Joe Lieberman on The Huffington Post

Joe Lieberman's Anti-Public Option Rationale Keeps Shifting

2009-11-23T16:04:52Z

This past Sunday, America was treated to the sight of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) rolling out yet another argument against why he will filibuster any health care reform bill that contains a public option.

LIEBERMAN: One last word on the public option. I understand that some who have-- who have advocated say we need to have a government insurance company in the market to keep the insurance companies honest. This is a radical departure from the way we've-- we've responded to the market in America in the past. Here's what I mean.

We rely first on competition in our market economy. That's brought us a lot of wealth and-- given people a lot of jobs. But when the competition fails, then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate. We have never before said in a given business-- we-- we don't trust the companies in it, so we're gonna have the government go into that business. An irony of all ironies, Congressional Budget Office says, I repeat, the government run public option company will charge more than the private companies will.

Steve Benen has been tracing Lieberman's opposition to the public option, and has an excellent piece that points out the fact that every 30 days, Lieberman basically comes up with a new reason to inveigh against it:

In June, Lieberman said, "I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." That didn't make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.

In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it." No one could figure out exactly what that meant, and the senator moved onto other arguments.

In August, he said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession," which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn't kick in for quite a while.

In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it." A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.

In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean "trouble ... for the national debt," by creating "a whole new government entitlement program." Soon after, Jon Chait explained that this "literally makes no sense whatsoever."

Now, it's worth pointing out that Lieberman hasn't entirely moved along from his Octoberfest line of reasoning on yesterday's "Meet The Press", continuing to talk "about filibustering a deficit-reducing bill in order to try to remove a cost-reducing provision, and doing so on grounds of fiscal probity." But, as Benen points out, this is a brand new rationale, "shifting towards opposition based on traditions."

In a nutshell, reform advocates are saying, "Giving people the choice of a public option is likely to help consumers by cutting costs and promoting competition." Lieberman is effectively responding, "We haven't done things that way in the past."

The other malformed component of Lieberman's reasoning is that he finds the fact that "the government-run public option company will charge more than the private companies will" to be an "irony of ironies." Of course, one of the things that will keep those private premiums low is that private insurance companies will be offloading the sickest patients into the public plan.

But the real irony of ironies is that, as I already mentioned, Lieberman and other conservative Democrats oppose the sort of cost-reducing provisions that would keep the public option premium low, like tying reimbursement rates to Medicare.

Naturally, there's a much simpler explanation for why Joe Lieberman keeps shifting wildly between different, incoherent rationales for opposing the public option: he's entirely beholden to the health insurance industry, who have given him millions of dollars, through thick and thin!

RELATED:
Another Month, Another Excuse... [Washington Monthly]
The Insincerity Of The Public Option Haters: Lieberman's Weasel

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Shawn Healy: Senate Sextet

2009-11-23T12:39:34Z

On Saturday, the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate brought health care reform to the floor of the body with a strict party line vote, 60-39 -- the bare minimum to stave off a Republican-led filibuster. Unlike the House, a supermajority is often required to pass legislation in the Senate to invoke cloture and prevent the opposition's stalling tactics, igniting floor debate and often a roll call vote. Democrats hold a firm 58 seats in the current Senate, with two independents also joining their caucus for a fragile filibuster-proof majority. Any fracture to this coalition requires bi-partisan support, a difficult proposition in what has become an intensely polarized body.

Political scientist Keith Krehbiel developed the "pivotal politics" model more than a decade ago in a quest to examine the problem of legislative gridlock that rose to the common vernacular during the Reagan-Bush era. Clinton's election in 1992, coupled with the Democratic Party's hold on Congress, stirred excitement that gridlock would end with the return of unified control. To these proponents' chagrin, however, little changed, and divided government returned shortly thereafter with the G.O.P.'s 1994 takeover of Congress. Something was amiss, and Krehbiel sought a more simplistic explanation for gridlock that transcended party control. Enter the "pivotal politics" model.

The model centers on the median voter in Congress, but also accounts for presidential preferences, institutional features like the filibuster in the Senate, and the veto pen wielded by the President. The pivotal players in Congress are the median voter, those near the sixty vote margin necessary to end extended debate in the Senate through cloture, and those near the two-thirds threshold necessary to override a presidential veto. All of these preferences are placed on a unidimensional line, thus the simplicity of the model. Elections are the dynamic force where these preferences can shift along the line.

A particularly compelling element is its ability to explain the productivity that usually accompanies the presidential honeymoon, the inevitable decline, even the lame duck status at the end of the second term. Presidents typically have coattails (Clinton and George W. Bush, excepted) and thus have favorable ideological alignments behind their programs upon entering office. The first hundred days is a natural outgrowth of this arrangement. The inevitable decline centers on this initial movement away from the status quo, leaving less to accomplish other than nibbling at the margins. Midterm losses are typically inevitable for the party of the President, and his productivity is thus undermined by the new ideological arrangement in Congress that emerges. Lame duck status is thus the logical outcome.

Krehbiel rejects party-based explanations for maintenance of the status quo or gridlock. While refusing to dismiss their significance entirely, he suggests that they are not integral to a "good theory of lawmaking." Gridlock is instead a product of an ideologically moderate status quo, supermajority requirements in Congress, and the heterogeneous preferences of legislators.

How does Kriebel's model illuminate the contemporary debate? Given that the House has already passed a reform bill, all eyes are on the Senate. The President made health care reform the centerpiece of his agenda, so the threat of a veto is non-existent, his signature on anything remotely smelling of reform inevitable. The pivot is centrally located at the filibuster, or the sixtieth vote. By my calculation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can count on 56 votes for the legislation as it now stands, sufficient for passage assuming the opposition does not filibuster. Given the stakes involved, I find a truce unlikely.

Those 56 votes exclude three Democrats and one independent, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson and Lieberman are both adamantly opposed to the public option, a staple of the current legislation. Arkansas Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu of Arkansas and Louisiana, respectively, also have major concerns about the bill as it stands. All four are moderates and stand near the 60-vote threshold of the Senate's ideological continuum. Any attrition from this group would require Reid to reach across the aisle, and likely the filibuster pivot, to recruit one or more moderate Republicans. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are perhaps the only two possibilities, so Democratic defection greater than two equals defeat.

Given the concerns voiced by Snowe for one about the public option as it now stands, her vote can only be won through a change to a state-based trigger mechanism instead of an opt-out as it now stands. Nelson and Lieberman seek its removal altogether, a deal-breaker for the more liberal members of the party and its voting base. For legislation to pass before Christmas or prior to the President's State of the Union speech in January, I predict either a further neutered public option or a 56-44 vote with the four Democratic caucus members voting against the bill, but also in favor of cloture.

Through it all, keep your eyes on the pivot, for a sextet of Senators hold the keys to the fate of health care reform in America.

Bernie Sanders Pushes Back On Public Option

2009-11-22T17:03:33Z

While conservative members of the Democratic caucus threaten to block passage of health care reform if it includes a public health insurance option, a growing chorus of liberal lawmakers are making similar threats if the bill doesn't have one.

Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement on Sunday that the bill must have a strong public option to win his vote.

"I strongly suspect that there are a number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option," he said. Not supporting final passage, however, is different than vowing to filibuster it and prevent it from even getting to a vote on final passage, as independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is now doing, hoping to strip the public option.

But Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on Saturday night that if the bill bends toward the conservatives, "You'll lose people on the left."

One of those could be Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who said Saturday he'd oppose any bill without a public option. "I won't vote for it," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Saturday night, after the health care bill passed a major legislative hurdle by a party-line, landslide 60-39 vote, that Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) are working on crafting a public option compromise that could garner 60 votes.

On Sunday, Schumer predicted that the public option would survive and wind up in the final bill that goes to the president's desk.

Sanders, who self-identifies as a democratic socialist, said that democracy should triumph in the Senate. "The overwhelming majority of Americans want to be able to choose between a strong public option and a private insurance plan. Without that competition, there is very little in this bill that would keep health insurance premiums from escalating rapidly," Sanders said. "This legislation cannot simply be a huge subsidy to private insurance companies that will get millions of new customers and be able to raise their rates as high as they want."

UPDATE: Schumer's spokesman Brian Fallon says that the talks Reid mentioned are not underway, but could be. "Leading up to [Saturday]'s vote, some senators expressed a desire to discuss the public option currently in the Senate bill. Of course, Senator Schumer did not rule that out. But no such talks have yet taken place, and there is not any compromise at hand beyond what Leader Reid has already inserted into the bill. Senator Schumer remains a strong proponent of the opt-out, level playing field public option," said Fallon.

Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster

2009-11-21T22:25:42Z

Harry Reid sealed the biggest legislative victory of his career Saturday night with a kiss. And then a hug.

Emotionally reserved doesn't begin to describe the Senate majority leader, a Democrat facing reelection in Nevada. Yet the man was beaming as the members of his caucus left the Senate floor, each one of them having given him their support, leaving him with exactly the 60 votes he needed to overcome a filibuster and move to an official floor debate on landmark health care reform legislation.

Three of those votes had been uncertain up until the last two days. Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) waited until floor speeches on Saturday to announce that they'd back the motion to proceed, which allows the bill to move a major step forward. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) broke what little suspense there was about his vote on Friday.

Reid approached Landrieu after the vote, smiling ear to ear. He locked arms with her, gripping her right elbow as she locked his right arm in return. After the two spoke, he grasped her hand with both of his, leaned over and laid a kiss on it.

From there, he trod up the floor's risers to find Lincoln in the back row where she'd been sitting with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). Reid smiled broadly and put his two hands on her shoulders, which is typically what counts as a hug from Harry Reid. Then he went all in, wrapping her in a full embrace.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) followed Reid's lead, smothering Lincoln with both arms. Lincoln blushed as she emerged from his embrace.

Reid left the floor to speak on the phone to Ted Kennedy's widow Vicki in the Democratic cloak room; she was crying and deeply moved, he later said. As Reid returned to the floor and headed for the exit to speak to reporters, he spied Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who had shepherded the reform bill through the health committee in Kennedy's absence. Reid laid a hug on him, too.

Nelson was not gifted with such affection, though he had only himself to blame: as soon as the vote ended, he headed for the GOP side to chat up arch-conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

Reid's effusive display of gratitude followed a unusually somber, silent vote. Normally, senators approach the front desk to cast their vote and chat amongst themselves. This night, each voted from his or her seat as the chamber sat in dead, eerie silence.

"I mean, it was sort of like a European parliamentary summit or something -- but it was worth it," remarked Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who also suggested it felt like "somebody was getting impeached."

As the roll was called, senators stood and announced either "aye" or "nay." It was too much for John McCain.

"Ooooh, this is soooo tense," the Arizona Republican could be heard stage-whispering.

Nelson was seated as the roll was called and unceremoniously declared his yes vote. Landrieu and Lincoln, however, were absent at the start, as was Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.), the 92-year-old who this week became the longest-serving senator in the history of the upper chamber.

His presence is never assured at votes,so his absence added an element of real suspense, McCain's mocking notwithstanding. A few minutes into the vote, Byrd was wheeled in and pointed to the sky, signaling an "aye." He pulled in next to Reid. Reid grasped Byrd's hand with both of his.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), whose vote would have made the bill bipartisan just a few months ago, rose to his feet and strode over to Byrd to shake the former majority leader's hand.

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), whose route to the Senate took him through an Illinois impeachment hearing and a Senate ethics panel, stood to vote aye and, after retaking his seat, backhand slapped Joe Lieberman on his arm and flashed a wide grin. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, had voted yes as well, but is still threatening not to join a GOP filibuster on the final bill if it includes a public health insurance option.

Lieberman smiled and the two shook hands heartily. Just moments later, however, he rose from his chair and fled, finding more comfortable ground next to Lincoln. The two holdouts batted each others' arms and exchanged chuckles.

When the vote tally was called in the House exactly two weeks ago, the Democratic caucus erupted in celebration. The Senate is not that sort of place. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), as presiding officer, announced the final 60-39 vote and scattered, muted "yay"s rose from the Democratic side, as the victors seemed unsure what to do. Only Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) could be seen clapping; a few tourists in the gallery booed at the chamber.

(The one absentee senator was Republican George Voinovich of Ohio. Brown told reporters that his fellow state lawmaker had decided to attend a celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of his Cleveland mayoral election instead.)

Outside the chamber, the volume was turned up.

"It's an historic vote, a terrific vote, and one of the better moments since I've been in the Senate," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told HuffPost.

"We're rounding third and we're heading home," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who now chairs the health committee.

"We can see the finish line now, but we're not there," Reid told reporters after the vote.

Just one Democrat could yet derail the effort.

Before the vote, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell begged for such a Democratic defection.

"All it takes is one vote. Just one," said the Kentucky Republican, turning to the left side of the chamber with an outstretched palm. "The simple math is this: If there were one Democrat, just one of our friends on the other side of the aisle, just one, who would say 'no' tonight, the voices of the American people would be heard... And then we could start over with a common-sense, step by step approach."

Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) also begged for a do-over: "I still hope we can start over and get to work on a bipartisan bill."

Lieberman is among several in the caucus who have threatened to doom the effort, and he sounded like Eeyore again Saturday night, calling the public option "an eleventh-hour addition to a debate that's gone on for decades. Nobody's ever talked about a public option before, not even in the presidential campaign last year."

From the liberal end, Burris repeated a threat made earlier: That if the public option is taken out, he's gone. "I won't vote for it," he said.

"You'll lose people on the left," confirmed Brown.

Reid, aware of the fine line he's walking, told reporters that Landrieu, Schumer and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) are working on a compromise public option, perhaps something that 60 folks could support and save face.

"Now," said Kerry, "we just have to go forward and really legislate."

Arthur Delaney contributed to this report

Democrats Are United -- For Now

2009-11-21T15:31:15Z

The Senate has voted to move forward with the health care bill. The vote was 60-39 in favor of debating the bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

-------------------

At least for the moment, Democrats are united behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

All 60 members of the party's caucus have publicly pledged to back him in key vote on the Senate floor Saturday night -- this one to allow debate to proceed on Reid's health care reform bill.

But that unity may not last.

"That was the easy part. Now it's only going to get tougher from here on out," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told HuffPost.

Back-to-back announcements on the Senate floor on Saturday from the two remaining holdouts -- Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, followed by Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln -- put Reid over the top, giving him the 60 votes he needs to overcome the expected Republican filibuster.

The official vote will be called at 8:00 Saturday evening. The Senate will then move to several weeks of floor debate and amendments, followed by another crucial vote to end a second expected filibuster and move to a final tally.

A handful of Democrats are still threatening to filibuster the final bill if certain changes aren't made. Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is insisting on the removal of a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers, many of which are based in his home state of Connecticut.

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Landrieu and Lincoln are also withholding their final support, and trying to extract concessions.

"My vote today to move forward," Landrieu said on the floor, "should in no way be construed" as an indication that she'll back the final bill. "Much work needs to be done," she said.

Lincoln, who could face a primary challenge over her health care stand, similarly said she'd work to amend the bill and expressed her concerns with protecting private insurers from being required to compete with a public plan.

"Rather than create an entirely new government-run health care plan to compete with private insurers. I support health insurance reform that focuses on changing the rules of our existing employer-based private health insurance system," Lincoln said. "I believe we should change the current rules that permit insurance companies to bully their customers and cherry pick healthy patients, so we can force them to compete with each other. This initial procedural vote simply allows us to open debate on health care reform, nothing more or less. My decision to support this vote is not my last nor is it my only chance to shape health insurance reform."

If the Senate does pass a bill, House and Senate conferees will then meet to hash out the considerable differences between their packages. Each chamber must then approve the compromise before it heads to the president's desk for his signature.

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [102] -- Harry Reid's Glacial Progress Grinds On

2009-11-20T20:31:53Z

Our illustrious (cough, cough) White House press corps showed it could get to the bottom of a story with impressively journalistic and probative skills this week. The story that so obviously required multiple questions to President Obama on his trip to Asia? Whether he's eating enough, and whether he's losing weight. Oh, and his gray hair.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Somebody, obviously bored on the excruciatingly long plane ride, decided they'd float the rumor that Obama was skipping meals and getting dangerously thin. Because the reporters were all trapped in the same flying aluminum can, they all decided it was a big deal, patted themselves on the back for doing so, and then took lots of valuable interview time with the president to ask him about it. Over and over again (since they all wanted the "scoop"). Obama's response was that he was eating just fine, thank you, and he wasn't any skinnier than he's always been.

Whew! Good thing we have such an illustrious cadre of journalists, to reassure Americans that the president is not starving himself or anything! After all, it's not like there are any other issues to talk about, or ask the president about.

Such as Sarah Palin, for instance. Palin sure ate up a lot of "news" time last week, which must have overjoyed her publicist and publisher (oodles of free publicity, in other words).

Seriously, there are a few things going on in the world that are actually more important than what the president had for lunch, and what Palin's ghostwriter cobbled together in "her" book.

Such as health care reform legislation, to name but one. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally woke up from his weeks-long nap, and is moving a bill to the Senate floor for debate. It was reported this week that the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, then on Wednesday, then on Thursday, then on Friday, and (currently) on Saturday. Which pretty much sums up the last few months of waiting on Harry. But Harry will be discussed later in the program, so I'll just move on here.

I thought it was appropriate to review exactly what is left to do on the health care reform effort. There are a few hurdles left to clear, and it's going to be a long and drawn-out process. The media will trumpet each one of these hurdles as it happens, but will (my guess) fail to lay out exactly what to expect next at each stage of the process. So I thought I'd fill this lack. Matt Osborne at Huffington Post also has a good overview of the 11-dimensional chess game we're playing, if you'd like an alternate summation of where we are in the process.

The first step is Saturday's vote. Or, I should probably say, "the vote which is currently scheduled for Saturday." This vote will be held in the Senate and is a vote to "end debate about the debate," or to overcome a filibuster/closure attempt to block the bill before it gets to the floor for debate. The media will portray this as a "vote to move the bill to the floor," but this is technically inaccurate, as it is a vote against killing the bill's progress. It's confusing, but this is the Senate we're talking about.

Democrats need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster attempt. Harry Reid thinks he's got them, but then this is the reason why the vote keeps getting pushed back -- because he's obviously still scrambling for the final few votes before he moves ahead. But they can't push it back much further without eating into their own valuable vacation time, because they're all itching to fly back home for a leisurely week off for Thanksgiving.

Once Democrats get the 60 votes they need (throughout this whole explanation, I am assuming Democrats will succeed at each stage, although I should point out that any of these hurdles could derail the entire process and kill health care reform for the year), the Senate will start debating the bill. Amendments will be offered. It's a little unclear which amendments will require only a majority (50 votes plus the Vice President, or 51 votes), and which will require the supermajority of 60 votes. Look for lots of Republican amendments to fail during this stage, and lots and lots of grandstanding by senators who are hoping to see their face on the news.

So, assuming some amendments pass and others fail, eventually Reid will move to close debate and actually vote on the bill as a whole. This is when the second major filibuster will be attempted. And getting 60 votes to overcome it will be even harder, since some of the senators who have publicly committed to killing the first filibuster attempt have pointedly not committed to moving the bill to a final vote. But, probably with some wheeling and dealing, Reid rounds up the 60 votes he needs and defeats the filibuster once again.

Which brings us to the final vote. This vote only requires 50-plus-one, meaning Democrats who don't like the bill can vote against its passage, after voting with the Democrats to kill filibusters. This sort of thing, I should add, is common. John Kerry got lambasted in his bid for the White House, for expecting Americans to know how the Senate actually works, when he said he "was for the bill before he was against the bill" (or was it the other way around?). This is called "having your cake and eating it too," when it comes to explaining your votes to your constituents, and is common practice by both parties in Washington.

But ignoring all of that, a bill passes the Senate! Woo hoo! We're done, right?

Well, no.

This is the trickiest phase of the whole process -- the dreaded conference committee. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid name a limited number of negotiators (which names are on this list will be crucial) to a committee of both House and Senate members, and they get a chance to totally rewrite the bill. Their goal is to come up with a bill that can pass both houses in exactly the same form. This will be challenging indeed, since the vote margins are going to be pretty thin for both houses. A handful of Democrats from the left or the "center" could play the "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" tantrum game at this point.

Many are the bills which die in conference committee, it needs emphasizing. It's a tightrope wire to walk that sees many, many ideas fall off the wire to perish below (no safety net down there). This will be the toughest part of the whole process.

Eventually, though (assuming success at every stage, as I said), a compromise bill emerges from conference committee. Then it goes to the House and the Senate, where individual senators and the Republican Party en masse will try to derail it by adding amendments willy-nilly. But sooner or later, the House and the Senate vote on the same bill. Over in the Senate, of course, this will mean more filibuster attempts to be dealt with, but in both houses the final vote requires just a simple majority to pass.

The bill, after achieving passage in both houses, then goes to the Oval Office for President Obama to sign.

If this all sounds like a very long and drawn-out process, well, it is. And the new "operative" deadline (as they say in D.C.) is now the State Of The Union address which President Obama will deliver to a joint session of Congress in late January. That is not a lot of time. With so many formidable hurdles left in place, the clock running out becomes more and more of a serious possibility.

In any case, while the news media will portray Saturday's vote (or Sunday's, or Monday's... sigh) as a gargantuan-sized Big Deal, please keep in mind that we've got a long way left to go.

A Democrat this week hit a most impressive milestone, as Senator Robert Byrd became the longest-serving member of Congress in history. This benchmark adds service in both chambers, meaning Byrd's six-year term as a member of the House is added to his impressive 50 years and ten-and-a-half months in the Senate. Byrd's Senate record is already the longest in history, passing Strom Thurmond's a few years ago. So now Robert Byrd is not only the longest-serving senator in American history, but also the longest-serving member of Congress in history as well. For this, he receives an Honorable Mention from us this week.

Representative Alan Grayson also gets an Honorable Mention as well (with special "strange bedfellows" oak leaf cluster), for joining with Ron Paul to win passage of language in a bill to mandate an audit of the Federal Reserve. Other Democrats wanted to water this down, but Grayson and Paul prevailed. For now. Their opponents shut down a vote on the bill after this happened, though, which the White House is reportedly not happy about.

Also annoying the White House is Representative John Conyers. Conyers, however, is on the right side of this issue. He's pressuring President Obama and Rahm Emanuel with some very blunt language: "You know, holding hands out and beer on Friday nights in the White House and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care, and saying on occasion that public options aren't all that important is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama that I first met who was an ardent single-payer enthusiast himself." For pressuring Obama to stand up for the ideals he campaigned on, Conyers is also awarded an Honorable Mention this week.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Attorney General Eric Holder. I have already written twice this week (in Tuesday's column and Wednesday's column, in case you missed them) about Holder's decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a civilian federal court mere blocks from where the twin towers of the World Trade Center once stood.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about Holder's decision, but we are awarding him the MIDOTW award for how he has handled himself this week. It's a rare thing in Washington to see a government official make a strong decision, and then defend it as the right thing to do without either (a.) trying to blame everyone else for the idea's shortcomings, or (b.) immediately apologizing for the decision, or (c.) "walking back" or even overturning the decision at the slightest sign of political stormclouds on the horizon.

All in all, Holder admirably defended his decision and admirably faced his critics when dragged before a congressional committee. So, as I said, whether you agree with his decision or think it was wrong, Holder was still impressive in the way he strongly stood up for himself after announcing it -- a rare thing in Washington. And for that, we award him the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Attorney General Eric Holder on his Department of Justice contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

So, here we are on the health care reform front. A bill may make it to the floor of the Senate tomorrow. But you know what? We could have been here in July. Or September. Or October. This endless series of delays and time wasted can be laid at the feet of one man -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Because it is an inescapable fact that a stronger leader would have moved the legislation a lot further by now.

Now, in Reid's defense, the bill he came up with is a lot stronger than a lot of people thought it would be at this point. The number of times the public option has been declared dead by serious and important people inside the Beltway is staggeringly high. And yet, there it is in Reid's bill. No trigger (at least not yet) is in the bill either -- denying yet another piece of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom for the past five months. Given what he had to work with, it's not a horrible effort by Reid. Fairness dictates we point this out here.

But Reid has shown over and over again that he simply does not know how to negotiate in a timely fashion. He usually begins negotiating by publicly stating he will be throwing away all his best leverage in the negotiations -- making it much easier for his opponents to defeat him. He has put up with so many delaying tactics on health care reform that we find ourselves only moving a bill to the floor right now -- just before Thanksgiving. Because the Senate is going to go home for a full week next week, it won't be until early December that the floor debate even begins. And after such debate, and after a vote on passage, there still remains the conference committee -- which is going to take a few weeks, at the very least. With the end-of-year break in there, it is already an extremely tough schedule to meet if Congress really wants to pass this by the State Of The Union speech in late January.

