Well, Joe Lieberman could hardly be any clearer that he means to single-handedly (in the Dem caucus) scotch the public option — even that he'd scuttle the whole damn ball of wax just to prevent it. And yet, the reaction from Harry Reid, the President, Chris Dodd, and all has been rather sanguine … or at least they don't feel they need to burn bridges — such as they exist — yet.
So what's going on?
Well, still lurking behind all the negotiating, skullduggery, and open threats is the prospect of reconciliation — 51 votes in the Senate can pass legislation that deals with the deficit in some substantial way — no filibuster.
The public option, particularly the strong, Medicare-linked variety, is a money-saver. Big time. Even the House's health care bill with the limited PO improves the deficit. So presumably, the public option fits very neatly into the reconciliation-eligible category.
However, much of the rest of health care, particularly the new regulations on the insurance industry, the personal mandate, and a whole raft of accompanying legislation, might not be eligible.
So why not pass the big health care bill minus the PO, with 60 votes — presumably including Snowe and Lieberman? And then pass the PO as separate legislation, via reconciliation? It's kind of the obvious strategy, no?
This would explain a couple of things. Reid knows this, the White House knows this, and Lieberman knows all this. I don't believe Lieberman really wants to scotch health care … not per se. He does want to make himself a maximum pain to the Dems — out of pure spite, surely not out of political calculation — and is willing to kill it if the entire political establishment doesn't sufficiently kiss his butt … which it is now doing.
So the price he extracts is that all those progressives who insisted on the public option will have to vote for a health care bill without one. And the President has to bow to His Joeness in settling for a bill without one, even though he's (ostensibly) in favor of the PO. Stuff will hit the fan — Daily Kos will go absolutely nuclear, and — short term — whatever base-rousing benefit may have come from the bill, evaporates.
But only temporarily. Will the progressive base actually stay mad at progressives for accepting an original bill without a public option, but then getting one, say, a month later? I just can't imagine. We would be stupid to be so, especially since a 51-vote PO is likely to be stronger and better than a 60-vote PO.
So … I don't know … maybe Joe Lieberman really is the least of Harry Reid's worries.
Salon, however, is on the case. He has indicated he will likely support some Republicans in 2010 and his health care stances may have something to do with his wife. I sure hope that merely the fact that he continues to caucus with Democrats doesn’t keep the CT Democratic Party from nominating someone else for their ballot line in 2012.
I mean, the reason he won in 2006 was because of machine-y, institutional support and residual support from some liberals and moderates who really should have known better. And I suspect he knows this, which explains his irrationality … uh … if irrationality can be explained. :4a7d3d609129a9296bf7ac0608c2097
(They nominated Ned Lamont over Lieberman), there’s no way in hell he’d get nominated this time. I highly doubt he’d even try for the nomination. The trick is to make him gone for good, losing the general election. I’d say, at this point, he’s odds-on favorite to lose.
…is not that the Democrats will nominate Lieberman, but that they will pass on nominating anyone out of fear of spliting the vote. The example would be Democrats in VT passing on challenging Sanders who is technically not a Democrat himself, but at least he votes our way.
Mr. Sanders has a long and distinguished record of leading us towards our values, nudging us forward when we waver from time to time.
<
p>The comparison to Bernie Sanders is intended by Joe Lieberman and insulting to Senator Sanders.
No insult to Sanders was intended on my part. I just hope CT Democrats do NOT pass on the race and that what Ryan predicts below comes to pass.
This is the lie of his “independent” claim. He’s not independent, he’s a Republican.
<
p>I’m only busting your chops a little bit (by holding you to higher standard because you are a regular here) because these kinds of implicit but bogus comparisons strengthen the black-hats and hurt the white-hats like Bernie Sanders.
as Tom says below, Vermont Democrats love Sanders. He’s extra-super-duper Democrat, to the extent that he doesn’t technically want to be in the party for various reasons. That said, he’s very loyal to the caucus and local democrats love him (as they should).
<
p>The Democrats will challenge him, probably more than one candidate in the Democratic Primary, as if he were the Republican. Why? Because he is the Republican. Democrats in Connecticut don’t have to worry about splitting the vote because Lieberman IS the Republican Candidate.
<
p>He was last time, when the Republican in that race got maybe — maybe — ~10%, not anywhere close to even a majority in his own party. Lieberman has always won his elections because of Republicans and Independents, not because of Democrats. He’s long lost the Democrats and now he’s lost the Independents who voted for him last time. He’s toast.
Lieberman. Party of One. (badda boom)
<
p>Lieberman. A New Kind of Democrat. The Republican Kind. (I’ll be here all week…thankyouverymuch)
that’s the only way on Earth I would ever agree to any of this. There are too many other dems in the caucus who couldn’t be otherwise trusted, if the entire bill weren’t on the line.
What a fine Republican Joe Lieberman, former Attorney General of Connecticut, has become.
<
p>His full-throated support of endless war, and his campaign support for John McCain, Sarah Palin and Norm Coleman makes Democrats’ common cause with Joe a hold your nose affair.
<
p>Like Joe, Martha Coakley is a social liberal and former Attorney General. When the rubber hits the road, where will Martha be on Constitutional rights, on issues like the Patriot Act, Habeus Corpus, Presidential Authority, FISA, warrantless wiretapping, FOIA, rights of the accused, right to appeal?
<
p>She will be right of Kerry but the $60,000 question is how far right of Kerry… in Evan Bayh territory or Diane Feinstein or, god help us, Joe Lieberman territory.
And William Jefferson hid money in his freezer.
<
p>Ergo …
with this argument is that I’m not quite sure reconciliation could pass the PO as a standalone bill. The ruling assumption is that a weak PO can pass because it is a part of healthcare reform as a whole. i.e. even the conservaDems aren’t willing to block an omnibus reform bill to stop a filibuster. While 51 seems like an easy number, I can think of at least 10 members (of the 60 member caucus) who have expressed concern over the public option:
<
p>-Lieberman
-Lincoln
-Pryor
-Bayh
-Landrieu
-Baucus
-Conrad
-(Ben) Nelson
-McCaskill
-Carper
-Tester
-(Bill) Nelson
<
p>A simple internet search will produce quotes from these senators all saying the same thing: “I most likely won’t stop reform over the PO” … so what will they do when “reform” has already passed? It would be a perfect way for them to work towards reform and save face in their conservative states (or ease their own personal conservative views, as is the case with Carper and probably Bill Nelson)
<
p>If we want a PO, we can’t strip it from the bill.
<
p>That didn’t make sense. It should read:
<
p>
If we get a public option the month after the main bill, the entire Washington press corps (not just Fox) will call us sneaky and underhanded, Snowe and Lieberman will be given permanent seats on Meet the Press to knock us (next to McCain’s permanent seat), and the main GOP message for 2010 will be “They snuck it through.” And Kos et al would say there’s something wrong and half-assed about the public option we did get, because if it was good, why wasn’t it in the main bill?
<
p>I’m with you, I’d like them to think in terms of how to get this done. But they’re not, they’re thinking how to get this done and keep their jobs. Hope had a great year in 2008, but fear had a comeback in 2009.
Joe Q Voter will neither remember, care, or even possibly know how it passed come time to vote in 2010 or 2012. If it helps him somehow, he loves it. If it helps someone he knows well enough, he’ll shrug his shoulders. Regardless of the GAO, if he personally isn’t close enough to using it, he’ll believe it’s another gov’t expenditure for those people.
Tell the caucus.
Keep the spotlight on him. Strip him of each privilege, publicly and loudly, one at a time, until he either has nothing left or drops his objection.
<
p>I agree that Mr. Reid shouldn’t worry about him. He’s already a Republican, it’s long past time he was treated as such.
<
p>Treat the Blue Dogs the same way.
<
p>This is piss-or-get-off-the-pot with-us-or-agin-us territory.
<
p>A vigorous public option should stay in the bill. The filibuster should be fought as long, as vigorously, and as viciously as needed. Any Democrats who support it should be returned to freshman status.
<
p>The bill, with a vigorous public option, is the choice of a majority of the Senate, the House, and the public.
I’m starting to wonder whether Senator Melendez of NJ should be the party disciplinarian. He is the Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so he would be well-positioned to recruit more progressive primary challengers. This does run counter to my usual view that a party apparatus shouldn’t choose favorites in the primary, but Republicans are constantly made to fear a primary from their right so maybe it’s time certain Democrats be made to fear a primary from their left.