Lieberman Intends to Filibuster HCR With Public Option
Oct 27th, 2009 | 24 responses
This is what Democrats in Congress get for allowing Lieberman to keep his prestigi0us committee chair assignment.
Brian Beutler explains the procedural implications:
There are two procedural issues at play here. Most people think of a filibuster as a minority blocking passage of a bill that’s already been debated ad nauseum on the Senate floor. That’s the most standard filibuster. But on major legislation, it’s become more common for the minority–in this case the Republicans–to object to the majority getting a chance to debate legislation in the first place. If any one of them objects to the so-called motion to proceed, it will take 60 votes just to start the amendment and debate process. That’s a less-discussed filibuster, but it’s quite plausible that this health care bill will have to contend with it.
Lieberman is saying that he’s pretty much OK with letting senators offer amendments–try to change the legislation, move it in any direction they deem necessary. But when that process is all over, and Harry Reid wants to hold an up or down vote on the final product, Lieberman’s saying he’ll join that filibuster, if he’s not happy with the finished product. Point blank.
Lieberman is very much going against public opinion on the public option. Depending on how the question is phrased, either a plurality or a large majority of Americans want one:
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moves forward crafting a Senate health-care bill that contains a public option — with a state “opt out” — the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows support for a government-run insurance plan at its highest level since the debate began.
According to the poll, 48% say they favor a public health plan administered by the federal government that would compete with private insurers, compared with 42% who oppose it. That’s a shift from last month, though within the margin of error, when 48% opposed the public option and 46% supported it. And it’s a 10-point swing from August, when 47% were in opposition and 43% were in favor.
In another question asked a different way — is it important to give people a choice of a public option? — a combined 72% answered that it was either “extremely important” or “quite important,” while just 23% said it was “not that important” or “not at all important.” Those numbers are virtually unchanged from last month.
The traditional media is doing a bang-up job of swallowing Lieberman’s lies and/or ignorance about why he is standing in the way of American’s choices — with one notable exception.
Marcy Wheeler examines Lieberman’s stated reasons for opposing the public option, and how the press is responding:
So here’s what Joe Lieberman claims the public option will do:
- Be costly to taxpayers
- Drive up premiums
- Involve cost-shifting to private plans
- Create an entitlement
- Increase the national debt
- Put more of a tax burden on taxpayers
As DDay points out, this is utter nonsense.
[...]
Here’s First Read, abdicating its role as journalist by letting Lieberman’s explanation go unchallenged.Update: Kudos to CBS’ Stephanie Condon for doing real reporting.
Lieberman has said he opposes a public option because of the potential burden it could place on taxpayers. However, Democrats have crafted a public option that would be financed by premiums rather than federal funds.
Update: Ooohboy. The Hill goes above and beyond in credulously reporting Lieberman’s BS. They even let him claim that he’s not doing this because of CT’s insurance companies.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of a handful of Senate wild cards in this fall’s healthcare reform debate, says his concern about the Senate bill is based on the national deficit — not the insurers that dominate his state.
[snip]
“Insurers aren’t my biggest concern — I sued them once when I was attorney general, and I’m not afraid to end anti-trust exemptions,” Lieberman said. “I am really worried about what this could do to the deficit.”Update: Beutler does a follow-up calling Lieberman on his BS.
Will the corporate media acknowledge the role bloggers played in getting a strong public option? Don’t hold your breath:
Although it’s far from clear what the final health care bill will look like, especially the public option (opt-out, trigger, etc.), there’s absolutely no doubt that it is alive primarily because of the vigorous efforts of online progressive activists and bloggers on Huffington Post, Firedoglake, Daily Kos, TPM, Think Progress, Media Matters, Salon, AmericaBlog, Crooks and Liars, and hundreds of smaller sites (not to mention MoveOn).
But don’t hold your breath waiting to read about the netroots’ pivotal role in forcing the inclusion of a public option — it’s just not the way things work in our current media and political world. Instead, at most expect to hear vague allusions to the ‘left’. Or even more likely, the credit will go to liberal-leaning legislators and will reference “public support,” neglecting the fact that it took bloggers to draw attention to the polling that showed a majority favored the public option.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Lieberman Intends to Filibuster HCR With Public Option”
It's interesting watching someone unabashedly selling their soul on the aution block.
You don't often so transparently get an opportunity to see which fate you yourself should avoid.
So, when Snowe breaks with her party, she is 'brave'; when Lieberman breaks with his party, he is a traitor to the cause.
And the other corollary is that when Republicans vote en block, they are mindless puppets; when Democrats vote en blanc, they are simply following the wishes of the party, and flexing their will.
That sum it up?
[...] about Daily Kos as of October 27, 2009 Lieberman Intends to Filibuster HCR With Public Option – themoderatevoice.com 10/27/2009 This is what Democrats in Congress get for allowing [...]
What is “HCR”? Is that another leftist Nutroots cheap gimmick acronym, for “health care reform” (which isn't reform, but a sought federal takeover)? (The answer to the question is, Yes.)
Sorry, Kathy, but not all Demmies are necessarily going to be lock-step lemmings. Some fear electoral consequences, if they face votes by those other than at the low tail of the IQ bell curve (“I want! I want!”).
