Reconciliation Here We Come: Lieberman Announces Filibuster Of HCR

In a way, this is good news:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that hed back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reids health care reform bill. [. . .] "I've told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture, he said.[. . .] I feel this way about a national, government-created health insurance company whether its a trigger or not, he said.

(Emphasis supplied.) Since Lieberman is there, then Lincoln, Landreiu and Ben Nelson will go there too. No health care reform through normal procedure. Notice especially Lieberman says he will filibuster even Snowe's Trigger (so much for Rahmbo's grand deal with the Princess from Maine.) Reconciliation it is.

Oh by the way, that means we go back to the ROBUST public option with NO opt out. That's the good news.

Update, as mcjoan notes, time to return to the Schumer Plan.

Speaking for me only

< Opt In To What? The Ship Called Trigger By Any Name Must Be Burned | Sherrod Brown: Obama Now Owns HCR >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There's no scenario in which you (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    see Obama and Reid caving to the Lieberman crew?  I think that has a better chance of happening than a robust public option.  But that's just me.

    Of course they could (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    But will the House Progressive block accept it? No.

    If this weren't such an important and (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    critical issue to so many people's lives, this would be very interesting political theater.

    I can see an internal party showdown forming up here and its anyone's guess who will win - although the House progressive block isn't as reliable as I'd like them to be.  We'll see what happens.


    Progressive Block (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:33:04 PM EST
    will be shunted aside completely? Now? Well, Dems can just forget about holding the Congress then.

    That could well be the outcome. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:39:20 PM EST
    I'm not arguing with you as much as looking at this with extremely low expectations - expectations that have been lowered by a combination of very disappointing actions and inaction over the past few years.  Actually, this debate - one of the easiest in terms of the voting pubic if handled properly - has been the greatest disappointment thus far.  I am shocked at how badly they've handled this issue in the White House and on the Hill.  It won't surprise me, at this point, if they blow it and blow 2010 as a result.

    But we'll see...


    I know we don't swear on this site (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by magster on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    but can I please call him the non-scientific term for anus in all caps preceded by "What an..." ?

    Wasn't it votes like this that made us keep Lieberman on our team?

    It was (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    And if he hold to it, he should be kicked out of the Caucus.

    Why would Obama insist on that (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:27:01 PM EST
    if he doesn't really care or maybe even opposes the Public Option. I think Joe's doing him a favor here - he'll likely get kudos from the White House for this stunt.  Maybe he'll get to be the next Secretary of Defense slot after Gates steps down which would be Joe's dream come true and our worst nightmare.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    this might be a possibility.

    The O "fans" would spin an appointment (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    like that as some brilliant 11th dimensional chess move - meanwhile back at the ranch - and the wars - those of us who know how crazy old Joe is - those of us who know that he is a friend of James Hagee and the End Timers would understand that Joe's ascention to a position like that would be extremely dangerous to the welfare of this country and possibly the world.

    Bravo! (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    I thought he should have been dumped when he campaigned for McCain. At that point he had already decided that he was going to make life miserable for all those nasty Democrat's that crossed him.

    What would Teddy do? And (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    maybe it's time for Reid to take Lieberman to the woodshed...if he knew how...Hell, it wasn't enough that he endorsed and campaigned for the war hero?

    Take him down.  No chairmanship.  There has to be a penalty for this direct challenge to the leader.

    Never mind what would Teddy do (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:19:18 PM EST
    What would LBJ do?

    Call him into the Oval Office and read him a list of stimulus projects that won't be coming to Connecticut.


    While sitting on the toilet. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TomStewart on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 04:31:57 PM EST
    While sitting on the toilet.  But LBJ would also know all his grandkids' names.  And the names of all his mistresses.

    I a way, I guess he has to do this (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:17:20 PM EST
    He's likely to run in the 2012 Republican Senate primary, right?

    If he is (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    let's put him there. Out of the Caucus tomorrow.

