Public option would lead him to filibuster, key senator says
From Dana Bash, CNN
October 28, 2009 11:25 a.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday he would join a Republican filibuster to block the final vote on any health care bill that has a government-run public health insurance option.
Lieberman's vote is crucial to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hopes of passing a health care bill that includes the controversial public option. Reid announced Monday he would send to the full Senate a health care bill that has a public option but also allows states to opt out of that provision.
Lieberman said he would support a vote to launch debate on the health care bill but would oppose a motion to end debate if the public option remains in the legislation. Democrats would need 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to close debate on the bill, and the Democratic caucus has 60 members, including Lieberman.
"I can't see a way in which I can vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated and run insurance company," the Connecticut senator said. "It's just asking for trouble."
What the fuck is this guy's problem? Seriously, is he actually trying to be a giant douchebag? It seems like he's doing everything in his power to be exactly what Jon Stewart caricatures him as.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Connecticut is home to a lot of the insurance industry. He's probably bought and paid for, when it comes to them.
Secondly, in the event of a filibuster, Harry Reid will use the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill, thereby only needing 50 votes plus Joe Biden to pass the bill. This will, of course, piss off the Republicans to no end, but they used the the same process several times during the first term of George W. Bush.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans, III vi.
If it comes to that, I hope they do not give the Republicans any concessions in the bill. If you're going to have to ram it down their throats, you should also remind them that they threw away any chance of compromise with their behaviour.
Unfortunately, there are enough "Blue Dog" traitors that I suspect they would revolt if the bill did not contain numerous insurance industry ballsack-licking measures.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Alferd Packer wrote:Connecticut is home to a lot of the insurance industry. He's probably bought and paid for, when it comes to them.
Secondly, in the event of a filibuster, Harry Reid will use the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill, thereby only needing 50 votes plus Joe Biden to pass the bill. This will, of course, piss off the Republicans to no end, but they used the the same process several times during the first term of George W. Bush.
The other senator from CT Chris Dodd has been advocating for the public option however so I'm not sure if it's money or just Lieberman being Lieberdouche.
Also my understanding is it would be questionable whether or not the Senate Parliamentarian would accept creating a whole new public option, the inherent idea being that reconciliation is used for revising existing programs.
Alferd Packer wrote:Secondly, in the event of a filibuster, Harry Reid will—
—obligingly take it up the ass for Lieberman and the Republicans, as he's accustomed to, and let Holy Joe ground everything to a halt.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
If they had a Senate Majority Leader with any balls, he'd make him fillibuster. As it is, the Democrats are the party of no testicles (with the exception of a select few, like Alan Grayson) so he'll just take the threat as if he actually were going to fillibuster.
LMSx wrote:Also my understanding is it would be questionable whether or not the Senate Parliamentarian would accept creating a whole new public option, the inherent idea being that reconciliation is used for revising existing programs.
If the Senate Parliamentarian balks, the Democrats will simply fire him and replace him with a more pliant one. The Republicans did this when they first attempted to use the budget reconciliation process back in the W's first term.
Darth Wong wrote:If it comes to that, I hope they do not give the Republicans any concessions in the bill. If you're going to have to ram it down their throats, you should also remind them that they threw away any chance of compromise with their behaviour.
Unfortunately, there are enough "Blue Dog" traitors that I suspect they would revolt if the bill did not contain numerous insurance industry ballsack-licking measures.
Well, revolting puts these senators in a compromising position. By not staying with the party, they can kiss their chances of getting help from the DSCC in in the next election goodbye. In districts with a low PVI, this lack of funding could be crucial, especially because it means they'll have a tough primary fight to overcome before the general election. It also means that, for the remainder of their terms, anything they try to push will be ignored. I would wager the Blue Dogs like power more than they like their principles, so the vast majority of them will hem and haw...and then fold like cheap suits when it comes time to vote.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans, III vi.
I think Vympel has a point: forcing your political opponent to stand up and actually block a health care bill, allowing you to tell their constituents that Politician X fought tooth and nail against health care for their children, is much better than just giving up and doing whatever Politician X wants because he threatened to filibuster.
Plus, to be honest, no one can filibuster forever; there's a physical stamina limit. And in this era, with everyone so damn terrified of the thing, it's not like senators get a lot of practice doing their Cato the Younger impersonations...
Darth Wong wrote:What the fuck is this guy's problem? Seriously, is he actually trying to be a giant douchebag? It seems like he's doing everything in his power to be exactly what Jon Stewart caricatures him as.
He has always been a douche nozzle. He got his start in politics as white supremacist fucktard William Buckley's favorite Democrat and the Republitards supported him against Lowell Weicker (a left-wing Republican senator). He has always been a vile, disgusting little worm. The fact that the Democratic Party, knowing full well what a weasel Lieberman is, continues to coddle him no matter how many times he knifes the party in the back tells me that they approve of what he's doing. Remember, these losers have been trying desperately to get rid of the public option at every turn, only to have their hands smacked by their constituents. They remind me of what happened during one siege in the Mexican War, when Santa Anna's men kept trying to surrender before the first shot was fired, while Irish volunteers who were willing to fight, had to fight them just to keep them from hoisting the white flag.
Lieberman plans to campaign for Republicans in 2010
After joining with Republicans this week in a promise to filibuster health reform if a public option is included, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) tells ABC News that he plans on campaigning for some GOP candidates in the 2010 elections:
I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the elections in 2010. I’m going to call them as I see them.
There’s a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans. There’s a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them — and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who’s not a Democrat.
Lieberman also said it remains an “open question” whether he will seek the Democratic nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012. Last month, Lieberman also joked that he may run as a Republican. In September 2008, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter — who was then still a member of the GOP — ironically said that Lieberman was “practically” voting as a Republican already and should just switch parties.
I'm all for a big tent- without it we couldn't keep even the marginal control of the Senate we have, and even reactionary 'I'm a Democrat only on marginal issues that don't matter and vote with the Republicans all the time but I'd pretty please like your reelection money anyhow' Democrats like Blanche Lincoln have a place in the party (well, she's at least better than an Arkansas Republican). But let's Primary the fuck out of Lieberman. He's a Connecticutt Democrat. As in CT. New England. He needs to toe the party line like he's elected to, and if he won't then he should be replaced in the primary with a Democrat that will.
We already tried with Lamont, and it's time to definitely finish the job. If we win, we get a real democratic senator. If we lose, we have a third Susan Collins/Olympia Snowe. Either one is preferrable to Lieberman.
I thought Lieberdouche was an Independant now who was caucusing as a "Democrat".
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
Gil Hamilton wrote:I thought Lieberdouche was an Independant now who was caucusing as a "Democrat".
Well, yeah. He got primaried and so he ran on the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" which he made himself, and beat the Democrat, then rejoined the Democratic Party. Then endorsed McCain and campaigned for him, now fights the public option, and is going to campaign for more Republicans.
So why don't we support a Democrat this time full bore, rather than what Ned Lamont was given tepidly, and get rid of "Democrat" Lieberman? He's far more of a liability than even a conservative democrat, and gaining a Liberal Republican (if the election is thrown by Lieberman's presence or just a bad candidate) or a Liberal Democrat in the event of a successful campaign- either of those is better than a Lieberdouche. Worst you could end up with is another Susan Collins, except in an even more liberal state.