Meaning Reid has left everyone with very little elbow room. Which makes it all the easier for opponents to defeat the whole effort -- because now they don't need to absolutely shut it down, they just need to run out the clock for a few more weeks. While Max Baucus certainly deserves some of the scorn for this situation, the buck stops at Harry's desk, as the leader of the Senate Democrats.

As if all of this weren't enough, Reid just announced that he's no longer even considering reconciliation as a last resort. Once again, Reid takes the most powerful weapon at his disposal and, instead of wielding it forcefully, actually chucks it over the side of the boat instead. This seems to be Harry's standard operating procedure -- surrender before the fight begins.

But there's a way to change all of this. The Democratic caucus in the Senate traditionally chooses its leadership in December. Meaning that any Democrat could soon challenge Reid for his leadership role. If a movement started among Senate Democrats to rally behind a more forceful personality, this could put some serious pressure on Harry Reid to get things moving along. Democrats could let it be known privately that if health care reform isn't at least in conference committee by the time they choose next year's leadership, then they would be handing Harry his hat, and repainting his office for his successor.

There are many, many Democratic senators who could fill the void of leadership Harry Reid carries around with him. Pretty much anyone who knows how to negotiate and knows not to throw away their best leverage before the fight begins would get my support, at this point.

Oh, and while they're at it, Democratic senators could also strip Joe Lieberman of his committee chairmanship on the Homeland Security committee if he votes with Republicans to kill health care reform. Just a suggestion.

But for this week, Harry Reid wins his fourteenth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. That is twice as many as anyone else has won. Get a move on Harry, or else stand out of the way for someone who can. Please.

[Contact Senator Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 102 (11/20/09)

I'm going to remain optimistic at the end, here, and write my talking points this week for Democratic politicians (to use on the Sunday morning chat fests) while assuming that the Senate has managed to vote to bring the health care reform bill to the floor. That's right, I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume that Harry Reid manages to get his 60 votes tomorrow night. Because, really, if he doesn't, there won't be a whole lot for Democrats to talk about this Sunday morning.

Anyway, remaining cheerfully (some would say "blissfully," or perhaps "idiotically") optimistic, here is what Democrats should say on Sunday to bring all the pressure they can bear to their fellow Democrats in the Senate who may waver in future votes.

Rushing? Um, no.

The standard cry of the obstructionists in this debate is that we are somehow "rushing" health care reform. Attack this with the disdain it deserves.

"Excuse me, did you say rushing? You think we're rushing into health care reform? The effort to bring quality affordable health care to every American started seventy years ago. This effort has been going on currently ever since the 1960s. We've taken months -- sometimes years -- to come up with portions of this bill. We've debated them non-stop for the past six months. We've spent weeks and weeks putting together final legislation. How, exactly, is any of this 'rushing'?"

The wrong side of history

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was actually the one to use this line the best so far in this debate.

"History is calling, in the form of health care reform. History will judge us on what we do in Congress in the next few weeks. We Democrats must make a simple choice: do we want to stand on the right side, or the wrong side of history? Do we want this vote to be a proud achievement for our party, and for all of America, or do we want to be shamed later by voting against such wide-sweeping reform? I know which side of history I want to be remembered on, and that is why I will be voting for health care reform."

Party unity

This is a phrase which got quite a bit of scorn in last year's campaign (see: PUMAs, or "Party Unity, My Ass" soreheads). But it needs to be picked up, dusted off, and given the proud placement it once had.

"The Democratic Party needs to show some unity, for once. Party unity means voting against Republican filibuster attempts in the Senate. I don't care whether Democratic senators vote for or against the bill on the final vote, but I think it is shameful for any Democrat to join the 'Party of Obstructionism' or the 'Party of No' in a procedural vote. It is the coward's way out. The courageous thing to do here is to keep party unity intact, and guarantee an up-or-down vote for the final bill on the Senate floor. Robbing the Senate of that vote, and robbing the people of seeing how you would have voted on the final bill is nothing short of shameful. Party unity used to mean something in Washington, and I hope it means something in the filibuster-killing votes in the Senate in the next few weeks."

Maybe we need new leadership

This one only really works if you are a Democratic senator. Although other Democrats could use it, prefaced with something like "well, you know the scuttlebutt I'm hearing is..." or language to that effect.

"The end of the year is traditionally the time we Democrats caucus to choose our leadership and committee chairmen for the upcoming year. If we can't manage to get a health care bill through a floor vote in the Senate, I and many of my colleagues are going to have to think long and hard about who will be the most effective leaders for the Senate next year. I'm not going to name any names, but there are quite a few of our leaders who seem more interested in causing unconscionable delays to the process rather than exhibiting true leadership. And we will be looking at that quite closely in December."

Want to get re-elected?

These last three are a direct appeal to those mugwumps sitting on a fence on the health care reform debate. Don't appeal to their better interests, appeal to their fear of losing power. It's the best leverage to use in Washington, when you get right down to it.

"Any Democrat thinking of voting against health care reforms should take a good hard look at the opinion polls coming out of their state or district. The American people want health care reform, they expect us to deliver health care reform, and if we are instrumental in blocking health care reform, then they are going to let us know about it. For all the so-called 'moderate' Democrats that I've heard about, when you look at the polls from their own constituents, time after time they show that people want not just health care reform, but actually stronger health care reform than is currently in the bill. These Democrats need to think long and hard about their own political future if they vote against the needs and wishes of their own constituents. Because voting with the Republicans is going to make it a lot harder for you to get re-elected."

Democrats are toast in 2010 without health care reform

In fact, expand this to the whole party.

"Democrats are going to be toast in the midterm 2010 congressional elections if we don't deliver on health care reform. With huge majorities in both houses of Congress, if we can't follow through on the biggest agenda item that got a Democrat elected to the White House, then voters are going to be disgusted with the Democratic Party as a whole come next election day. They are either going to stay home and not vote, or they are going to vote for anyone who isn't an incumbent. Our party's future in Congress hinges in a big way on whether we can pass healthcare reform or not. If we don't, President Obama is going to be a lot weaker next year, and Congress is going to be universally held in contempt by the voters. And a lot of Democrats who are now sitting in office are going to be looking for jobs this time next year."

Democrats deserve to be toast in 2010 without health care reform

This is "part 2" of the previous point.

"And you know what? We Democrats are going to deserve to be toast in the 2010 elections if we can't pass health care reform. We've got the biggest majorities in Congress we've had in a generation, and the voters sent us here for a reason -- to get something done. If we prove that we are incapable of delivering this to the voters who sent us here, then we will absolutely deserve to be stripped of our majorities and our power come next year. I wouldn't blame the voters in the least if they see us fighting amongst ourselves so much, and more worried about our own egos than in producing some legislation to improve people's lives. The voters would be entirely justified in 'throwing the bums out' if we can't manage to get something done. I say this as a warning to all my fellow Democrats, and I sincerely hope they will take it to heart."

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

NEW! Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

Andy Borowitz: Lieberman Exploring New Ways to Be a Dick

2009-11-20T11:43:10Z

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - As the health care reform bill makes its way through the U.S. Senate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said today that he was "actively exploring" new ways to be as big a dick as humanly possible.

For Sen. Lieberman, whose reputation for assholic behavior is legendary, striving to be an even bigger douche than usual represents a formidable challenge, Senate insiders say.

But if the Connecticut senator found the burden of being the most egregious asshat in the Senate daunting in the least he did not show it in a brief meeting with reporters in the Capitol rotunda.

"I promised the people of Connecticut that I was going to be the biggest shitheel I could be, and as God is my witness, that's what I'm going to do," he said. More here.

Matt Osborne: Obama Gets 11-Dimensional Chess Win; Epic Fail for Media, GOP

2009-11-19T11:50:37Z

Though we have heard of foolishly rushing to war, we have never seen cleverness in war associated with long delays...Delay tends to favor misfortune over good fortune. As long as affected parties have at least adequately prepared for the moment at hand, delay risks an escalation of misfortune. --Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The Republican Party has built its entire legislative strategy around saying "no" while avoiding substantive discussion. The result is now an "escalation of misfortune" in a strong Senate bill headed for cloture.

Republican intransigence didn't create Congressional inaction, but rather removed the GOP from having any role at all. Nor has the GOP second-guessed this approach at any point. Just this past Sunday, Mitch McConnell said he would delay any health care bill until next year:

"There will be a lot of amendments over a lot of weeks. The Senate is not the House, you saw in the House there was three votes and it was over in one day," McConnell warned. "This will be on the floor for quite a long time."

Now that the bill is out, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) vows "holy war" to kill it. If they had any sense, Republicans would just shut up and stop making things worse. Now that the Senate health care reform bill is out, the GOP's failed strategy of delay and the media's many premature funerals for the public option both seem more than a little silly.

Harry Reid's Senate bill was unveiled to a meeting of Senate Democrats yesterday evening to loud applause. With the strongest public option since this process began, the bill covers 94% of the population at a cost of $849 billion, reduces the federal deficit by $127 billion, and bends the health care cost curve. In other words, it is very likely to work very well and leave Republicans looking very foolish.

They are joined by the Washington media establishment, which has consistently pronounced the public option "dead" at every phase of the health care reform debate, and now show every sign of compounding their error before Dick Durbin (D-IL) tries to bring the bill to cloture on Saturday.

Cloture is a fancy word for a very simple concept: before you can begin to talk about something, you have to agree to talk about it. Senate rules limit the debate to 30 hours; all a cloture vote does is start that debate.

The GOP cannot stop this bill. Indeed, they are still unprepared for "the moment at hand." They are relying on at least one Democrat to stand with them and prevent the Senate from even discussing the bill, and that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Blue Dogs have no grounds to oppose discussion. Ben Nelson ($-NE) and Joe Lieberman (?-CT) may try, but Reid doesn't actually need them to pass a public option if they do. He can use budget reconciliation, and at this point every delay strengthens the public option on offer -- a point Harry Reid might have made to Lieberman already, given the Connecticut senator's conflicting signals and contradictory arguments.

Even Ben Nelson has already signaled he won't stand against cloture. It would be political suicide. Blue Dogs can make their case in floor speeches after cloture. They can try, and quite likely fail, to amend the public option out of the bill. Ultimately it only needs fifty senators, so Nelson and friends can earn their thirty silver and well may it profit them.

The Republican party, on the other hand, will be out in the cold. They will have bet everything and lost. The biggest social safety-net legislation in decades will be a solely Democratic achievement. Obama couldn't ask for a better brand-building outcome.

It didn't have to be this way. Had the Republican Party not insisted on lock-step opposition to reform, one Republican -- just one! -- could have delivered a consensus for a weaker bill. The key word being consensus, because as the legislative process worked itself out in Congress the GOP left the debate among Democrats. We are now seeing the results.

Republicans counted on the classic "circular firing squad" to repeat its performance in 1993. But Obama had a different approach than Clinton. A couple of months ago I adopted the term 11-Dimensional Chess in describing it, but since then it has dawned on me that what we're seeing is the politics of consensus. It shows up in all Obama's policy battles, including gay rights, climate change legislation, and Afghanistan. That's a big statement, I know, but I'm no longer the only one noticing this. Consider how Andrew Sullivan describes the phenomenon:

What we are seeing here, I suspect, is what we see everywhere with Obama: a relentless empiricism in pursuit of a particular objective and a willingness to let the process take its time. The very process itself can reveal - not just to Obama, but to everyone - what exactly the precise options are. Instead of engaging in adolescent tests of whether a president is "tough" or "weak", we actually have an adult prepared to allow the various choices in front of us be fully explored. He is, moreover, not taking the decision process outside the public arena. He is allowing it to unfold within the public arena. Others, moreover, are allowed to take the lead: McChrystal, or Netanyahu, or Pelosi, in the case of Af-Pak, Israel-Palestine and health insurance, respectively. Obama encourages the process but hangs back, broadly - and persistently - pursuing certain objectives without tipping his hand on specifics or timing.

So the troop question is rather like the public option question. (Boldface mine)

Consensus politics is all about process and inclusion, and it has produced a bill very much like the one Obama outlined in his health care speech. But when he didn't absolutely demand a public option at that time, the media declared it dead (again) and Republicans went back to ignoring it.

Once the process was left only to the Democrats, House Blue Dogs found themselves badly outnumbered for the very first time. Worse, their arguments against a public option were weak or sadly misinformed: it made reform cheaper, reduced the deficit, and bent the cost-curve. The longer the debate lasted, the greater the consensus for the public option grew.

Thus a bill very much like the one Obama campaigned on, and within the parameters he outlined in his speeches, seems on the cusp of passing. If so, it will be a big fail for "tea party" politics; but it will also be the biggest media fail since Judith Miller and Operation Iraqi Liberation.

My fellow HuffPost blogger Chris Weigant put it best: "the media's credibility, not the public option, is what is dead:"

Republicans offered this up as a piece of "conventional wisdom," and the media swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker all summer long. While there were voices in the blogosphere's wilderness saying "there are bigger fights ahead, Baucus' committee is a minor skirmish," most of the mainstream media watched the hotheads yelling at town hall meetings, and took an enormous leap to reach the conclusion that the public option was deader than a doornail. Forgetting, I suppose, that a scattering of angry, vocal protesters are not who writes the actual legislation. Or something. At this point, it's hard to even fathom the depths of the media's distractibility on crucial issues facing our nation. (Boldface mine)

Over at DailyKos, one diarist has been keeping a list of pundits who've declared the public option dead; it's an eclectic mix of left, right, and media middle. Despite polls showing supermajority approval, the punditocracy declared the public option un-popular. Rather than explain its deficit-reducing and cost-curve bending qualities, they have deemed it unrealistic. Instead of a narrative of hostile Republican opposition, the media said reform wouldn't pass without bipartisanship and left the onus on Obama.

This all adds up to a spectacular fail. Worse, the media witlessly enabled Obama. Even as the ugly signs and loud noises distracted the punditocracy, Beltway noises assumed a strange pattern.

Anonymous White House sources would tell the media the public option was dead or dying, usually on a weekend. This was invariably followed by another round of emails from activist organizations asking me to do something! because the public option was under threat! -- always with helpful contact information for my member of Congress. Balanced against all the teabaggery, it had a propulsive affect on the progressive majority. When August began, pro-reform activism was lethargic at best; by the end of August, progressives were winning back the town halls and reform started rebounding in the polls.

Invariably, the White House denied these reports after one or two days, presenting the true case as the opposite of whatever the rumor said. At this point, the phrase "anonymous White House sources" is clearly synonymous with "wrong," but the pattern repeats nevertheless. The White House is deliberately manipulating expectations by playing to the media's constant need for a scoop -- examples here, here, and here.

So the White House fed the rumors and then quashed them. Meanwhile, they pressured Congress indirectly through a vast network of progressive organizations. Their true position remained ambiguous becuase they were building a consensus for the public option with one hand and keeping their position obscure with the other.

The media never stopped telling us that time was short. Republicans like McConnell seemed to think they were running out the clock, but it turns out that time has been to Obama's advantage. The Republican strategy of delay escalated their misfortune; their "tea party" movement is a great, big Teabagger Fail, and the media's credibility is shot right along with them.

Which brings me back to my previous foray into the political science of Sun Tzu, when I quoted the DKos diarist known as Maimonides:

(The White House) did this by keeping the fight, the mess, largely contained in the Legislature, that hallowed institution where they make the sausage that the President later cooks up in a Rose Garden signing. They get what they want, they get to claim the victory, and they kept their hands remarkably clean, by keeping the American people from perceiving them as having lost the argument. They'll need that for the next issue. And the next one. Because they aren't just interested in delivering quality, affordable health care to every American. They're interested in modernizing energy policy, they're interested in signing bills repealing DOMA and DADT, they're interested in reforming regulation of Wall Street and reducing our nuclear stockpile. They have a lot of work ahead of them.

They are facing an endless series of battles like this one. And from my POV they plan to win them all. (Emphasis mine)

"Winning them all" won't be that hard to do if the opposition and its media stovepipe don't quit stomping their last shreds of credibility into the ground.

Osborne Ink is a Website of Media Deconstruction

"News that's fairly liberal but never unbalanced"

Jerome Karabel: Bring Back the Cots! The Filibuster and Health Care Reform

2009-11-18T15:45:45Z

In a recent interview on Fox News, Senator Joseph Lieberman threatened to derail health care legislation, asserting that "as a matter of conscience, if proposed Senate legislation includes a public option, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote." Note that Senator Lieberman is not simply saying that he will vote no on any such bill, but that he will prevent the majority of his Senate colleagues from even having the opportunity to vote on the issue. That he is able to do so is testimony to the power of the filibuster -- an increasingly common, if poorly understood, Senate procedure that stands in direct contradiction to the principle of majority rule. Yet paradoxically, the filibuster -- a classic device of obstruction -- may turn out to be the unexpected pathway to health care reform.

The term filibuster traces back to the Spanish word filibustero or pirate (itself derived from the Dutch vrijbuiter or freebooter) and refers to the capacity of obstructionist legislators to hijack or "pirate" legislative debate. In today's Senate, the filibuster refers to the ability of a minority of Senators (41 out of 100) to block legislation by threatening endless speechifying. It is not enshrined in the Constitution and could in principle be eliminated at any time by a change in Senate rules. But it is a long-standing tradition with roots dating back to the early nineteenth century, and it has frequently been used to great effect by political minorities committed to frustrating the will of the majority.

Though the filibuster first gained wide public attention in James Stewart's unforgettable portrayal of an idealistic Senator who launches a filibuster against powerful and corrupt interests in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the actual history of the filibuster is decidedly less noble. In the twentieth century, the filibuster was repeatedly used by Southern Senators trying to block civil rights legislation; to this day, the record is held by Senator Strom Thurmond, who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Seven years later, Southern Senators filibustered for 75 consecutive hours in an unsuccessful attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The filibuster is now such a familiar part of the Senate landscape that its profoundly undemocratic character has escaped public scrutiny. But the filibuster is incompatible with the core principle that in a democracy the will of the majority should prevail. The filibuster falls short of the democratic ideal in at least three ways: (1) It gives a minority of Senators the effective right to block legislation favored by the majority. (2) In practice it gives disproportionate power to Senators from less populous states; in the current Senate, the 40 Republican Senators (all of whom now seem likely to vote in favor of a filibuster) represent just 35 percent of the American population. (3) It allocates power to a minority within a Senate that is itself inherently undemocratic.

By constitutional design, every state has two Senators, regardless of population. What this means in practice, of course, is that California, which has a population of over 36 million, has no more representation in the Senate than Wyoming, with a population of 532,000 -- an absurdity in a democratic society. Not coincidentally, both of California's Senators favor health care reform including the public option, while both of their Wyoming Senate colleagues stand in opposition. And this is part of a larger pattern; of the ten largest states, whose inhabitants together comprise over 54 percent of the nation's population; only 5 of the 20 Senators are Republican and likely to support a filibuster.

Despite its profoundly undemocratic character, the filibuster has become more, not less, common in recent years because of a little-noticed change in Senate practice. Whereas the traditional filibuster required the continuous physical presence of the Senator delivering the marathon speech and a quorum of Senators on the floor (hence the presence of cots for fatigued Senators and the famous story of an aide to Senator Thurmond standing by in the Senate cloakroom with a pail in case the Senator needed to relieve himself), today's Senate requires nothing more than the mere threat of gathering the necessary 41 votes to derail legislation (60 votes are necessary for "cloture" or the closing of debate).

Not surprisingly, filibusters have become more common than ever before in American history (from 6 votes on cloture in 1967-1968, 13 in 1977-1978, 43 in 1987-1988, 53 in 1997-1998, and 112 in 2007-2008), with the consequence of growing legislative paralysis. The filibuster has become routine, with devastating effects on the Senate's ability to legislate.

With health care now consuming more than one-sixth of America's GDP and a recent Harvard study estimating that 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance, the nation can no longer afford this pattern of legislative deadlock. The solution is for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to exercise his right to restore the traditional filibuster. Were Senator Reid to do this, the opponents of health care reform would have to make their arguments against permitting the majority to vote in full public view.

The outcome of such a public debate is by no means preordained. But it would take a matter of urgent public policy import out of the backrooms of the Senate and into the public arena. Democrats who favor health care reform should not shrink from an old-fashioned filibuster, but welcome it. And if Senator Lieberman and his colleagues wish to argue their case in the court of public opinion, then by all means let them do so. For the result may be not only the end of an untenable status quo in health care, but also the weakening of an archaic Senate tradition that has debilitated the legislative process. Bring back the cots!

William Bradley: The Inevitable Fluke That Is Sarah Palin

2009-11-17T12:06:07Z

Five minutes into yesterday's Oprah extravaganza with Sarah Palin, I messaged Steve Schmidt, John McCain's presidential campaign manager: "So how did you know Bristol was pregnant before it was announced?"

His immediate reply: "I didn't, untrue."

Palin had just said that Schmidt, the evident villain of her new book, Going Rogue, and other top McCain advisors had already known that her teenage daughter was pregnant with an illegitimate child and had marching orders for her even before she was picked as McCain's shock vice presidential nominee.

Ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin provides insight into Russian politics.

Palin continued in a similar vein throughout her ballyhooed Oprah interview, constantly hitting the girrrl power/female victimization tropes of daytime TV, casting herself as an individual struggling against male control. Except, of course, for "God and Todd."

It's all a tissue of nonsense when you think about it, including her silly notion that an interview with the anchor of CBS News was supposed to be "light and fun." Whether Oprah really bought the act or not, she appeared to appreciate it. That is, after all, how it's done.

Which took me back to when I learned that the preposterous Palin had become the possible next vice president of the United States ...

Sarah Palin was a fluke. Had to be. A non-serious and irresponsible fluke. That was what I thought when I saw she was about to be named McCain's running mate on August 29, 2008.

I called Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager who I got to know well when he ran Arnold Schwarzenegger's landslide re-election as governor of California, to vent. Schmidt, a hardball if rather gentlemanly operator, had helped McCain spring back into real contention with Barack Obama, jamming the favorite with a series of effective if irritating tactics. (Remember Obama's brilliant international tour, blunted by the mocking TV ad: "He's the biggest celebrity in the world." That was Schmidt.) Such is politics, especially for the campaign with the weaker hand, so no personal venting was called for.

But Palin? I'd scouted her, which amounted to watching a few hours of video footage of her and reading some articles, and she was clearly a totally unqualified, and very vain, intellectual lightweight. And that was being kind. Compared to Palin, George W. Bush belonged on Mount Rushmore.

Palin pretended yesterday on Oprah to have been surprised that CBS News anchor Katie Couric asked her serious questions.

Palin was also, in retrospect, inevitable. Even though she was not the real first choice of McCain, Schmidt, and the rest of the campaign high command. Perhaps because she was not the real first choice.

Here's why.

Two years ago, McCain was struggling along, his once frontrunning candidacy having imploded due to his moderation on immigration and a few other issues and his discomfort from playing the establishment frontrunner. After McCain's campaign collapsed, I'd had lunch with Schmidt, joking that McCain must do as Chairman Mao advised when he said: "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea."

Schmidt had decided to carry on with what his business partners referred to as his unpaid "hobby," and McCain had decided to do something "Mao-like" or at least a Republican variant. He traveled like a normal person, was very accessible, held free-wheeling town halls in his home away from home New Hampshire and a few other states. Freed from the pressure of being the national frontrunner, he recovered his mojo in a race that was still very winnable for him.

After he won New Hampshire, the far right went crazy, moving heavily into Stop McCain mode. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity inveighed against him at all hours of the day and night. The far right blogosphere was in high dudgeon over this "dangerous liberal" McCain.

The reality is that McCain is a conservative. He's much like Ronald Reagan, who would also face tremendously vicious yip-yap today in the party which purports to venerate him unless he moved further to the right.

The far right settled on the awkward figure of Mitt Romney to stop McCain. For some, like radio host Hugh Hewitt, who wrote a truly amazing biography of Romney (in which the corporate takeover artist flew over tall buildings), it was a matter of heavily willed suspension of disbelief that this Eastern economic royalist/social liberal was really a movement conservative. For others, it was simply a matter of stopping McCain, who once pissed all over their pretensions. Romney had adopted their rhetoric, fraudulent though his positioning was, and for them, that was enough.

With the Republicans' winner-take-all primary ways, and Romney not able to shut down Mike Huckabee, McCain rocked Romney to a dead stop in California and knocked him out the following week in Florida. He did this with the help of moderate Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist, both of whom are reviled by the far right.

But the far right, which amounts to a neo-Confederate political tendency, retained a simmeringly mutinous attitude, playing up sizable non-McCain votes as the primaries went on. Though they couldn't ever get behind Huckabee.

An interesting question is why they didn't get behind Huckabee instead of Romney. Huckabee is a real social conservative and a far better natural politician than the generally stiff Romney. But he's more of a populist than a royalist, and expressed concern about climate change. The dominant far right political tendency deeply identifies with entrenched wealth and authority, and disdains squishy notions like peace and the environment. Which is why Dick Cheney, of all people, is a patron saint of the far right.