    I'm with that (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    Let him deal directly with the Club for Growth.

    yep (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    republicans are showing that unlike dems they know how to deal with his ilk

    Really? (none / 0) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    I thought his poll numbers were in the tank? I can't believe the Republican's would let him slide in anyway. If he runs again, I would think it will have to be as an independant.

    Let's build the Olympia Snowe Freedom Bridge in (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    Portland, Maine, or something like that, and get her to be #60.

    She hasn't yet said she's a definite NO vote (especially on cloture).

    Good luck with that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    I like your style, stevie! n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:28:42 PM EST
    The greatest gift of all (none / 0) (#108)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:29:51 PM EST
    would be for Olympia Snowe to force Maine to opt out of the "public option"  The voters may love her there, but this would finish her I am certain.

    Robust public option now? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cenobite on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    What do you base that on?

    What SHOULD happen or what you think the Senate will actually do?

    Since there will be no need to appease (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    the Conerva Dems, go for the option preferred by the majority of Dems.

    50 votes is all you need.


    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:41:36 PM EST
    considering no one has gone to bat for Lieberman moreso than Harry Reid.  I have my doubts that Reid intends to stand idly by as Lieberman sticks a shiv in his reelection chances.

    Until proven otherwise my assumption is always that Holy Joe is simply whoring for attention.  I'll believe in a Democratic filibuster when I see it.

    Hard words to walk back (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:44:34 PM EST
    but I see it as an opportunity anyway.

    I always wanted to see the bill split in 2.

    Public option and money stuff through reconciliation and the rest through normal order.

    Now's the time.


    Give 'em hell Harry (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    Correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#49)
    by cenobite on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    But I recall that when this Senate first met, they were all set to kick him, but Obama said he didn't want that, so they backed down.

    If this is right, then he owes his committee chair to Obama, and now Lieberman is ready to stab Obama in the back on his number 1 legislative priority?

    I call BS. Make him do it, and if he does, he gets the heave-ho.


    Your're wrong (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    though Obama did support Lieberman's retention in the Caucus.

    he still (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    has only himself to blame for backing him in the primary.

    in the ELECTION (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:20:35 PM EST

    He didn't (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    He backed him in the primary. So did all the Dems.

    Gosh, you can almost set your (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    watch by when Lieberman sees the opportunity to be the center of attention; I say, give him something to really beat his breast over: strip him of his committee chairs, and do so immediately.  

    In addition to Joe's like-clockwork grabs for attention, it also ticks me off that he does so in this case without even fully understanding what it is he's promising to filibuster; maybe he should be asked when he's planning to "opt-out" of the Medicare he no doubt takes full advantage of.  Would seem like the honest and primcipled thing to do, which is exactly why he would never consider it.

    I hope Harry is feeling sufficiently feisty to tell his colleague to step off, and not to be surprised if it turns out to be a cliff and not a curb.

    Lieberman is the definition of odious.

    Lieberman has volunteered (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:43:44 PM EST
    to be the one to kill the public option. IMO that takes Reid and Obama off the hook.

    If 59 Senators agree to vote for cloture on HCR with a trigger rather than see no legislation, then with Snowe's vote we are just as likely to be back to a trigger option as to go to reconciliation.

    Kill HCR is what it would do (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    I doubt very much that s Obama's goal.

    Reconciliation should be put on the table NOW.


    opt-out (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Illiope on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:47:10 PM EST
    for his efforts to ensure continued health-profiteering lieberman has just opted out of his chairmanship position...

    or, that is what should happen if the dems grew a pair

    Public option is dead (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    Time to move on

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    Hahaha (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    Ho Ho Ho (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    In all seriousness until someone can describe what the public option is and will be who knows what will happen but to pretend that the votes are there is ludicrous.

    I want to know why Reid even did what he did.  The cynic in me was to show it couldn't pass and move on.

    The nuclear option won't happen so let's stop pretending it will.  

    The final bill is going to be so water downed and awful that I can guarantee no one will like it.


    "won't happen" (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by CST on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:24:50 PM EST
    why not?

    It's not like this is a new tactic that has never been used before.

    Republicans used it all the time.  It's time for the Dems to step up and show they can play hardball.  Elections have consequences.

    Before you start with the "but Republicans were baaaad", it's about the policy not the process.  They were very good at process.  Their ideas just happen to s*ck.


    Reconciliation is a normal procedure (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:23:34 PM EST
    And the threat of it should get everyone back in line.

    Funny thing is no one seems to be taking Lieberman seriously on this.

    Except me and a few others.



    When a guy goes from Democratic VP (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by steviez314 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    candidate to "Independent" to John McCain roadie, I wouldn't take any statement of his as the LAST, FINAL, DEFINITIVE word.

    You think maybe Lieberman is looking (none / 0) (#100)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    for whatever Obama might need to promise him in exchange for his support?

    Ya think? (none / 0) (#105)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 08:11:00 PM EST
    Lieberman never does anything for free.

    Words of wisdom from The 1/2 (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:01:54 PM EST
    "... what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America. I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate so that he can continue to serve on our behalf."

    - Barack Obama in 2006 endorsing Lieberman over Lamont.

    Here come the roosting chickens.

    amen (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    lets not lose sight of who is really to blame here.
    if not for him and the rest of the freakin villagers we would have Senator Ned Lamont for a robust public option.

    really? (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    the voters of CT had nothing to do with it?

    I mean, I get it, there is no doubt he shouldn't have supported him in 06.  But I for one, do not think that is what swung the election.  Then again, I've never thought much of the endorsement factor.


    His just deserts. (3.50 / 2) (#81)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    It's not as if Obama's endorsement swung voters to Lieberman.
    Actually, they rejected Obama's advice and voted for Lamont to be the democratic nominee.

    The point is how craven and gutless and immoral Obama can be when his career is at stake. Either that - or he really believes that crap that he put before the voters in Connecticut.

    Either way, it is a stomach-turner.

    Now, let him live with Lieberman.


    well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    Palpaliebermantine was his mentor or something, right.

    explains a lot.


    the entire (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    dem establishment was behind Palpalibermantine.

    it helped.  in the primary and the election.

    but the "people of CT", of course.
    same as the dem villagers it would be fun to seen them get what they deserve if we didnt have to get it too.

    I just hope to god if it ends up being opt-out they are forced to opt-out.


    WH Response (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:23:20 PM EST
    Talk about a slap down! (snark)

    Robert Gibbs hadn't seen Joe Lieberman's filibuster threat, but had this to say in response: "I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year."

    Whipped with a soggy noodle!

    Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    Doesn't have the votes for a robust public option, so I don't know what would come out of a reconciliation.

    The House Dem leadership has conducted its preliminary whip count and has tallied up less than 200 likely Yes votes in support of a health care reform bill with a robust public option, well short of the 218 needed for passage, according to an internal whip count document I've obtained.

    The document -- compiled by the office of House leader James Clyburn -- was distributed privately at a meeting between Clyburn and House progressives today where the fate of the public option was the subject of some contentious debate, with liberals demanding that House leaders push harder to win over votes.

    Clyburn spokesperson Kristie Greco would only say: "We currently do not have the votes for a robust public option."

    Shurg (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    Honestly, I don't know what's the matter with these people. I give up.

    Interestingly enough (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    There will be a "tough vote" on this no matter what.

    There 47 Dems said to be against it will put their positions on the record.

    No hiding on this anymore.


    LIEberman doing what he is supposed to... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by pluege on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    performing according to plan.

    LIEberman is part of obama's arsenal to keep from giving progressives what he let them think he was promising them. There is no other rational explanation for obama keeping LIEberman in a position where he could wreck every progressive initiative: LIEberman plays a very prominent role, along with blue dogs and obama's bipartisan unity schtick in making sure obama does not deliver what progressives want. All are intended and used to keep obama from having to fulfill the impressions he let progressives invent that he, obama is with them.  

    11 dimensional chess alright, but not against who progressives think its against.

    That's what I was thinking (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    Is there still a built-in timeline on reconciliation?

    Please (none / 0) (#2)
    by robrecht on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    Tell me wy we still need a bicameral legislature?

