Joe Lieberman's latest announcement that he will vote against cloture for a health care bill that includes the public option should surprise nobody, as Lieberman, in recent years, has demonstrated that his ideological home is no longer in the Democratic Party. Lieberman has also shown once again that he gets a lot more attention and a higher profile by being a Democrat and taking these positions. While he is no longer viewed as a voice of moderation, maturity and sound judgment from within the Democratic Party, as was frequently the case in the late 1990s, he is still in a stronger bargaining position, and a media favorite, because he is a Democrat.
By wavering between the two parties while never fully abandoning the Democratic Party, Lieberman has made himself far more important than he should be. If he were to formally switch parties, he would suddenly be of little interest to the Republicans as he would be just another member of the minority who would probably be suspect because his right wing credentials would not be strong enough for the Limbaugh-Palin wing of the party. Switching parties would also mean that the Democrats would finally stop courting him on the foolish hope that he will act like a Democrat when it really matters. More accurately speaking, if Lieberman were a Republican, and run that way in 2006, he would not be a senator. That Lieberman still has any power in Washington is a tribute to the failings of the Democratic Party in recent years.
It was only three years ago when Lieberman, seeking his fourth senate term encountered a primary challenge from political neophyte Ned Lamont. Lamont's candidacy was based on the notion that Lieberman, due to his support of much of President Bush's program including the war in Iraq, had been too conservative for too long and was no longer fit to be the standard bearer of the Democratic Party of Connecticut. This rather reasonable premise seemed to outrage much of the Democratic members of the senate as Senators Schumer, Clinton, Dodd and other prominent Democrats, including the then junior senator from Illinois, rushed to support the embattled Lieberman in the primary. Support for Lieberman from Democrats was one of those moments where Democratic senators showed that membership in the club was far more important than a silly thing like consistently taking positions against most of the party or supporting an unpopular Republican President as he dug the country into an ever deeper hole.
The decision of so many leaders of the Democratic Party to support a senator who while opposing most of the party on an increasing number of important issues, was still a colleague and, presumably, a friend, was a mistake, but that mistake was compounded by the failure of any of these prominent Democrats to insist that Lieberman back the winner of the primary before agreeing to support him in that primary. This kind of agreement is very common in primaries and one of the things which helps hold the party together. By not demanding this as a condition for their endorsement, all these Democratic leaders opened the doors for Lieberman, after losing the primary to Lamont, to continue to contest the general election. Most of those prominent Democrats endorsed Lamont after he won the primary, but because they had not done their political work in advance, had much less leverage with Lieberman as they should have.
Lieberman, of course, went on to win that election as an independent. He made this decision to oppose the Democratic Party nominee partially because he correctly assumed that win or lose there would be no consequences from the leadership of the Democratic Party for any of his actions. He was, of course, right as the Democrats welcomed him and even courted him as part of their efforts to retake the senate after the 2006 election.
Since his election as an independent in 2006, Lieberman has successfully reinvented himself as every Republican's favorite Democrat, always available to endorse a Republican candidate, or support the Republican position on a piece of legislation, but somehow still managing to generate more media attention because he is nominally a Democrat. Lieberman, for example, repaid that senator from Illinois for his 2006 primary endorsement by endorsing his Republican opponent in the 2008 presidential election.
It is astounding that as late as 2009, some still considered Lieberman a Democrat and believed that by offering him good committee assignments, Lieberman could be convinced to work with the Democrats on needed legislation. Lieberman's latest pronouncement makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, what was clear to many a few years ago. There is no sense pursuing Lieberman's support or offering him any incentives because when he is needed most by the Democratic Party he can only be depended to abandon the party, its goals and its leaders.
Damien Hoffman: Health Insurance Companies Price Gouging the US Economy
At the current pace, on my 54th birthday I can look forward to spending over $1 million a year on healthcare (but my bank will be broken many years earlier).
A year ago this wouldn't have mattered, but the ever increasing influence of the tea baggers has changed the game to his favor.
The Democrtas don't need him. They should just cut him loose and let him stew with his thoughts of grandeur.
The magic 60 number is just a number - the Dems can never depend on all sixty of their members agreeing on anything relevant, so why not boot Specter and Lieberman? They'll never be there when you need them and they'll stab you in the back when you need them the most.
After all, doesn't he have the best of both worlds? He can go dem or repub depending who has the most to offer him.
They need to get him OUT of congress altogether.
Since a lot of mountain states are opposed to the reform - and exhibit high rates of the uninsured - I can at least accept the opt out provision, especially if the Senators opt out of their health insurance. As for Liebermann and his crass defense of Aetna et al, let's strip him of his chairmanship and not allow him to caucus with the Democrats. For the blue dogs, let's let the dogs out and run candidates against them next time they are up.
But, most importantly, it's time for Obama to use his bully-pulpit to press for change. Change the Senate rules that allow for filibusters. Get rid of qualified majorities required to invoke cloture. And, since the Democrats are in control, let's do it now while they still have a large majority. Now, that's change you can believe in!
What also should be mentioned is that both Hillary Clinton and then Senator Obama did help Ned Lamont after he won the primary by giving money and some other support so I don't blame them as much as the 14 other Senate Dems who helped install LIeberman by their actions and inactions to defeat Lamont as the Dem nominee.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
support a canidate instead voted for Joe. That's why he won
& Conneticut is stuck with this creepy man.
( that's 1.4 million, million dollars,) and 2 trillion dollars. How are they going to be paid for? Lieberman and the others opposed to the public option know that Health insurance profits are only 2.2% of revenues received, and the CEO salaries of Health Insurance Executives only add 0.1% to that.
So, even if a public option wouldn't have to make a profit, it would lose, in bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency more than it would save by eliminating profits.
But even if they could save that 2.3%, you would have to come up with a way to pay for this legislation somehow.
All the proposals raise taxes on people that currently are covered by taxing their policies, and also raise the costs to business by taxing the policies they give to their employees. And businesses which currently don't offer insurance would have to pay $8,000 per employee to enroll them in the public option. This, no doubt, will cause businesses to lay off more workers.
What good is it to insure one person if it costs another person his job?
The whole purpose of Health insurance reform is supposed to be to lower the price of health care insurance and to increase access.
The bills currently before Congress do none of that.
The Urban Dictionary defines a backpfeifengesicht as: "A face badly in need of a fist" meaning this is a person that needs to be punched. Alternate translations list the given action as "slap" rather than "punch" or the given weapon as "crowbar" rather than "fist". IMHO, this fits Lieberman to a "T".