So McCain and his advisors had a big problem going forward. The far right, with big megaphones in the form of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al was busily proclaiming that they were the real Republicans. And without the so-called "base," McCain had a built-in potshot press every day.

Palin was baffled by questions about the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Schmidt, who'd tooled around with McCain in rental cars and commercial flights during the rebuilding days of the campaign, had taken over its operations. Working with Schwarzenegger, he'd been at the controls of a smoothly running megabucks machine. But this, even after clinching the nomination, was definitely more ramshackle.

Especially compared with the humming Obama machine, raising money at a record clip, with volunteers all over America. Once the tussle with the Clintons was ended -- despite all the silly "Puma" hype, which never really amounted to much, though Schmidt and others had some hopes -- Obama had a happy and united party base on the left and and in the center.

When it came time to pick a potential vice president, the McCain high command had a series of not especially good choices.

My impression was that they liked Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, both personally and substantively. But he was not an inspiring figure and Obama was likely to win his state, as he did, easily.

Huckabee was a good campaigner and had good rapport with McCain. But you certainly couldn't have a creationist on the ticket. Right? And the Talk Radio Wing of the party hated him.

Palin now bashes the Wall Street bailout as an Obama scheme. Last year, when it was pushed through by George W. Bush, she backed it, but thought that it was about health care.

Romney was, let's say, not personally popular in McCain Land. The two seemed to viscerally dislike each other on stage, making the Obama-Hillary dynamic look like occasionally bickering lab partners. But he could bring some very big money to the table, if no real advantage in terms of states.

McCain wanted to tear it up and be the maverick by picking Joe Lieberman. Al Gore's running mate of 2000 would be his running mate of 2008.

But that wouldn't fly, as Team McCain learned when they took some soundings in the party. As much as much of the left hates Lieberman -- without whom, as Obama shrewdly realized, there would be no 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate -- he is a dangerous liberal to the far right. Sure, he's a neo-Likudnik hawk. But beyond that he is essentially a moderate corporate liberal Democrat. And that is totally unacceptable to the Taliban of America's far right.

Other folks mentioned, the Rob Portman types, were largely unknown and were in no way game-changers.

For that was how the pick came to be framed.

Palin complains now that her brilliance was bottled up by Team McCain.

Most of what the McCain campaign did in the general election can be understood by understanding this: The presidency of the United States in 2008 was Barack Obama's to lose. That's the way the dynamics of history played out in 2008. If Obama became seen as a plausible president -- and McCain and his top people never bought the "birther" nonsense or the rest of the "Manchurian Candidate" fantasy so prevalent on the far right even today, though they played around with that fire -- and didn't make a big mistake, he would be the next president.

Unless they could alter the equation, distract from Obama's luster, trip him up. And they would need a big turnout of core conservative voters to be in the ballpark.

In that context, essentially a context of desperation -- and let's remember all the handwringing about Obama's chances amongst liberal Democrats going on throughout all this -- Sarah Palin made sense.

Except that she really didn't. Because she had no idea what she was talking about. Which is why I knew she was dead amongst independent voters, who don't necessarily like fancy credentials but demand basic knowledge.

And yet she really did make sense, very much so, politically, within the context of the Republican Party. Both through process of elimination -- see above -- and in terms of activating conservative activists and turning on grassroots conservative contributors.

I thought from the beginning she would backfire, and wrote it again after she gave her big speech at the Republican national convention, which had most pundits swooning. And that proved to be the case.

Palin brought a lot of energy -- mostly of the angry, backlash variety -- to the McCain ticket. But in the end, because of her fundamental ignorance and negativity, she made it impossible for McCain to win.

Now, let me say that I have always liked McCain. I don't agree with him on everything, to say the least, but I think he is a good man in a very flawed system.

I had hoped for a different sort of campaign between my favorite Democrat and my favorite Republican. That was too idealistic of me. For that sort of campaign would have guaranteed an Obama victory. Naturally, McCain decided not to play along, as, like most politicians, he would rather take a shot at winning than settle for an honorable defeat.

That also brought us Sarah Palin.

But what really made Palin the inevitable fluke that she is is the nature of the current Republican Party.

A once great party has turned into a neo-Confederate political party, looking for a very shallow, mean, dishonest, know-nothing version of Ronald Reagan. And in Sarah Palin, it has found it.

America doesn't buy her as a potential president. Especially after she bizarrely quit as governor of small state Alaska halfway through her only term.

But in a multi-candidate winner take all GOP primary scenario, she could definitely walk away with the party's presidential nomination. And in the meantime, her poisonous brand of charisma will continue to infect Republicans, meaning that all of national politics will continue to be infected with a vicious virus of dishonest, know-nothing hyper-partisanship.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Mary Ann West: Candlelight Vigil for Health Care Reform at Senator Lieberman's Front Door

2009-11-16T13:42:35Z

Stamford, CT -- More than 400 Connecticut residents, health care reform advocates, and clergy attended an evening prayer vigil that began at Senator Joe Lieberman's Alma Mater, Stamford High School. The vigil transformed into a candlelight march to the senator's condo building, where participants sang "This Little Light of Mine." Unexpected drama came at the conclusion of the event as clergy--including rabbis, pastors, reverends, and imams--attempted to deliver a communal letter calling for Lieberman to support health care reform. They were met with police, who blocked access to the building while neighbors stood on their balconies watching the procession. Building resident Shirley Binin, who had walked with the crowd, stepped up and received the box of prayers and walked into the building while vigil participants chanted, "We will be back."

The prayer vigil and candlelight march was organized by Interfaith Fellowship for Universal Health Care as a symbolic way of reaching out to Senator Lieberman short of going to Washington. Frustrated by attempts to schedule a meeting with Lieberman, who has not made himself available, Connecticut health care leaders decided to bring their message to Lieberman's doorsteps. The group had met with Senator Christopher Dodd in the spring and has reached out to Senator Lieberman but did not get the same response. For a man who loves the spotlight, he manages to hide from the glare of his constituents. While he preens, people die, and will continue to die because of senators like Lieberman, who have determined that their convictions are more important than their constituents lives. Go figure.

Stamford mayor Dan Malloy, who has announced his candidacy for governor, opened the vigil by waxing poetic. He noted that the site of the vigil was the same place where Lieberman graduated high school, accepted his place on the Democratic ticket in 20002, and announced his run for president in 2004. It is also symbolic that Lieberman chose to move across the street, around the corner from where he grew up and attended synagogue. The same building--once a synagogue where he received his bar mitzvah--is now Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church, and the pastor, Dr. Tommy Jackson, was the first of many prayer leaders standing outside of Lieberman's condo complex. Dr. Jackson prayed for inclusiveness and said that Senator Lieberman is a man of faith, conviction and, hopefully, a man of conscience.

Rabbi Stephen Fuchs, one of many prayer leaders present at the vigil, leads West Hartford's Congregation Beth Israel, and sees first hand the effects of a lack of adequate insurance on older residents, many of whom struggle on fixed incomes to meet daily living costs. "It is one thing to vote against a measure, it is completely unconscionable to block legislation of preventing the measure from coming to the floor for a vote, as the framers of our Constitution provided," he said.

Rally attendee Mark Sullivan, who is a professor of public policy at the University of Connecticut, said that among industrial nations the United States is the 40th in life expectancy and 29th in infant mortality, while Americans pay twice as much for health care. Meanwhile more than 44,000 people in the United State will die this year because of lack of health insurance and access to affordable medical care.

For Rabbi Ron Fish of Congregation Beth El in Norwalk, CT, the respectful, interfaith vigil was a positive sign: "It was very exciting to see such a diverse and passionate group tonight call for justice together--all while remaining respectful and hopeful. Really, I think our area shined tonight with the power of a positive vision for change. I feel truly privileged to be one of the voices demanding the future we deserve."

Senator Lieberman, what is it that your conscience tells you?

Here's the letter given to Senator Lieberman from the Concerned Clergy of Connecticut , which was signed by seventy clergy leaders:

We are not politicians. We are not doctors. We are not financial analysts.

We are rabbis, priests, ministers, imams and pastors.

This does not mean that our political, medical or fiscal views should be taken any more seriously than anyone else's. We acknowledge that everyone must evaluate the complex and myriad questions that appear in the health care reform debate based upon their own judgments. Certainly our elected political leaders must weigh the problems of cost, availability and sustainability when redesigning such a large portion of our economy.

But our areas of expertise do come into play in this debate. The moral question of what kind of society we seek to build should underlie any deliberation on the question of health care reform. We surely disagree over many subjects of theology and politics, over questions of faith and dogma. But whether from the words of Torah or the Gospels of Jesus, whether from the Talmud or the Koran--our traditions all are explicit and clear on one thing: We are commanded to seek the welfare and healing of all those in our midst, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable. Our understanding of the insights of Jewish, Christian and Muslim thought on how we should navigate through the complex challenges of modern life compel us to speak out together in favor of major change that will extend the benefits of modern medicine to all our fellow citizens.

For us this is not an intellectual exercise. We work in our communities, among the sick and scared, who face not only illness but financial ruin when disease strikes. We see hard working people denied care because of pre-existing conditions. We see families with health insurance that they simply cannot afford. We see doctors and nurses whose vocation is to mend the broken, frustrated that their efforts are directed toward profits and paperwork rather than people and healing.

It is for this reason that we insist that the moral imperative of our time is clear. Anyone whose guide in public policy is conscience, anyone who argues that faith and religious tradition should direct our actions, such a person must stand for universal health care in America.

It happens that we are all also citizens of the State of Connecticut. This fact leads us to ask our Senator Joe Lieberman- what is it that you stand for? We ask you to sit down with us, a diverse group of clergy, and your constituents, and answer the most important moral questions. How can you justify your threat to block this much needed reform against the will of the majority? How is it that you can stand in the way of our fellow citizens being granted access to life saving technology? When you speak of values and conscience, what exactly do you understand to be the morality of our current system?

When concerned about questions of finance, we turn to the independent analysis of the CBO, which suggests that a "public option" will reduce long term costs and lighten the fiscal burden of the government. When interested in the effect on medicine, we trust doctors, like the AMA, who approve this approach. When considering the effect on seniors, we turn to the AARP, which also endorses reform.

But when speaking of morality and conscience, when pursing a calling to goodness and justice--on these matters we have something to offer. Our voices reflect our traditions and our understanding of what God asks of us.

Senator Lieberman, what is it that your conscience tells you?

Get HuffPost Eyes&Ears on Facebook and Twitter!

Frank Rich: The Missing Link Between Fort Hood And The War In Afghanistan

2009-11-14T22:31:01Z

For all the right's jeremiads, its own brand of political correctness kept it from connecting two crucial dots: how our failing war against terrorists in Afghanistan might relate to our failure to stop a supposed terrorist attack at home.

Robert Gates Bars Release Of Torture Photos

2009-11-14T11:22:16Z

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has used powers granted to him by a controversial new law to block the court-ordered release of numerous photos of detainee abuse, government lawyers revealed in a court filing Friday evening.

Gates' new authority comes from a law, signed by President Barack Obama last month, that gives the Secretary of Defense the power to rule that photos of detainees are exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. Gates' action on Friday was the first use of the new FOIA exemption since it passed Congress last month.

Kelly Caldwell: The Other Essential Reform Joe Lieberman Is Blocking

2009-11-13T13:30:32Z

Where does he find the time?

Not only has Sen. Joe Lieberman been working overtime to smother health reform, he's parked himself squarely in the path of another badly-needed, long-awaited change.

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last Friday passed the FEMA Independence Act, which would break FEMA free of the Department of Homeland Security and restore it to its Clinton-era status as a stand-alone, Cabinet-level agency. The FEMA chief would once again report directly to the President.

When Congress created DHS after September 11th, it rolled together 22 federal agencies, including FEMA. If cramming 22 bureaucracies under one roof sounds like a good idea, here are two words: Hurricane Katrina.

But before the reform bill could even reach the full House floor, Senator Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and his colleague, Sen. Susan Collins, (R-Maine) were already trashing it.

"FEMA is exactly where it belongs," Lieberman proclaimed in a press release.

"Removing FEMA from DHS makes no sense," Collins said in the same statement. "It would ignore the input of first-responders."

Actually, it is Lieberman and Collins who are ignoring first responders.

Last year, the senators invited several emergency managers
to testify at a hearing before their Senate Homeland Security Committee, (which Lieberman chairs and Collins is the ranking member). They asked the experts, what else can Congress do to improve FEMA?

Said Jane Bullock, the FEMA chief of staff during the Clinton Administration:

"Move FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security and reestablish it as an Independent Executive Branch agency whose Director reports directly to the President. Reinstate the Director of FEMA as a member of the President's Cabinet."

Nancy Dragani, a veteran of the Army National Guard and now director of Ohio's Emergency Management agency, said:

"The FEMA Administrator must continue to serve as the primary advisor to the President on all issues related to disasters and emergencies, and have the full authority granted to the position through the Stafford Act and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act."

Larry Gispert, former President of the International Association of Emergency Managers, compared submerging FEMA in DHS to "requiring the Department of Defense to do both war-fighting and diplomacy."

"The missions of the Department of Defense and the Department of State could never be combined - and neither should consequence and crisis management," Gispert said.

Somehow, after that hearing, the message didn't sink in with Lieberman and Collins. Maybe it would if they listened to former FEMA Deputy Director Mike Walker. Speaking last year to a group of fellow emergency managers, Walker called the status quo "a morally corrupt policy."

"Emergency management is an enduring mission" Walker said. "That mission should not compete for resources with what should be a temporary mission - reducing the threat of violent, radical extremism.

The same official dealing with that large task should not have the time to also deal with a hurricane building in the Atlantic. Nor does the Administrator of FEMA need a cabinet secretary looking over his shoulder or another operations center second-guessing every decision."

Small wonder that the experts are nearly unanimous in deriding the decision to fold FEMA into DHS. What was once an independent agency of 3,000 emergency response professionals is now a smallish cog in a federal super-department, one that employs 180,000 people.

As a result, the disaster professionals must seek permissions and signatures and paperwork from Homeland Security officials before they can take action. Even when rivers are rising or hurricanes are hammering the shorelines.

So when Alabama asked FEMA to send ice after Hurricane Dennis, the request disappeared into the bureaucracy, and the ice never arrived.

As Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast a few weeks later, FEMA officials tried again, and sent ice to staging areas throughout the south, so that it would be ready to go wherever it was needed. After the hurricane made landfall, the emergency managers issued directives for the ice to be distributed. Again their instructions melted into the ether.

Instead, the ice made circuitous journeys around the country, never arriving in New Orleans or Waveland, Mississippi, or any of the other communities asking for it. NBC News tracked one truck on a two-week trek from Wisconsin to Louisiana to Georgia to South Carolina to Maryland. It never did deliver its cargo.

Even more appalling, similar bureaucratic bungling kept thousands of hurricane evacuees out of post-disaster housing.

In New Orleans, Katrina destroyed more than 200,000 homes and displaced 750,000 people. Shortly after the storm, the Department of Veterans' Affairs realized it owned 7,000 vacant houses thereso it offered them to FEMA for hurricane evacuees. FEMA quickly accepted, and the VA dispatched workers to get the homes ready- until DHS officials stepped in and ordered them to stop. No one moves in, DHS said, until it draws up a legal agreement.

The houses then sat empty for more than three months.

With the ice and the VA houses, the DHS' second-guessing hampered FEMA's ability to respond to disaster. But FEMA also loses when it has to compete with DHS for resources. To borrow Larry Gispert's analogy, imagine the State Department having to ask the Pentagon for money.

Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates battling it out for a $40 billion payday would make a great episode of "Celebrity Death Match," but it would be terrible federal policy.

After the 2004 hurricane season, when four hurricanes and a tropical storm pummeled Florida, then-FEMA director Michael Brown realized he'd need a bigger budget for 2005. Brown could not take his request to Congress or the President; instead, he had to ask the DHS. DHS said no.

A year later, when Dennis and Katrina and Rita nearly bled FEMA dry, Congress had to rush to pass emergency appropriations bills to keep up with the response, which was, of course, famously inadequate.

The FEMA Independence Act acknowledges what first responders have been saying for years: that it's poor strategy to let anti-terrorism officials interfere with disaster response; that you probably don't want to give one federal agency the right to veto another agency's budget; that allowing DHS to absorb FEMA was a mistake.

And that, in and of itself, is probably why Lieberman is so bent on killing it.

Lieberman was the principal author and lead co-sponsor of the Department of National Homeland Security Act of 2001. He drafted the legislation in less than four weeks, proposed it on the one-month anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and made FEMA a centerpiece of the new department he envisioned.

When Hurricane Katrina revealed the folly of this choice, Lieberman doubled down. With Collins as his co-sponsor, they proposed the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006, which added some resources and rearranged some staffing and implemented "strategies." And it emphasized that the FEMA Administrator should report to the President, and not the Homeland Security Secretary, during a catastrophe.

Collins and Lieberman seem to think that fixed everything. "We cannot argue with success," Collins said.

Maybe by "success," she means not really changing anything.

Meanwhile, most of the time, FEMA stays under the DHS big tent with all its bureaucratic red tape, and maneuvering, and competition for resources.

The status quo continues to hamstring FEMA's ability to move quickly when disaster strikes. Right now something needs to move quickly -- and it's Joe Lieberman.

Bob Cesca: Joe Lieberman Filibusters Health Care While Americans Suffer

2009-11-12T16:18:55Z

One of many classic episodes of Seinfeld was "The Opposite" -- the finale of season five. While George decides to ignore his instincts and behave in the exact opposite way he normally would, the B-story involves Elaine's boyfriend, Jake Jarmel, being hit by a cab. And instead of rushing to the hospital, Elaine stops at a movie theater concession stand and buys a box of Jujyfruits -- completely unfazed by the gravity of the situation.

When it comes to health care reform, Joe Lieberman is Elaine times a thousand.

So are Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh. But let's focus on Lieberman since his emergence in this situation was dropped like a ton of bricks -- rubbery, fruity bricks -- seemingly out of nowhere, whereas the rest of these conservative Democrats have more or less been enemies of real reform since the process began.

With every month that goes by without health care reform, another 3,600 Americans die due to a lack of insurance. More deaths than 9/11 every 30 days. Every 30 seconds, another family slips into medical bankruptcy, potentially losing everything simply because they were unlucky enough to become sick or injured in a for-profit system that's gamed in favor of the house. There are nearly 300,000 uninsured American adults in Lieberman's home state of Connecticut alone, not to mention 53,000 uninsured children.

And Joe Lieberman, along with his conservadem friends, are stopping off for Jujyfruits. Political favors. Attention. Spotlight. Concessions -- literally and figuratively.

By shamelessly seeking attention via a filibuster threat against health care reform, Joe Lieberman is putting his own political ambitions ahead of American lives. This selfish acting out -- this pathetic, insufferable emergence of The Lieberman at reform's eleventh hour ought to further seal his legacy as one of the U.S. Senate's most greedy, self-serving political hacks.

Make no mistake. By merely threatening a filibuster, Joe Lieberman is, in effect, filibustering health care reform. It's not a threat. He's doing it right now. He's delaying reform and creating another unnecessary obstruction in a process that surely doesn't suffer from a lack of delays imposed by everyone from lobbyists to careerist political bastards.

So what's his gripe?

Lieberman's first, only and most ridiculous gripe with health care reform (so far) is that, somehow, reform with a public option will increase the deficit. This is, naturally, a lie. He's making it up because, as we're well aware, the CBO reported that the House bill, featuring a "level playing field" public option and no opt-out language, will reduce the federal budget deficit by more than $100 billion over ten years, with further deficit reduction in the subsequent ten years.

What makes this whole thing even more insane is that Lieberman actually supported the public option when he ran for president in 2004.

To date, he really doesn't have any substantive reason to be filibustering the public option other than this lie about the deficit. And so we're left with no other justification other than to peg his obstructionism as sheer hubris and drama queen posturing.

Elaine inappropriately delayed her rush to the hospital in order to stop off for Jujyfruits. Why? Because she likes Jujyfruits, and so Jujyfruits took precedent over her injured friend. It was about self-indulgence, and that explains everything Lieberman has done since 2006.

He's clearly a man who's grappling with irrelevance, so he needs to be needed -- as long as his vote becomes necessary for passing reform, he's relevant. For the wrong reasons, but relevant nonetheless. He's obstructing because he can. Meanwhile, Lieberman seems to have made it his mission to take a piss on the left whenever possible. And in doing so, he also believes he'll win friends on the right -- he's also attempting to out-flank Republican Olympia Snowe on the public option. Though beyond his comfy McCain-Graham orbit, he's trying to win acceptance in a Republican Party that's rapidly purging its ranks of anyone in the middle. So it seems like that path is a dead end as well.

He's admired by neither the left nor the right. He's that weasely kid from recess who would constantly pit one clique of friends against the other -- making friends with neither.

Meanwhile, every second that Lieberman performs this infuriating filibuster routine is another second without reform. Every second spent ameliorating the Lieberman filibuster -- massaging his ego with kid gloves and determining exactly what it is he wants -- is another second without reform. Instead of a comprehensive health care bill, we're getting a lot of unnecessary drama circulating around Joe Lieberman's masturbatory ego trip. He wins some press attention and lots of urgent calls from the White House and Harry Reid's office, while the rest of us are jammed with the medical bills.

All in all, there's no other way to peg Lieberman other than as a desperate hack who will thoughtlessly hurl thousands of Americans overboard for the sake of his unquenchable lust for attention, and his childish, vengeful hobby of tweaking the left.

Help us unseat this guy next time around, Connecticut. After all, he's playing politics with your lives. He's stopping off for Jujyfruits when he should be, you know, helping you. And there's no excuse.

Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Lesley Stern: How to Live on $0 a Day: Assuaging Rage, One Prick at a Time

2009-11-12T10:53:50Z

If you've lived your life believing that hard work, ethics, observing the golden rule and fiscal responsibility will be rewarded, you're probably a little ticked off right now. Okay, you're probably roiling with rage (especially if you stopped taking your anti-depressants because your insurance company canceled you for being depressed).

A lot of that anger comes from a sense of betrayal and helplessness at seeing people who broke every law of decency living high on the hog while the rest of us are hard pressed to afford a swine flu shot (if we could find one).

The logical recourse is to seek justice. You've appealed to their non-existent sense of decency. You've written your elected officials, attorney general, chamber of commerce and better business bureau. Clearly, you can't afford a lawyer. Crank calls and Internet heckling bring no relief. And while sending offenders cat poop in the mail is satisfying, the postage is costly--there are no bulk media rates for mass poop mailings (which REALLY pisses you off). And try as you might, you can't seem to get your friends interested in storming Wall Street or the Capitol because pitchforks are too expensive.

If you're quivering with rage just thinking about it, it's time to take action. I've discovered a way to calm my ire and achieve a semblance of inner peace without costly aids like therapists, tranquilizers, a masseuse or weapons.

Whether your anger is directed at a TARP recipient harassing you for an overdue $69, a vile CEO, pundit or politician, someone who screwed you over, the neighbor's dog, or the waiter who lied when he told you the chef's special chicken was all white meat, my methods ensure that all bad behavior is met with swift and decisive punishment (finally!). I can't tell you how much better you'll feel. Here's how it works:

RJ Eskow: A Short Vocabulary Lesson for Sen. Lieberman (With Some History Thrown In At No Extra Charge)

2009-11-11T00:42:52Z

People who label Nidal Malik Hasan a "terrorist," like Joe Lieberman just did, literally don't understand the meaning of the word. And how can they keep us safe from terrorism if they don't even know what it is?

Here's what Sen. Lieberman said: ""There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."

Here's a fairly concise definition of the word 'terrorism', drawn from the Random House Dictionary: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." (emphasis mine)

Had Dr. Hasan become "an Islamist extremist"? It sure looks that way. But was the horrific slaughter he carried out intended to "intimidate or coerce" anyone? We've heard no evidence to that effect. These terrible killings may have just been an expression of inchoate rage. And if we don't know whether coercion or intimidation was the goal, than we certainly don't know if it was done "for political purposes."

Sen. Lieberman's statement, on the other hand, probably was made "for political purposes." And bigotry might be a factor, too, don't you think? After all, the Senator made no such statements about other shootings at military facilities.

Let's get one thing straight: This is not a liberal, knee-jerk defense of someone because he belongs to an unpopular minority (although defending unpopular minorities is generally a good practice). If we learn that Malik Hasan left a note saying "anybody who serves in the US Armed Forces must know they will face retribution," we'll know that he is a terrorist. He will have committed his murders in order to intimidate or coerce. But right now we don't have any evidence that suggests Hasan is any different than the civilian who killed 23 people at a cafeteria right down the road from Ft. Hood, shouting "This is what Central Texas did to me!"