    Lieberman will . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    . . . continue to hold his chairmanship, etc. ?????

    it would be (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    funny to see the dem "establishment" get what they deserve, including the O, if we did not have to get it with them.

    Lieberman (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    loses his chairmanship, the Dems lose 60 votes. I think that's all it would take to get him to caucus with the Repubs.

    What 60 votes? (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by CST on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    If we don't have it on healthcare, what is the use of Lieberman?  There is no indication he will vote with the Dems on anything.  It really doesn't matter where he caucuses.  We seem to have just as easy a time getting one of the ladies from Maine as Lieberman.  Let him be a republican, there is nothing to lose that isn't already lost.

    Politically (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    It would have been better for Reid to NOT have him cuz then the cries of "we have 60" would never have come.

    jinx (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    what would you call (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    what he is now doing?

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:50:20 PM EST
    Lieberman would have so much power and influence as the 41st member of the minority party, I'm sure he's right on the brink of taking that leap.  Any second now.

    Meaningless 60th vote (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    The funny thing about the comment you respond to is that THIS, voting for cloture is the purpose of having Lieberman at all.

    If he does not do this, no reason to have him in the Caucus.

    It should be put to him plainly - vote for cloture or out you go.


    Worksd for me. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:14:33 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    What power and influence would he have if he lost his chairmanship?  They wouldn't listen to him anyway.

    Um what? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    Are you making Steve's argument for him?

    No (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    My point was, what reason would he have to stay and caucus with the Dems if he lost his chairmanship?  And you're right - we keep hearing about the fictional "60 votes", so it's obviously psychologically important to them to keep that, even if reality doesn't match.

    Ahh (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    Well, better to be in the majority but certainly the chairmanship should be the main lure on this.

    But he will run as a Republican in 2012.


    A republican in CT, one who killed public (none / 0) (#67)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    health care, good luck Joe!

    I dunno (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    the power to present amendments and more easily procure legislation that benefits his constituents and advances his political agenda, I guess.  You make it sound like being in the majority party is functionally irrelevant unless you get to chair a committee.

    They wouldn't want him either (none / 0) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:18:44 PM EST
    Do you think the conservative wing of the Republican Party would want him? Maybe as a PR tool but that would wear out the first time he crossed them. They don't take kindly to dissenters. Republican march in step or they're gone.

    Good thought (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    He likes going against the grain, gives him a thrill up his leg, so let him join the GOP and get his thrills going against what they want him to do.

    Prior statement (none / 0) (#13)
    by waldenpond on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    Lieberman made that statment on a prior occasion.  Wasn't it Friday or this weekend?  I thought it was before Reid's statement yesterday?

    Lieberman clarified today by saying (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by magster on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    what he meant last week was that he wouldn't filibuster the bill coming to the floor, but clarifying now to say that he would join the filibuster of the bill coming to a vote.

    You see, by making that distinction, Lieberman has made himself not be a dishonorable liar.


    Stand and Deliver? (none / 0) (#36)
    by bselznick on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    When will the spineless Reid make people like this pull a Mr Smith and read the damn phonebook non-stop in order to filibuster?

    I'd love to see CNN Headline, "No Healthcare for You -- Day 3" and a clip of Joe reading birthday cards from his relatives.

    But in reality Reid and most Dems could really careless about this, after all they already have government healthcare, and they really want all of  those corporate contributions.  The show must go on.

    Silly (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    I;d rather pass the bill than do ridiculous stuff like that, which BTW, movies notwithstanding, the rules do not require.

    Reconciliation. Learn the word and shout it loud.


    I like the Schumer Reconciliation (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:22:42 PM EST
    and I've always favored using reconciliation for good parts of the bill. I think that will get you the best bill, the strongest bill and the bill that will have the greatest positive effect on the American people. Ultimately, we'll be judged not by whether we pass the bill, but ultimately we'll be judged by weather it works. Leaving the bill as something that doesn't work, even if we pass it, leads to hurting both the country and the party.

    and Trigger remark:

    I lay out three criteria for a public option: to be available to all, i.e. national, to be available on day one, and to have the strength to go up against the insurance companies and the suppliers. And I stick with those three criteria. And it's hard to see how a trigger that takes effect three years from now would meet those three.

    BTD (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    do you think Obama has the spine to do reconcilliation? He's bypassed this option before.

    I don't think it's up to him (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    It would be on congress.  The members of which have shown some surprising backbone in recent days.  So I'm optimistic.

    Obama being on board would help, for sure.  But at the end of the day, he's not gonna veto the bill because they passed it using reconcilliation.


    Headline at Think Progress: (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    Insurance Stocks Plunged As Reid Announced Public Option, Spiked After Lieberman Vowed To Filibuster It

    Lieberman's opposition to the public option puts him completely out of step with Connecticut voters. As this polling from 538.com's Nate Silver shows, voters in every single one of Connecticut's congressional districts favor the inclusion of a public option in health care legislation by wide margins. The stated reason for Lieberman's opposition to the public option -- that it would increase the debt and create another entitlement -- is misplaced. As ThinkProgress has noted before, the public option would be self-sustaining and would cut the deficit.

    Insurance giant Aetna, represented by the blue line above, fared the best among all of the health insurance companies. Aetna is based in Hartford, CT. It is also the tenth largest single private contributor to Lieberman's re-election committee.

    BTD, I know you're not a Nate Silver fan (at least I think that's the case), but regardless, I don't think this can be seen as anything other than Joe doing what Joe does best: grabbing the attention - he must not have gotten any recent invites to the Sunday shows...

    Joe ensuring (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    more than anything else, IMHO, that his campaign coffers will continue to be filled by the health insurance industry, a substantial portion of which is headquartered in CT.  He's so in love with himself, he can't imagine the voters of CT tossing him out no matter what he does.  And he's sure got his last election to reassure him in that.

    Rumblings at the betting windows (none / 0) (#83)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    So much gambling (and chicanery in the stables) holding up our economy.  Which horse is on Lasix? Who's the best mudder?  Except this race has been rigged for awhile. Something to take, ahem, stock of. Can we? I just don't know, but at least I feel a smidgen less skeptical today. A smidgen.

    Less skeptical today? (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 05:42:50 PM EST
    I read that and assumed Reid and Lieberman conspired beforehand and made a killing a la Randolph and Mortimer.

    And it won't stop until we start acting like Louis and Billy Ray and turn the tables.


    Remember Sen. Franken... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    ...in that movie? As one of the two bumbling idiots taking care of the gorilla?

    Need to see that uncut again one of these days.

    Is there a problem, officers?

    I can see! I can see!


    Nobody voting in 2010 (none / 0) (#71)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:50:36 PM EST

    is going to alter their decisions because the Dems used reconciliation to pass HCR with robust PO.  They either will like it or not, the process used won't change a single vote and probably will have been long forgotten.

    so glad to see (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    its not just me making the Senator Palpaliebermantine comparison

    By the way, where is the Leiberman recall effort (none / 0) (#74)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    at in CT?

    Alas, CT isn't one of the 18 Sen/Recall states ... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ellie on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    ... according to this info:

    The 18 states allowing for recall are as follows: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

    But there must be other ways to get rid of the whiny little f*cker.


    Actually (none / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:26:17 PM EST
    you can't recall a U.S. Senator anywhere.  It's unconstitutional.

    Is that explicitly stated anywhere? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ellie on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    I can't measure the accuracy of the above (eHow) but given the times, I wouldn't let unconstitutionality stop a media campaign against, eg, Landrieu.

    Harry Reid on the Joe "problem:" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    "Joe Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid's problems," Reid told reporters at his weekly press conference.

    During a Q&A session with reporters, Reid offered a fairly spirited defense of Lieberman, signaling perhaps that he doesn't believe Lieberman will ultimately be an obstacle-or at least that he doesn't want to tip his hat: "I don't have anyone that I've worked harder with, have more respect for, in the Senate than Joe Lieberman. As you know, he's my friend. There are a lot of senators-Democrat and Republicans-who don't like [parts of this bill]... Sen. Lieberman will let us get on the bill, and he'll be involved in the amendment process."

