Earlier this week Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman announced he would join the Republican Party with their Filibuster attempt at the Public Option of President Obama’s Healthcare Bill. Quite frankly, I believe this will be the straw that breaks the camels back, with Senator Lieberman and his ties to the Democratic Party. Unlike Arlen Spector, who is nothing more than an over the hill has been, Mr. Lieberman has found himself on the precipice of political destruction.The following is an article from CBS News by Stephanie Condon; http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5463995.shtml
Lieberman May Support Republicans in 2010
Posted by Stephanie Condon
Sen. Joe Lieberman took another step farther away from the Senate Democratic caucus this week, when he said he may support some Republican candidates in the 2010 elections and may not run as a Democrat when he is up for reelection in 2012. "I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I'm going to call them as I see them," Lieberman told ABC News. "There's a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans," he said. "There's a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them -- and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who's not a Democrat." As for whether he would run as a Democrat himself in 2012 , "That's an open question," Lieberman said. Lieberman ran as an independent in the 2006 general election to hold onto his Connecticut Senate seat, after being knocked out of the Democratic primary by challenger Ned Lamont. He managed to hold onto his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee by agreeing to still caucus with the Democratic party. Lieberman's allegiance to the Democrats has proven to be unreliable, however. In the 2008 presidential election, he supported Republican candidate John McCain. Earlier this week, Lieberman said he would join a Republican filibuster against the Democrats' health care bill as it is currently written. Lieberman opposes the bill's government-run health insurance plan. At least one Democratic leader on health care, however, thinks Lieberman will change his tune on the issue. "When it comes down to getting the 60 votes necessary to pass this bill, I do not believe that Joe Lieberman would want to be the one person who caucuses with the Democrats … to bring this bill down. I don't think he wants to go down in history like that," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters Thursday. "He still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic Caucus. So, I'm sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote." Lieberman also told ABC he will support Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd's reelection campaign in Connecticut next year.
To give a more hardcore perspective is an article by Timothy Nolan of Slate.com;
http://www.slate.com/id/2233743/
Did Lieberman Just Kill the Public Option?
Don't bet on Connecticut's junior senator showing independence from the insurance lobby.
By Timothy Noah
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says that "Joe Lieberman is the least of [my] problems" in passing health reform with a public option. I'm not so sure.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was formerly a Democrat but who is now an independent, announced today that "if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage." In other words, Lieberman will support a filibuster. "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 said.
One largely unspoken assumption behind Reid's quest to get an "opt out" version of the public option through the Senate is that he doesn't really need 60 votes for the health reform bill itself. He just needs 60 votes for the cloture motion prior to final passage. Once a filibuster is cut off, health reform can pass with 50 votes (the 51st being Vice President Joe Biden, president of the Senate). One reason Reid's gambit looked so promising as recently as yesterday was that Lieberman, despite his previously stated opposition to the health reform bill even without a public option (i.e., as passed by the Senate finance committee), had agreed not to support a filibuster against it. It now appears that Lieberman either changed his mind or was misunderstood.
Reid seems to think he can keep Lieberman onboard by allowing him to "be involved in the amendment process." In his 2008 book The Good Fight, Reid writes that he and Lieberman differed on the Iraq war but "on other issues, he's always with me." But can Reid really count on Lieberman this time? In recent years Lieberman has not shown himself to be an especially trustworthy character. (The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has the details here and here.)
Ezra Klein of Washingtonpost.com and Jonathan Chait of the New Republic both point out that Lieberman's reason for opposing the public option—that it's too expensive—makes no sense, because the public option actually lowers the cost of health reform by exerting downward competitive pressure on the private-insurance premiums whose purchase the government would subsidize. The Congressional Budget Office's scoring of the Reid proposal is expected to show this. But any illogic in Lieberman's position strikes me as evidence not that Lieberman is likely to change his mind when he becomes better acquainted with the facts but, rather, that Lieberman has already decided facts shouldn't get in the way of his opposition.
Why would Lieberman want to sink health reform? Klein points out that in the pretty recent past, Lieberman has supported the general goal, if not the specifics, of Obamacare. But consider Lieberman's political situation. He is no longer a Democrat. That means he no longer has a political base. In the future, he will have to rely more on constituencies and on cash. The White House suggests that Lieberman wouldn't dare alienate voters by opposing health reform. But what's the most cash-rich constituency in the Nutmeg State? The insurance industry, which is headquartered in Connecticut and employs 64,000 people.