Apparently that guy really hated Central Texas. But he wasn't a terrorist, because he wasn't trying to intimidate people or change their behavior.

So if the Luby's Cafeteria Murderer wasn't a terrorist, what does qualify as terrorism? Al Qaeda's dirty deeds do, of course. Those cowardly killings are intended to provoke US withdrawal from all Muslim countries. (No, they don't do it because "they hate our freedoms.") Christian extremist Scott Roeder's act of murder was terrorism, too, because he wants doctors to stop performing abortions. (He and others like him have nearly achieved their goal, too, which makes it pretty effective terror.)

The Irgun's bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people in 1946, was also an indisputable act of terrorism, designed to intimidate occupying British personnel and encourage their withdrawal from Palestine. The Irgun's behavior provoked the World Zionist Congress to condemn "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare," much as mainstream Muslim groups have repeatedly condemned Al Qaeda.

And it's not just a God thing. Muslims, Christians, and Jews are not the only ones whose followers have engaged in terrorism. Forty years ago terrorists in Europe and the United States were likely to be non-believing members of leftist groups like the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, or Weather Underground. Disbeliever Leon Frank Czolgosz shot President William McKinley, arguably an act of terrorism, because of his anarchist ideals. As Robert Pape's data analysis showed in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, even suicide bombers are more likely to be driven by powerlessness than religion.

When James David Adkisson killed those Unitarians in Knoxville, he wasn't trying to change anybody's behavior. He was acting out his rage against liberals - a rage apparently fomented by viewing Fox News and reading books by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Adkisson and Hasan are similar figures, both of whom are guilty of horrific behavior (assuming Hasan's guilt and conviction, of course.) But neither are "terrorists" by any rational definition (based on what we know today.)

If we had applied Lieberman-like logic after the Knoxville shooting we would have started profiling anybody carrying a book by Hannity or O'Reilly. (I can hear some of you saying "Good idea!" Knock it off, guys - this is America.)

I believe in strong, clear-eyed work to combat terrorism. We also need an effective strategy for spotting soldiers that are about to snap and go on a killing spree. But they're not the same strategies. It's beginning to look like some serious warning signs were overlooked in the Hasan case. We need to find out what went wrong and fix it. But a tough antiterrorism policy begins with a hardnosed, non-ideological (and non-prejudiced) look at the facts. The Lieberman definition of terrorism would have us squander our investigative resources by pursuing a lot of Muslims rather than a lot of potential terrorists.

I don't mean to pick on Sen. Lieberman. It's a soul-killing waste of energy to resent any individual politician, as tempting as some of them may make it. But Lieberman's a good proxy for all the right-wingers who have called Hasan's terrible act "terrorism." (And we can drop the pretense that Lieberman is anything but a die-cut, straight-down-the-line rightist.)

I don't object to the Joe Liebermans of the world because they're conservative. I object to them because they don't know what the hell they're talking about. Their goal is indiscriminate military aggression toward the Muslim world, not effective security for the United States. They seem to believe that comments like these build a case for that agenda and prove that they can keep us safer than those now in power.

They're really proving the opposite. They're showing that they're still likely to act before they've gathered all the facts. Once again they've responded to tragedy with their patented blend of blind fear, misdirected anger, and cynical rhetoric. They're reminding us one more time how often they've failed and flailed in the face of danger. And they're demonstrating that they don't understand the real threat any more now than they did when they blundered into Iraq. Yet despite one embarrassing display after another, they keep claiming they know how to keep us safe from terrorism.

Terrorism?

They don't know the meaning of the word.
_________________

UPDATE: A flock of rightwing trolls is attempting to "prove" that Lieberman was right and that Hasan is a terrorist, rather than a soldier who snapped. In so doing, they are consistently distorting my position - which is that we don't know which he was, and that strategies for soldiers who snap are not the same as strategies for terrorists. We need both, and we need to direct our resources where they're most needed.

Every definition of terrorism offered below includes the desire to intimidate or coerce, phrased in some way or form. Terrorist? Re Hasan, once again: We don't know. Wise military and police actions are based in finding the facts before we act, not reacting based on fear or political agendas. You're suggesting you know the facts of the case better than the military or the FBI. I'm sticking with the military and the FBI.

Lieberman's comments are intended to create a climate of fear for political purposes, not to provide better protection against violence. So are yours. Your agenda distracts us from effective war planning and policing. Each of you is helping me prove my point.

And here's an idea: Maybe everyone who claims they "know" the killer's motivation and have cracked this case - yes, it's terror, etc. - should show us their military or police ID. After all, they must be experts or they wouldn't be so sure, right?

RJ Eskow blogs when he can at:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Website: Eskow and Associates

Protesters Return To Lieberman's D.C. Office, Six Arrested

2009-11-10T12:30:52Z

Protesters returned to the office of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on Tuesday, staging a theatrical demonstration and urging the senator to stop taking money from health insurance corporations. Six demonstrators were arrested after spreading fake dollar bills throughout the building showing Lieberman's face and the words "Insurance Money Kills Democracy."

Lieberman has stated that he would help to filibuster any bill that included a government-run public option.

About a dozen demonstrators came to the Senate's Hart office building in the morning and asked Lieberman's aides to bring him out to pledge to stop accepting campaign contributions from insurance companies. Lieberman had left his office a matter of minutes before the protesters arrived, on his way to a Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing.

After being denied a meeting with the senator, one protester pulled out a cardboard cutout of Lieberman's face and marched throughout the building, pretending to return insurance company contributions. She scattered fake money in the hallways and into the building's large foyer. "I've had a change of heart," she yelled, "Senator Lieberman's giving the money back; he doesn't need it anymore!"

She then went back to the office, and joined other demonstrators who refused to move until they were granted an audience with the legislator. Capitol police were at the office within minutes, and five protesters were arrested as they sang songs about universal health care and accused Lieberman of selling out his constituents.

Among the arrested was Sam Pullen, 31, who said that his mother was denied a lifesaving bone marrow transplant by an insurance company. Pullen was previously arrested during a sit-in at the Los Angeles office of Blue Cross.

"I think that he heard our message loud and clear that he should stop taking insurance money donations," said Lacy MacAuley, spokeswomen for Mobilization for Healthcare for All. "The days are numbered that senators are going to be able to keep on accepting large donations from insurance companies at the same time that those insurance companies are sitting there denying people care."

During the last election cycle, Lieberman accepted over $730,000 from the insurance industry, according for the Center for Responsive Politics.

Last week nine protesters were arrested during a sit-in at the senator's office. Two of them are still in custody after refusing to cooperate with police until they are granted an audience with Lieberman. One, Kai Newkirk, is also on a hunger strike until Lieberman meets with him.

UPDATE: A concurrent sit-in was organized at Lieberman's Hartford, Conn., office. Four protesters were arrested, according to the local NBC affiliate.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Howie Klein: Can We Afford to Let Blanche Lincoln Stop Health Care Reform Dead in Its Tracks?

2009-11-10T11:07:33Z

You can rail all you want at Joe Lieberman -- we all do -- but it's like feeding a troll; he loves the attention and the sense of martyrdom. And getting the Democrats to kick him out of the caucus if he joins the Republican filibuster of health care? Fat chance. Mary Landrieu? As usual she's more concerned about what her corporate donors and K Street lobbyist pals think than what her constituents want -- especially when she's not up for re-election for 5 years. Baucus? Nelson? Same thing. They each figure everyone's attention span is short enough so that nothing will matter when they face the voters in Montana and Nebraska next ... respectively in 2014 and 2012.

No, as we've been telling you all year, there's really only one weak link worth trying to beat into submission: Arkansas' corrupt and reactionary -- don't those two terms always seem to find a way of cuddling up with each other? -- senior senator, Blanche Lincoln. Blue America has run TV spots against Lincoln all summer and fall and she's watched her re-elect numbers dwindle down to a place where if a serious opponent -- i.e., one with big bucks to buy advertising -- jumped into the race, she would lose. She may lose anyway, even though her current opponents would probably do better if they toured together as a carnival freak show. Yesterday the RNC started their own campaign against her, trying to push her to vote with Republicans -- as she so often does -- and against health care reform.

This week Blue America and our friends at Donkey On The Edge Productions have a brand new ad for Arkansas voters to look at -- the fourth in our series -- and the message is very different from the Republicans'. By all means, be the first to view it, and please consider making a contribution on our Campaign for Health Care Choice page so we can run it deep and wide.

No Men: The Most Ornery, Obstructionist Senators

2009-11-10T09:15:01Z

When Sen. Joe Lieberman issued fresh threats to filibuster any health-care reform proposal including a public option, he did more than just blunt the momentum generated by the House of Representatives' passage of a bill this weekend. Lieberman also took his place in a venerable line of legislators bent on using parliamentary procedure to hold up the works. The deans of delay have already been hard at work this Congress, blocking Obama's nominations for the federal bench and slowing the appointment of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. It's all becoming too much for Majority Leader Harry Reid, who let loose on the GOP for obstructionist tactics last week after Republicans held up a bill extending unemployment benefits for weeks, even though it passed unanimously after they relented.

Michael D. Brown: The Audacity of Hindsight Could Help FEMA

2009-11-09T16:05:38Z

Last Thursday while we were still engulfed in the attack at Fort Hood, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved legislation removing the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the Department of Homeland Security, returning it to independent, Cabinet-level status if approved. See H.R.1174. Ironic that a few days after a terrorist attack occurs on U.S. soil a House committee takes action which would enhance the Nation's ability to respond to and recover from a disaster, whether natural or man-made.

Most telling in the announcement of the passage of this bill was Congressman John Mica's statement that "The Department [of Homeland Security] has bled FEMA dry of resources, personnel and authority to manage a large disaster. Elevating FEMA as an independent agency will ensure a clear and direct chain of command from the president." The wisdom of that statement is significant. Congressman Mica and the House Transportation Committee members (Democrat & Republican) acknowledge the inherent ways of Washington by making this bold move.

Senator Lieberman continues to espouse the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act as solving all of FEMA's problems. Nothing could be further from the truth nor more disingenuous as to how Washington works. The post-Katrina act made superficial changes to FEMA's structure and exacerbated the matrix approach to management that hinders DHS and FEMA from operating effectively.

The matrix approach taken by Congress in the post-Katrina reform act had the unintended consequence of further embedding the problems that stymied me during the response to Hurricane Katrina. The best example of the matrixed organization is Abbot & Costello's Who's on First. Play it in your mind and you get the gist of the confusion within DHS, between DHS and FEMA, and between state, local and federal agencies during Hurricane Katrina.

In a matrixed-structured organization under the post-Katrina act, the FEMA Administrator is subservient to the DHS Secretary throughout the year. The FEMA Administrator must work through the huge bureaucracy of DHS to get budget approval, authorization for personnel, funding for projects, and even the attention of the Secretary. The FEMA Administrator during "normal" times (i.e. other than during a disaster) must answer to and be accountable to the DHS Secretary, not the President.

To give you some perspective, the FEMA Administrator and his approximately 2,500 employees must fight for resources, funding, personnel and attention in DHS when his operation at FEMA accounts for only 0.01% of the Department's personnel. FEMA has 2500 employees (give or take) versus 200,000 (give or take) in DHS. The FEMA Administrator's CFO, for example, is accountable to both the FEMA Administrator and the DHS CFO and the DHS Undersecretary for Management. That is a matrixed organization in a nutshell. Multiple bosses, conflicting priorities, divided loyalties.

In Washington wisdom, though, that matrixed structure is to be ignored during times of crisis or disaster. Yes, the boss to whom you've groveled and cajoled for funding and resources suddenly is answerable to you when a disaster strikes because now you report directly to the President of the United States. Suddenly, a cabinet member must take direction from you while you step in and report directly to the Commander in Chief. Most egos in Washington can't handle that kind of whiplash. I know those that stood between me and President Bush during Hurricane Katrina couldn't take that whiplash.

Susan Collins is just naïve when she says removing FEMA from Homeland Security would "ignore the input of first-responders and unravel all the impressive gains made in recent months since we passed our FEMA reform law." No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly, but in this case, Senator Collins, your baby is ugly, and has done nothing to correct the systemic problems in FEMA. Only be removing the organization from the DHS behemoth and giving it a direct line to the President, which worked amazingly well from 1979 until 2005, will we have FEMA back to its heyday.

No one in Washington will admit its baby is ugly because in Washington, you can never admit a mistake, or take a step that might be seen as a reversal. In this case, the House Transportation Committee has the audacity of hindsight and is moving forward. Let's hope Washington for once will correct its mistake and just do what's right.