“when Snowe breaks with her party, she is 'brave'”
The C O U R A G E O U S , historical-greatness-oriented, Olympia Snowe [snicker]
Just pointing out that Lieberman already left the party. He is an independent.
“another leftist Nutroots cheap gimmick acronym”
It’s an acronym. How the hell can that be packaged as a “leftist Nutroots cheap gimmick”? Geez, some people hate just to hate.
“Geez, some people hate just to hate.”
Well, that's true of many lefties (others have definite objects of their hatred). On the other hand, I don't hesitate to criticize what merits criticism.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Lieberman Intends to Filibuster HCR With Public Option: This is what Democrats in Congress get for allowing Lieberma… http://bit.ly/1QpXNi...
“On the other hand, I don't hesitate to criticize what merits criticism.”
And an acronym fits within that rubric? To each his own.
DLS R U LOL @ HCR?
“So, when Snowe breaks with her party, she is 'brave'; when Lieberman breaks with his party, he is a traitor to the cause.”
That’s not so different then how Republicans touted Democrats like Zell Miller as beacons of bravery, and call moderate Republicans who vote with the opposition RINOs and such.
Hey, TMV has consistently said 'they did it too' is NOT an acceptable argument.
Well, at least when criticizing the Left, so you probably will get a pass.
I wasn''t making an argument, I was just exposing hypocrisy.
I don't think Olympia Snowe is particularly brave; I think it's more that she's operating with a certain degree of good faith in that she does want to produce health care reform legislation, rather than just to obstruct.
nd the other corollary is that when Republicans vote en block, they are mindless puppets; when Democrats vote en blanc, they are simply following the wishes of the party, and flexing their will.
To some extent, both Democrats and Republicans vote in ways that reflect their party's wishes. In the particular case of health care reform, though, it's a bit different. Health care reform legislation is at the top of Pres. Obama's policy agenda. He campaigned on it; he's supported it for years; it's a leading issue for Democrats. Naturally, Democrats in Congress would like to see their party stick together on an important policy issue — one they have worked hard for; one they regard as a benchmark for their success as the party in power.
I'm explaining this to you because I recognize how hard it must be for a conservative Republican to understand this concept. Republicans are simply not interested in policy issues, or in governance in general. Their interests like in the arena of ideology, and catering to the wishes of a very narrow extreme right base. This is the key difference between the two major parties. It's second nature to liberals and Democrats to believe in the importance of good government and sound public policy. For Republicans, not so much. So of course it would look to someone who is outside this political philosophy as if Democrats are angry at Lieberman because they think every Democrat should move in lockstep with the party line — a genuine desire to leave your mark on the nation with a record of public policies that improve people's lives is something that simply doesn't rest easily in a Republican's soul.
Kathy -
Republicans are simply not interested in policy issues, or in governance in general.
BS. Even you cannot believe your own drivel!
Good government? You mean like the type we get from Rangel (fraud), Dodd (fraud) and Murtha (fraud and nepotism)?
Sound policy? Like deficit spending beyond anything ever imagined before? Like bankrupting our currency? Like supporting every Left-wing dictator in the world while alienating us from our traditional allies?
Republicans believe in sound policies and good government – that is why they oppose the Democrats on principle. They also don't believe that you make your mark by stealing the People's money and thinking it all belongs to the government.
Republicans believe in sound policies and good government – that is why they oppose the Democrats on principle.
Yes, that's why they prefer to vote no en masse rather than come up with their own policies.
Like supporting every Left-wing dictator in the world while alienating us from our traditional allies?
AR, someone has got to support the Left-wing dictators. Republicans already are supporting all the Right-wing ones.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee, TMV. TMV said: Lieberman Intends to Filibuster HCR With Public Option: This is what Democrats in Congress get for allowing Lieberma… http://bit.ly/1QpXNi [...]
Wall Street
Art students
9/11 snow job
Chicken hawks
Moving company
Propaganda media
DNC stealth neocons
Anti-semitism accusers
The chosen the superior
2-3% of the US population
Extortion blackmail bribery
By deception ye shall wage war
AIPAC's Israel-first dual-nationals
For profit NotFederal NoReserve scam
~ Words are plentiful deeds are precious
The Republicans have come up with policy alternatives. You simply haven't bothered to even check them out. And your specious comment about supporting criminals like Chavez and Ortega, and the Honduran wannabe? Nobody has to support them. And just which “right-wing dictators” are the Republicans now supporting?
Get serious.
“DLS R U LOL @ HCR?”
Y
“And just which 'right-wing dictators' are the Republicans now supporting?”
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
that's why they prefer to vote no en masse rather than come up with their own policies.
And we were just dicussing the Democrats new-found love of en-mass voting! How very ironic.
Plus, your comment points to one of the fundamental differences. Democrats only think good policy is when the government is taking over some additional aspect of the lives of the citizens; Republicans reject that concept out of hand.
someone has got to support the Left-wing dictators. Republicans already are supporting all the Right-wing ones.
Oh so close to an actual witty comment, if only there were right-wing dictators you could point to the Republicans currently supporting. (oh, please say Honduras!)
My vote for comment of the month!