    [my bold]


    Doesn't look like there is any punishment coming Joe's way from Harry...argh.

    Seems like... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    ...to get punished in Congress today you'd have to all but skin alive a legless cat during roll call. If the thing had legs, forget it, it had the chance to run away.

    Punished for what? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    Senators say they may vote for this and they may not vote for that all the time.  No one gets punished just for posturing.

    Well, then let me put it this way: (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    if Joe is free to "posture" and be an overall pain in the a$$, and give less-than-lip-service to his commitment to the Democratic caucus, well, I would say the leadership is just as free to tell Joe to STFU and posture that it is open to rewarding him by stripping him of his committee chairmanship.

    Seriously, why hasn't the era of Joe Lieberman been declared over, fini, kaput?

    Did you ever hear Joe Lieberman whine about the debt and the deficit even as we were - and are - spending billions on war?  


    finally (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    something we agree on

    Sure (none / 0) (#101)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    if Lieberman gets really annoying then the leadership can start floating trial balloons.  Judging by Harry Reid's reaction today he seems this as more run-of-the-mill posturing and nothing to get excited over.

    Changing gears slightly, one reason why Nancy Pelosi has been an effective leader of such a staggeringly diverse coalition in the House is that she understands you have to give people breathing room and you can't get out the tongs every time someone takes the smallest step out of line.  You couldn't run a government for very long with a modus operandi of publicly humiliating every party member who makes dissenting noises.


    Um, first, Joe Lieberman is not (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 07:03:21 PM EST
    a party member, remember?

    Secondly, this is the kind of "slippery slope" strawman argument that's just silly.  Bringing the hammer down, finally, on Lieberman is in no way equivalent to "publicly humiliating every party member who makes dissenting noises."

    Lieberman quit the party altogether after the party in his own state rejected him, then wheedled his way into keeping a chairmanship he no longer was entitled to anyway.  Makes no sense to keep a pet snake that keeps sinking its fangs into you.


    One wonders why Lieberman does (none / 0) (#82)
    by joze46 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    What he does? To be sure the Lieberman personal fortune is likely flourishing.

    That has to be the only reason any man of his nature can appear before the public without flinching and feel no political remorse acting as the "Ass Messiah in Judaism". Dealing with guy is like dealing with devil in big letters. Perhaps the reasons the Middle East is on fire. Or eggs Sunni side up for breakfast.

    Very elementary, the Democrats have done a wonderful job of flushing out those politicos's, those radical Kinkers who don't really care about America just those who care about big bucks in their personal fortunes. These kinds of people, the so call Blue dogs too, Bush and Company right wing Wahhabist will say anything paid the right amount. Just as the Limbaugh will say what ever it takes stir the pot, and fill his account, now the Mike Huckabee report's tossed in between Rush Limbaugh's hate radio program. Huckabee news report is very likely one "hell of deal" now on WLS in Chicago. How about that stuff? Actually the secret stuff Limbaugh was talking about the, Huckabee report is his new secret scheme.  

    The public option needs to have what the republicans always talk about, pro life, or right to life details. Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama fills the Public Option with right to life health care proposals but the Republicans reject it?  Senator Grassley is the perfect example of the devil in the details with big letters and Co Chairman the death panel with Lieberman.

    Per TPM (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    Link...Reid will vote for cloture and to proceed the bill.

    [Note that [Lieberman] says he would vote to proceed to the bill -- just not to move to final passage. There will be several turning points:....]

    Lets not forget Hadassah LIEberman (none / 0) (#99)
    by pluege on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 05:09:23 PM EST
    works for a health and pharmaceutical company lobbying firm.

    you stick with the opt out version (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 08:32:14 PM EST
    and try to pick up a few states where the republican is not in line with the voters.  Use it to your advantage....

    at least it's transparent (none / 0) (#107)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:40:48 PM EST
    When the robust option has massive cost overruns, we'll know who to blame, as opposed to people blaming republicans for private insurance problems which would have been "solved" by a non-existent public option.