David A. Love: Absolute Corruption Is the Rule in America

2009-11-09T13:41:21Z

Often,
people will look at a high-profile example of corruption, and conclude that the
egregious act is an exception to the rule.
In reality, it might be the tip of the iceberg.

On
October 29, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did a wonderful thing when
it expunged the
records of as many as 6,500 juveniles in Luzerne County.
That’s not a misprint.

Two
judges in that county were sent up the federal river for locking up thousands
of innocent children over five years, in exchange for $2.6 million in kickbacks
from private juvenile detention centers.
Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan helped the developers
secure the county contracts to build the prisons. Moreover, they filled the detention centers
with warm bodies— many of whom were first-time offenders with minor infractions—
and illegally denied the teens access to an attorney.

In the
case of Luzerne, the “cash for kids” scheme was a coldblooded expression of
greed, and we should not downplay the seriousness of the crimes committed. Yet, what happened in this rural county in northeastern
Pennsylvania is a reflection of what America’s criminal justice system has
become— a for-profit, money-making enterprise.

Often,
our poorer children, disproportionately of color, are funneled into a
cradle-to-prison pipeline through adulthood.
With a criminally negligent public school system, and job opportunities
outsourced abroad, many children at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are
ensured a future of little else than street corners or prison bars. In fact, many urban schools are nothing more
than prison prep, complete with police and metal detectors.

Interestingly,
the children of Luzerne, a county which is nearly 97% white, did not resemble
the “usual suspects” in the criminal justice system. But that really is not the point— when
prisons are a capitalistic endeavor, warm bodies are needed as the raw
materials, and so they must come from somewhere. And consequently, justice takes a backseat to
dollars. From the foodservice industry and
the phone companies, to the Wall Street bankers and the investors, many people
have a vested interest in filling up those empty prison beds and maximizing
their cut. American capitalism made the
U.S. prison population the world’s largest at 2.5 million, with mass
incarceration for nonviolent drug offenses and victimless crimes.

And
American-style capitalism is problematic for the culture of corruption it has
enabled, in the absence of an effective regulatory framework. Much attention has been paid to Bernie
Madoff, that poster child of the Ponzi schemes, who defrauded investors out of $65
billion. The damage he created is
impressive, from the family savings that were forever lost, to the charities
that went under. But like the judges in
Luzerne County, Madoff was merely a cog in a wheel of corruption that enabled
greed.

Madoff himself
said he was surprised his
scheme lasted so long, and that the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigators were so clueless about
his fraudulent activities over 16 years.
The fact is, some members of the SEC staff were inexperienced or just
idiots. Further, Madoff
had too much credibility with the SEC and was not properly investigated,
with red flags uncovered yet ignored.

With the
deregulation of the financial sector and the evisceration of the Glass-Steagall
Act came the financial crisis of 2008.
The system had become the Ponzi scheme.
The economy was built on paper shuffling and no tangible products. Consumers were preyed upon with sketchy,
deceptive and destructive subprime mortgages.
Banks gambled people’s money in high-risk, high-stakes poker games. And with a revolving
door between Wall Street and the Treasury department, the same people with
the gambling problem are running the casino, and “monitoring” it as well.

The banks
that ruined the country swore by the free market when it suited them. But now, they gladly accept their corporate
welfare bailout checks, and scoff at the rest of us. Wall Street has rebounded, business as usual,
and Gordon Gekko is smiling. Meanwhile,
America’s former middle class is joining the ranks of the poor, and the
foreclosed are filling the nation’s homeless shelters. Short of bold government action of
Rooseveltian proportions, there will be no economic recovery for everyday
people. After all, the unemployed, the
homeless, and the soon-to-be unemployed and homeless generally are not big
spenders.

The moneyed
interests also have corrupted the political process, and a prime example is the
behavior of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and the “Blue Dog” Democrats in the
health care reform debate. Lieberman has
earned a special place in the hearts and minds of progressives of late for
vowing to stand with Republicans, and filibuster any health care bill that
contains a public option. He has even
said he would
rather have no bill at all than a bill with a public option.

In
American political folklore, the Senate is presented as an august deliberative
body where cooler heads prevail, where genteel statesmen and stateswomen put
the brakes on rash and potentially harmful legislation, for the betterment of
all. In reality, the Senate is a place
where bold legislation for the public good is killed, because industries put a
contract out on democratic ideas. And
they instruct their employees, the senators, to stop these ideas in their
tracks. This is a bipartisan endeavor. The Blue Dog Democrats, who are the
self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives of their party, distinguish themselves
from other Democrats by their greed and hypocrisy. They receive the most corporate money, and
have rejected less costly health reform bills that would hurt their benefactors. Ask Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the
Senate Finance committee, and a key player in this year’s health reform
debate. Baucus received $3.4 million
from health and insurance industry interests between 2003 and 2008, more than
any other member of Congress. Judging
from the sad excuse for a health reform bill that came out of his committee,
the industry got its money’s worth.

And Lieberman,
the dirty dog that Democrats love to hate, is a fully-owned subsidiary of the
insurance industry. Over the course of
his career, he has received $2.6 million from the insurance companies. In addition, his wife is a health care
industry lobbyist. Despite the
overwhelming popular support in Connecticut for a public option, Lieberman has
decided to follow the money. The
Democrats must take Lieberman to the woodshed for his
double-crossing ways, and relieve him of his coveted chair in the
Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee. Not to be outdone, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN),
whose wife has made at least $2
million sitting on the board of a major health insurance company, hinted
that he would filibuster the public option as well. Apparently, faced with the prospect of the Democratic
leadership opening a big can of whup ass on him, he backed off.

The
problem here is not just Senators Lieberman, Baucus, Bayh and a few other
unscrupulous politicians. The fact is
the entire political game, the link between money and politics, is rancid and
is killing democracy. In the case of
health care reform, the corrupting influence of money is literally sucking the
country’s life blood.

As in the
days of old before the 1929 stock market crash and the New Deal, corporations
have far more influence in this society than they are entitled. Citibank gleefully proclaimed in a series of
reports in 2005 and 2006 that the
U.S. is a plutonomy— a system of wealth inequality in which the richest 1% hold
a disproportionately large share of wealth.
The rich are likely to get even wealthier, at the expense of labor. This rising inequality, Citibank predicts,
will lead to a political backlash.

And some
backlash is needed now. It is certain
that the outrageous displays of greed and corruption deserve our attention and
our outrage. But to dismiss them as
exceptions to the rule, rather than products of a systemic, vulturous culture
that must be attacked, is to choose a perilous path.

David A. Love is an Editorial Board member of BlackCommentator.com, and a contributor to the Progressive Media Project and theGrio. He is a writer and human rights advocate based in Philadelphia, and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. His blog is davidalove.com.

Weiner Takes Lieberman On For "Audacity" Of Filibuster (VIDEO)

2009-11-09T12:23:13Z

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) took on Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on "Morning Joe" Monday, chastising the former Democrat for pledging to join a filibuster against health care reform if it contains a public option.

"It's inconsistent with common sense to say I oppose something that will hold down costs for the taxpayers and residents of Connecticut," Weiner said. "The insurance industry is a powerful force in Washington and so is the status quo, but the audacity to saying, and I think he backed away from it, 'I will not permit a vote on the concept?' Let's let the majority decide this issue."

Weiner offered to debate the senator, saying "If you want to bring Lieberman here, I think that I can talk him into it."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Lieberman said he felt compelled to oppose the public option because it would increase the deficit. But every analysis of the plan has concluded that it would actually reduce the deficit. The senator has not elaborated on where he got his information.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Joseph A. Palermo: The "Goldilocks Principle" and Afghan War Options

2009-11-09T10:01:27Z

A piece in yesterday's New York Times by Peter Baker and Helene Cooper reported that all of the U.S. military options for Afghanistan that President Barack Obama is currently contemplating include some kind of troop escalation. "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appears to be supportive of the middle option," they write. This search for a military option that nestles agreeably between too much force and too little has a familiar ring to it.

During the debates among President Lyndon Johnson's top advisers about whether to escalate the U.S. military commitment in Vietnam, Undersecretary of State George Ball famously invoked the Goldilocks principle: One military option would be too hard, one too soft, and one just right, yet all of them increased the United States role in the war. The Goldilocks principle seems to have infected the current discussions now going on between Obama and his advisers regarding Afghanistan.

Option A: Give General Stanley McChrystal everything he wants including 40,000 to 80,000 more ground troops -- Too Hard.
Option B: Listen to William Polk and other experts and begin extricating U.S. forces to end what most Afghans view as a foreign occupation -- Too Soft.
Option C: Pour in 25,000 to 30,000 more U.S. troops while emphasizing "political" and "economic" development, "anti-corruption" measures, and the possibility of negotiations -- Just Right.

George Ball later reflected on this period when escalating U.S. military power in Vietnam seemed like a good idea:

"I have always marveled at the way ingenious men can, when they wish, turn logic upside down, and I was not surprised when my colleagues interpreted the crumbling of the South Vietnamese government, the Viet Cong's increasing success, and a series of defeats of South Vietnamese units not as proving that we should cut our losses and get out, but rather that we must promptly begin bombing to stiffen the resolve of the corrupt South Vietnamese government. It was classic bureaucratic casuistry. A faulty rationalization was improvised to obscure the painful reality that America could arrest the galloping deterioration of its position only by the surgery of extrication." (Quoted in George McT. Kahin, Intervention: How America Became Involved in Vietnam, 1986, p. 275)

Maybe the Iraq debacle has dulled our senses but there should be something stunning about a general at this late date requesting 40,000 to 80,000 more American soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan. General McChrystal's recommendation for more troops and material has a distinctly Westmorelandian flavor to it. If approved, it could create an additional $40 to$80 billion per annum in war costs relating to the American effort in Afghanistan. The Congress has not only bequeathed to the Executive Branch its war powers but has apparently handed over its purse powers as well. If President Obama approves McChrystal's maximal request, as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and other war hawks demand, it will be an enormous drain of resources in a time of great economic hardship. And it will be rammed through without any significant public debate even though polls show the American people soured on the Afghanistan project long ago.

Any argument that states that American military "success" in Afghanistan is dependent upon some type of action taken by the "Afghan government," such as "weeding out corruption" or "taking responsibility for its own internal security," etc. should not be taken seriously.

What we call "corruption" they understand as normal operating procedures. Training an Afghan security force to serve as a proxy for American and NATO troops, like Nixon's "Vietnamization," is not only expensive and time-consuming but it is destined to fail because among the recruits will be people who are opposed to the foreign military presence. They'll work hand in glove with "the enemy." It's already happening. According to Juan Cole the Pashtun majority in Afghanistan is already put off by the Tajik minority's strong presence inside the security forces.

Last month, Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Rand corporation that recruiting security personnel from the ethnic regions to police their own people is desirable but he didn't say whether this arming of various ethnic groups could produce clashes between them. William Polk, in his "open letter" to President Obama, compared Afghanistan to "a rocky hill sliced by gullies and covered by 20,000 Ping-Pong balls" each representing an "autonomous village-state," and urged him not to escalate the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. A recent forum in The Nation magazine presented pragmatic ideas about where U.S. policy should go if we wish to avoid getting bogged down in a debilitating conflict that could last for decades. Among the panelists Robert Dreyfuss advised Obama to enlist the diplomatic help of "Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to bring key elements of the three interlinked insurgency movements -- the Taliban, the Hezb-i-Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqani network -- to the bargaining table."

(In the 1980s, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's group received more CIA cash than any other mujahideen outfit fighting against the Soviet occupation. Today, his paramilitary guerrillas are killing Americans. If we could arm him then we can negotiate with him now.)

Along side the "options" calling for varying degrees of military escalation there must be at least one that calls for withdrawal. The public and the Congress must become more actively involved in the Afghanistan debate and demand that the Obama administration formulate an exit strategy that can be implemented quickly after the current "surge" inevitably fails. The Vietnam years demonstrated that Goldilocks options will go on for as long as the public tolerates them. At some point we must demand that Congress use its power over the purse to apply the breaks to this runaway train.

Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill "As A Matter Of Conscience" (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T11:59:11Z

Joe Lieberman showed no sign of dropping his filibuster threat on Sunday morning, when he pledged to help kill any health care reform that includes a public option.

The Hill reported last week that the Connecticut senator had reached a "private understanding" with Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to let the bill pass. Both he and Democratic leadership denied the report, and publicly Lieberman is only increasing his commitment to the filibuster.

"A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance," he told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote."

Watch:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!