At the moment, insurers probably aren't too pleased with Connecticut's other senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, because Dodd is a prominent advocate for the public option. As I've noted previously, Dodd, during the past 20 years, received $2.3 million in contributions from insurers—more than any member of the House or Senate except John McCain, R-Ariz. During that same period, Dodd collected $774,000 from health insurers, ranking second only to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Lieberman, even though he's from Connecticut, has during that same period had to settle for 14th place in both insurance-industry contributions and health-insurance-industry contributions. Blocking the public option might allow Lieberman to displace Dodd as "the senator from Aetna."
Support for this hypothesis may be found in Lieberman's timing in announcing his opposition to the Senate finance bill. It was Oct. 13. That was one day after the insurance lobby released its study dumping on the finance bill. Until then, it seemed likely the insurers would either support the finance bill (which contained no public option and was poised to make them half a trillion dollars richer) or keep mum. Lieberman's quick seconding of the insurers' opposition suggests that he will permit no daylight between himself and the insurance lobby.
Further evidence can be found in the substance of Lieberman's argument that the public option would bust the budget. It may be nonsensical, as Chait and Klein say, but it isn't randomly so. It's the same argument the insurers are making. "Probably all people who have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up," Lieberman said, "because there's going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid." The proposition that cost savings achieved through public insurance programs never impose financial efficiencies on doctors, hospitals, and private insurers but, instead, lead doctors and hospitals to shift more of their costs onto private insurers lies at the heart of the insurance lobby's opposition to both the Senate finance bill and the public option. But the health insurers haven't persuaded most economists, and the Congressional Budget Office thinks the cost-shifting argument against health reform is incorrect.
If I'm right that Lieberman is determined to line up behind the insurance industry, then there's no hope he will ever support any version of the public option, even on a procedural cloture vote, because there's no hope insurers will support a public option. And if health insurers decide in the end to oppose health reform without a public option, Lieberman will oppose that, too. Please, God, let me be wrong.
http://www.slate.com/id/2233743/
Did Lieberman Just Kill the Public Option?
Don't bet on Connecticut's junior senator showing independence from the insurance lobby.
By Timothy Noah
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says that "Joe Lieberman is the least of [my] problems" in passing health reform with a public option. I'm not so sure.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was formerly a Democrat but who is now an independent, announced today that "if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage." In other words, Lieberman will support a filibuster. "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 said.
One largely unspoken assumption behind Reid's quest to get an "opt out" version of the public option through the Senate is that he doesn't really need 60 votes for the health reform bill itself. He just needs 60 votes for the cloture motion prior to final passage. Once a filibuster is cut off, health reform can pass with 50 votes (the 51st being Vice President Joe Biden, president of the Senate). One reason Reid's gambit looked so promising as recently as yesterday was that Lieberman, despite his previously stated opposition to the health reform bill even without a public option (i.e., as passed by the Senate finance committee), had agreed not to support a filibuster against it. It now appears that Lieberman either changed his mind or was misunderstood.
Reid seems to think he can keep Lieberman onboard by allowing him to "be involved in the amendment process." In his 2008 book The Good Fight, Reid writes that he and Lieberman differed on the Iraq war but "on other issues, he's always with me." But can Reid really count on Lieberman this time? In recent years Lieberman has not shown himself to be an especially trustworthy character. (The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has the details here and here.)
Ezra Klein of Washingtonpost.com and Jonathan Chait of the New Republic both point out that Lieberman's reason for opposing the public option—that it's too expensive—makes no sense, because the public option actually lowers the cost of health reform by exerting downward competitive pressure on the private-insurance premiums whose purchase the government would subsidize. The Congressional Budget Office's scoring of the Reid proposal is expected to show this. But any illogic in Lieberman's position strikes me as evidence not that Lieberman is likely to change his mind when he becomes better acquainted with the facts but, rather, that Lieberman has already decided facts shouldn't get in the way of his opposition.
Why would Lieberman want to sink health reform? Klein points out that in the pretty recent past, Lieberman has supported the general goal, if not the specifics, of Obamacare. But consider Lieberman's political situation. He is no longer a Democrat. That means he no longer has a political base. In the future, he will have to rely more on constituencies and on cash. The White House suggests that Lieberman wouldn't dare alienate voters by opposing health reform. But what's the most cash-rich constituency in the Nutmeg State? The insurance industry, which is headquartered in Connecticut and employs 64,000 people.
At the moment, insurers probably aren't too pleased with Connecticut's other senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, because Dodd is a prominent advocate for the public option. As I've noted previously, Dodd, during the past 20 years, received $2.3 million in contributions from insurers—more than any member of the House or Senate except John McCain, R-Ariz. During that same period, Dodd collected $774,000 from health insurers, ranking second only to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Lieberman, even though he's from Connecticut, has during that same period had to settle for 14th place in both insurance-industry contributions and health-insurance-industry contributions. Blocking the public option might allow Lieberman to displace Dodd as "the senator from Aetna."
Support for this hypothesis may be found in Lieberman's timing in announcing his opposition to the Senate finance bill. It was Oct. 13. That was one day after the insurance lobby released its study dumping on the finance bill. Until then, it seemed likely the insurers would either support the finance bill (which contained no public option and was poised to make them half a trillion dollars richer) or keep mum. Lieberman's quick seconding of the insurers' opposition suggests that he will permit no daylight between himself and the insurance lobby.
Further evidence can be found in the substance of Lieberman's argument that the public option would bust the budget. It may be nonsensical, as Chait and Klein say, but it isn't randomly so. It's the same argument the insurers are making. "Probably all people who have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up," Lieberman said, "because there's going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid." The proposition that cost savings achieved through public insurance programs never impose financial efficiencies on doctors, hospitals, and private insurers but, instead, lead doctors and hospitals to shift more of their costs onto private insurers lies at the heart of the insurance lobby's opposition to both the Senate finance bill and the public option. But the health insurers haven't persuaded most economists, and the Congressional Budget Office thinks the cost-shifting argument against health reform is incorrect.
If I'm right that Lieberman is determined to line up behind the insurance industry, then there's no hope he will ever support any version of the public option, even on a procedural cloture vote, because there's no hope insurers will support a public option. And if health insurers decide in the end to oppose health reform without a public option, Lieberman will oppose that, too. Please, God, let me be wrong.
I personally believe Joe Lieberman is a Traitor to the voters of the state of Connecticut and has slapped the Democratic Party in the face for the last time. Also, I do not believe the Republican Party is willing to accept him with open arms. If they were, he would have received the nomination for Vice President on the McCain ticket last year. Instead he was snubbed for the likes of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.
I hope a petition is started in Connecticut and Mr. Lieberman is recalled and a new election takes place. It would serve the voters of Connecticut well to throw this Traitor out of office. I also call upon the present administration to strip Mr. Lieberman of any and all Chairmanships he holds. He no longer deserves the prestige nor honor of holding these positions.
You know what would be a nice touch? If there is a recall election and Mr. Lieberman is voted out. How about Rham Emanual and Harry Reid go to Joe Lieberman’s Office, grab him by the scruff of the neck and the seat of his pants and throw him out of the Capital Building, right down the front stairwell for all to see. Maybe party loyalty, honesty and integrity just might start making a comeback. But, then again, honesty, integrity plus politics probably will never mix. I guess we can only hope.That’s How I See It.
Websites of reference;
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5463995.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/2233743/
http://lieberman.senate.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/independent-sen-joe-lieberman-hell-back-republicans-2010/story?id=8952240
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/is-anybody-still-surprise_b_336685.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/lieberman-i-stand-with-the-small-minority-of-americans-who-oppose-public-option.php
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/somebody-buy-joe-lieberman-puppy.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300067
http://www.courant.com/topic/politics/joe-lieberman-hpp2355.topic
http://liebermanmustgo.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/top-15-lieberman-betrayal_n_336024.html
I would also add that all the Conservative Talk Show Hosts, defending Mr. Limbaugh, do so because they could find themselves categorize the same way. These individuals use the air waves, provided by corporate funding, to abuse freedom of speech, to gain fame and fortune while preying on individuals who try to seek acceptance in society. The ranting of the likes of Mark Levine and Michael Savage along with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and many more here in Boston alone, use these weak minded souls who have no better sense than to believe what is fed to them. All of this is in the true realm of nothing more than plain and simple entertainment. Any person of intelligence and dignity do not want to be associated with people who spew conversation like the Conservative Talk Hosts. Now, when reality hits these Talk Hosts, they cry discrimination and foul over the very things they, themselves have created.
