain was considering him for VP! That's just too "bi-partisan" for the right-wing.

But, what if they had 3 years to watch Lieberman vote straight-line Republican and become a deficit hawk and attack Obama every week in the press?

What if on top of Joe's "conversion" to extreme right-wing values, he was also "the man who stopped the socialist takeover of health care?"

Think he'd be vulnerable to a right-wing primary challenge then?

As for why Obama and the leadership coddled Joe since 2006, that's just institutional B.S. They have a "relationship" with Joe. The hostile views of "outsiders" don't count.

They are endlessly surprised that their "good buddy Joe" is being such an ass-hole and how after Obama went out of his way to reach out to Lieberman after the campaign Joe is now out to destroy him.

We "dirty F-ing Hippies" could see it all along, but to the villagers it's always a shock.  


[ Parent ]
Amazing post! (4.00 / 1)
This part in particular is a brilliant rendering of what would surely go down:

get TONS of media coverage talking about how the Democrats have "gone too far and lost the middle-ground" and blather endlessly about how his defection is a "sign of things to come in 2010".

Not sure whether it makes me LOL or C(ry)OL!

However I agree with Hopeful in NJ that he'd have no chance at the GOP nomination in 2012.


[ Parent ]
Don't Kid Yourself! He'd Be a Shoo-In! (0.00 / 0)
1. First of all he'd have the support of ALL Establishment Republicans just for switching -- just as Ben Nighthorse Campbell (former U.S. Sen. CO) who switched to Republican in mid-term back in the 1990's and was re-elected without a primary fight.

2. He'll be a HERO to the right-wing as "the man who stopped the socialist takeover of Health care!" He'd also have 2 years to ingratiate himself to the right-wing by voting for every extremist measure to come along -- i.e. he'd vote straight line Republican just the way that Arlen Specter is voting straight line Democrat ahead of the primary. Joe having no moral principles would enable him to pivot on a dime.

3. He'll have all the corporate money he could want. Any right-wing challenger to him would face a terrible uphill fight.

In fact the only draw-back I can see for Lieberman is that CT is a fairly Blue state and switching to an Independent who caucuses with the Republicans would possibly lose him support among conservative Democrats, while gaining him nothing much (he already has almost total Republican support in CT).

Also Dems would be motivated to take him out in 2012 making that a bitter fight.

But, Joe would probably be a odds-on favorite to retain his seat if he switched.

Probably his only problem among conservatives would be having voted for the stimulus bill. But, he has 2 years to mend those fences! And much good will going for him with the rightists.


[ Parent ]
Oh, I thought you meant for President! (0.00 / 0)
I suspect others did also.  For Senate, he'd likely get it.

[ Parent ]
Good first step (4.00 / 3)
Now the narrative should move away from "flip/flop" which is a pretty empty word due to overuse.

Move to how this proves that he has been "negotiating" in bad faith. That he cannot be trusted - even in the pit of vipers that is DC. That his "brand" is ruined because he speaks out of three sides of his mouth at once.

Turn this to public humiliation, or don't bother with it.

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


I am beginning to believe that Obama is using Lieberman as a shield. (4.00 / 2)
Obama and Lieberman were buddies in the Senate. If Obama is not willing to step up and publicly spank Lieberman than that is prima facia evidence that he supports Lieberman.

Jeff Wegerson

Exactly (4.00 / 1)
It is not possible to stand up for the statements obama made during the campaign and to also stand up for joe LIE-berman.  Judge them all on what they do (or in this case, what they don't do).  

joe is a useful tool to both sides.


[ Parent ]
This seems unlikely... (0.00 / 0)
Given the fact that Obama was, I'm sure, none too happy that Lieberman endorsed McCain for president.  Does anyone remember Obama cornering Lieberman when he came back to capital hill during the campaign?

No... more likely is simply that the WH looks at Lieberman as a headache/roadblock and just wants to do whatever they need to do to get something called "Health Care Reform" done.


[ Parent ]
re: endorsment (4.00 / 1)
Given the fact that Obama was, I'm sure, none too happy that Lieberman endorsed McCain for president.

how do you know that?

No... more likely is simply that the WH looks at Lieberman as a headache/roadblock

if that was so, why would obama tell dems to let lieberman keep his chair?

[ Parent ]
That was a political calculation... (4.00 / 1)
That clearly misfired... They thought he was with them on "everything but the war."  Obama probably figured he would be a vote for the rest of his agenda... Not only that, we know that the admin was courting Specter and Snowe, and succeeded with Specter.  They probably thought he'd solidify the majority with the "60th vote", and would be more problematic if they kicked him out.

Obviously, this was a huge error.  And no, I don't think I'm giving them too much credit.  I didn't agree with it at the time, but keeping him in the caucus was a political calculation on their part, and they obviously made a serious error.

Why the Dems continue to put up with it is completely beyond me, since supposedly they were on the verge of doing it before until Obama interceded on Lieberman's behalf.

In any case, kicking him out of the caucus before wouldn't be helping us in this scenario either... We'd be in the same position now if not even worse off, as the Dems with "only" 59 votes would have pre-capitulated to god knows what, and we'd probably be talking about trying to kill a bill that mandated 50% increases in premiums or something.


[ Parent ]
Imagine they would have played that the other way round (4.00 / 1)
Kicked him out of th caucus, stripping him of chairmanship, and telling him he may get back in in 2010 if he proved his worth as a good Dem, after his traitorous endorsement of McCain. This way, they would have had a positive leverage on him. Might have changed things.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox