Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, December 14, 2009

The Best Lack All Conviction

Posted by on Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:01 AM

First, some analysis from Matthew Yglesias:

Looks like Joe Lieberman decided to try for the old double-cross and say he now opposes the Medicare expansion compromise he’d hinted he would support. Lieberman wants no public option, no trigger that might create a public option, and no expansion of existing programs as a substitute for a public option. And he doesn’t care about expressing that view in misleading ways, timed to cause embarrassment to the Democratic leadership.... [But] the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising.

Voters in Connecticut support the public option by wide margins. We don't need any more pansy-assed liberal "vigils." What we need, Connecticut voters, are a few Florida-in-2000/teabaggers-at-the-gates style riots. Connecticut voters—the folks who inflicted Joe Lieberman on us in the first place—should head to Lieberman's offices in Connecticut and Washington D.C. and shut 'em down. And the Democratic leadership needs to fucking strip Lieberman of his chairmanship already. Consequences, consequences.

 

Comments (11) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Part of the issue is also that Democratic leaders seem more concerned with conciliation and appearing bipartisan than, you know, actually accomplishing anything. Lieberman wields such disproportionate sway over the Senate in large part because the Dems are ALLOWING him to do so.
Posted by Anne in MA on December 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM
rob! 2
Would love it if Hadassah dumped his two-timing ass so he can go full time with Mitch McConnell.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on December 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 3
Connecticut . . . ugh. Half the state is Yankees fans; the other half is Red Sox fans. If they can't even agree on something as important as that, how the hell do you expect them to get this straight?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on December 14, 2009 at 9:27 AM
4
Why would Connecticut voters want to throw him out? He's protecting their rich, insurance-working asses. They're too comfortable to riot, and anyway the slush would ruin their Tod's.
Posted by lily on December 14, 2009 at 9:39 AM
5
If I were a religious man and you were my God...and we were in Savage Church...I'd say Amen!
Posted by agraham on December 14, 2009 at 9:43 AM
6
wha

whaaa

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Posted by we've heard this song before on December 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM
7
Dan, good to see you posting to Matthew Yglesias. He's got a great blog--sharp, clear-eyed, progressive stuff. No obeisance to the sacred cows of liberalism.

Y'know, I think Yglesias has really cut to the kernel of the problem. To get 60 votes to prevent a filibuster, you need either Joe Lieberman or Olympia Snowe--which effectively means the health insurance industry has veto power over health insurance reform. So don't you have to resort to reconciliation, where you only need 50 votes + Biden?

Bush and the Republican Congress managed to get the tax cuts for the rich and the multi-trillion-dollar Medicare prescription drug handout through on reconciliation. If they can use that hammer to destroy the federal govt's balance sheet, why can't we use it to start to repair the federal govt's balance sheet? Now, I know there are certain limits on what can be passed through with reconciliation and what can't. But at this point, wouldn't reconciliation-constrained health reform be far better than Lieberman-constrained health reform?
Posted by cressona on December 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM
8
I just wrote: "Dan, good to see you posting to Matthew Yglesias." Meant linking to.
Posted by cressona on December 14, 2009 at 10:24 AM
9
why is it when the repubs had a majority, but not sixty, they were able, successfully to paint the dems as obstructionist if they used the sixty threshold to prevent a vote, but now that the dems have a majority for issues, but not sixty, they don't REMIND the country that the repubs used to insist on, and GET simple majority votes on bills, that, with a simple republican majority were then passed and became law?????
Posted by myr on December 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM
ohbalto 10
I'm desperately curious to see the two following things:

(1) the straw that FINALLY breaks the camel's metaphorical back and causes the Dems to FINALLY kick goddamned Joe motherfucking Lieberman to the curb. The man is totally useless and he empowers the Right by his mere presence.

(2) Joe's whiny kvetching over being kicked to the curb. That's gonna be great. He's gonna put on the hurt face and talk about how the Dems betrayed him.

Maybe he can be Sarah Palin's running mate in 2012?
Posted by ohbalto on December 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM
11
I disagree with you analysis. He can vote any way he wants on this measure, so long as he sticks with the Democrats on the cloture votes. Since they just had a vote allowing things to progress, I assume he is doing that.
Posted by charlie2001 on December 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy