home

Lieberman Was For The Public Option Before He Was Against It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:58:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Kos, Joe Lieberman in 2006, when he was running for reelection:

After making that promise to the people of Connecticut in 2006, Liebrman now says:

“If we create a public option, the public is going to end up paying for it . . . That’s a cost we can’t take on.”

Joe Lieberman, now and forever, a bald faced liar.

Speaking for me only

< The Beltway Still Does Not Understand The Emerged Democratic Majority | Michael Jackson's Will >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Lieberman Was For The Public Option Before He Was Against It | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    there is no one I detest more in politics (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    than Joe Lieberman.

    I guess Joe... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:39:20 PM EST
    got tired of Ben Nelson getting all the recent attention.

    Didn't Obama intervene to keep Lieberman from losing his seniority and chairmanships?

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    Wonder if Kos wrote a diary titled "Obama thinks Lieberman should keep his chairmanships."

    [ Parent ]
    plus (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    one

    [ Parent ]
    even Bush (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:04:30 PM EST
    or Cheney have the advantage of seeming if not more honest at least less devious


    [ Parent ]
    Surely you mean American (none / 0) (#5)
    by me only on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:27:18 PM EST
    politics.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't call me (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    Surely . . .

    Rimshot . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Ever thought about touring with (none / 0) (#11)
    by me only on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    Dan Whitney?

    It could be worse, I could confuse you with Trevino.

    [ Parent ]

    Trevino never cracked a joke (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    in his life. At least not that I am aware of.

    A VERY SERIOUS GUY>

    [ Parent ]

    I heard him described as a (none / 0) (#18)
    by me only on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:26:20 PM EST
    non-funny individual.  I wouldn't know, I don't think I have ever read anything by him.  So it would make sense that he isn't funny if he doesn't joke around.

    On the other hand after your Shirley "joke" I wonder how I could mistake the two of you...

    [ Parent ]

    We Latinos all look alike . . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:30:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    kim jung il (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both have more credibility and would probably be a more reliable democratic vote.

    [ Parent ]
    This Can't Be Right (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    I'm just sure Obama and the Dems got Ol' Joe to commit to supporting the President's alleged agenda* before letting him keep his chairmanship.  

    * I say alleged agenda because it certainly doesn't look like Obama is pushing very hard to enact anything in particular.  It seems he just wants to pass something - anything - and call it "reform" whether it's healthcare, financial regulation or climate change.  If he really had a policy agenda, he would've gotten commitments from guys like Lieberman to support it.  

    Were there (none / 0) (#15)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    ANY conditions whatsoever on Liberman keeping the chairmanship? If not, what a wasted opportunity. If so, it raises the question you rightly ask -- what specifically was demanded?

    [ Parent ]
    Joe must be pining for the limelight (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    again; he's so freakin' predictable it's ridiculous.

    Lieberman is a perfect example of Dems (or Independent Dems, as I think Joe identifies himself) "winning" elections, but as a body, continuing to lose where it matters - in the halls of Congress.

    Maybe we could take up a collection to get Senate Democratic "Whip" Dick Durbin a replacement for the overcooked-spaghetti he's been wielding - something in leather that splits atoms when it's cracked seems to be sorely needed.

    And if we don't! (none / 0) (#7)
    by dead dancer on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    The public will end up paying for it either way Joe!

    What a bucket of bs

    We'll pay more w/o a public option. (none / 0) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:44:07 PM EST
    But that's a-okay with old Joementum!

    [ Parent ]
    Bald-face liar (none / 0) (#13)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    indeed. Let's boot him from office before he becomes a bald-headed liar too.

    What do you know (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    Like our president Liberman will say one thing during a campaign and do another once in office.

    Imagine that.

    Joe has been doing it forever (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    Obama is an amateur next to Joe.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah because he's only been (2.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    at it for about 6 years.

    You need to be patient.  And Obama's in the big seat now compared to Joe and his flip flops matter more.

    [ Parent ]

    "What I'm saying to the people (none / 0) (#20)
    by Spamlet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    of Connecticut: drop dead."

    Joe (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    Lieberman is an example of how you need to think primary challenges out carefully.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:02:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Considering (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    the fact that a lot of time and money was wasted trying to primary him for what? So that he could continue to say these things? He might be an I now but the village continually gives his comments credence and since he was a Dem at one time his criticisms of the D party seem to always get carried by the idiot village. In the end, it might've been better to leave him alone or actually have an R from the state. I fail to see where Lieberman does anyone any good.

    [ Parent ]
    So (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:42:44 PM EST
    After all your criticisms of Obama. NOW you say we should not have primaried Lieberman? Wow.

    [ Parent ]
    You're missing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    my point. It would've been worthwhile if it accomplished something. It did nothing. Do you think it accomplished something? That's what you're implying.

    [ Parent ]
    And if (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    you think I'm a fan of Lieberman you're sorely mistaken. Obama is the Lieberman presidency we never had or at least that's what it looks like so far.

    [ Parent ]
    He should be expelled from the party (none / 0) (#29)
    by MrConservative on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:48:18 PM EST
    And preferably the senate, for being a lying jackass.

    Great idea! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Pragmatist on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    Lets get rid our all the liars in the House & Senate.  Oh, wait...there wouldn't be anyone left... That would be progress!

    [ Parent ]
    Running true to form (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeany on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:10:20 AM EST
    He's caught lying to his voters again.

    I bet alot more pols (none / 0) (#31)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:22:43 AM EST
    who were for it will be against it once the CBO report is coupled with the final bill.

    Isn't politician synonymous with liar? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Pragmatist on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    Is there any current politician (non 1st term) who isn't a liar?

    no mountain of debt in 2006 (none / 0) (#34)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 07:17:24 PM EST
    In 2006 there was no mountain of debt and no recession.  In 2006 there might have been enough money to throw at health care without creating a bigger massive debt mess.  Things are different now.  
    When the material facts of a situation change, some people change their opinions.  What do you do?

    Just one small problem to the tune of 200 billion (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:27:52 PM EST
    In 2006 there was no mountain of debt and no recession.

    Really?

    There is a significant difference between the reported budget deficit and the change in debt. The key differences are: 1) The Social Security surplus, which reduces the "off-budget" deficit often reported in the media; and 2) Non-budgeted spending, such as for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The debt increased by approximately $550 billion on average each year during the 2003-2007 period, but then increased over $1 trillion during FY 2008.

    The cumulative debt of the United States in the past 8 completed fiscal years was approximately $4.3 trillion, or about 43% of the total national debt of ~$10.0 trillion as of September 2008.[63][64]

    More than 200 billion for 2006 isn't a mountain of debt?

    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    True about the recession, at least.

    When the material facts of a situation change, some people change their opinions.  What do you do?

    I try to get the facts right, and then get the quote right as well:

    When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
    2006 mountain of debt (none / 0) (#36)
    by diogenes on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:39:35 PM EST
    If you call the 2006 deficit a "mountain of debt", then the 2010 deficit reaches the upper edges of the atmosphere.  
    You didn't say whether the change in the amount of the deficit from 2006 to 2010 merits possible reconsideration of enacting new social programs in 2010.

    Lieberman Was For The Public Option Before He Was Against It | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment