Joe Lieberman needs to be given this ultimatum: Get with the program or get out!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 14, 2009 - 7:12pm.
Health Care
Hello Everyone:
I cannot believe the attitude that I see coming from Joe "Joementum" Lieberman right now after he was forgiven for so many things and when he was given so much to stay in the Democratic caucus!
Joe Lieberman in my opinion has a lot of nerve to threaten Harry Reid that he is going to support a Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill "if it permits uninsured individuals as young to 55 to purchase Medicare coverage:"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/14/politics/main5977243.shtml
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2009
Lieberman May Torpedo Health Care Reform
Connecticut Senator Tells Majority Leader He's Prepared to Support GOP Filibuster; Opposed to Medicare Buy-In
(CBS/AP) "Senate Democrats who thought they had found a workable compromise on health care reform learned otherwise from independent Sen. Joe Lieberman over the weekend.
The Connecticut senator, whose vote is critical to the bill's prospects, threatened Sunday to join Republicans in opposing health care legislation if it permits uninsured individuals as young to 55 to purchase Medicare coverage.
Lieberman expressed his opposition twice Sunday: first in an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" and more strongly later, according to Democratic officials, in a private meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid..."
Joe Lieberman also pulled a stunt like this back in October:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
Joe Lieberman: I'll block vote on Harry Reid's plan
By MANU RAJU | 10/27/09 1:38 PM EDT
Updated: 10/27/09 6:44 PM EDT
"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.
Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will..."
Back in November of 2008, I supported Obama's decision to forgive Joe Lieberman and to give him a break:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16999
VIDEO: Chuck Todd on why Obama and Dems let Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 21, 2008 - 12:16am.
Joe Lieberman must have a very short memory where he forgot just how VERY big a break that Obama gave him right after the 2008 election:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27825055/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Guests: Richard Wolffe, Chuck Todd, Lawrence O'Donnell, Clarence Page, E.J. Dionne
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC POLITICAL DIRECTOR: "Lieberman will never know. He knows (Bernie) Sanders was against this. He knows Leahy. That's going to take some time.
But he also knows who was with him. So, I think he's going to-you know, he may, overdo it in trying to always get the protection of Obama here. Once again, I go back to what he said. He thanked President-elect Obama. He knows that's who saved him today..."
After everything I have seen so far, I definitely think that the time has finally come for the Senate leadership and The White House to give Joe Lieberman an ultimatum to either get with the program or get out!
Joe "Joementum" Lieberman was forgiven by the Democratic leadership for supporting the Iraq war (strike 1) and for his supporting John McCain & Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential election (strike 2).
Joe Lieberman is on his third strike with health care right now in my opinion. I think that Harry Reid and Dick Durbin (representing the Senate leadership) and either Rahm Emanuel or Joe Biden (representing the White House) need to take "Joementum" in a back door room where there is no media and very bluntly tell him that his Homeland Security Chairmanship and ALL of his seniority will definitely be taken away from him if he backs any Republican filibuster on health care reform!
The Senate leadership and The White House should then say something which is a very sobering slap in the face to Lieberman such as "If you do not promise us right here and right now to at least allow an up or down vote on health care reform, then we are going to remove your chairmanship and strip you of all your seniority to the point where Roland Burris will have more of a seat at our table than you will" in order to make sure that Lieberman totally understands what his choices are, that this is no joke, and what is on the line if he is foolish enough to get in the way of an up or down vote on health care reform!
The Democratic leadership has been more than patient and forgiving with Lieberman in my opinion which is why I think that he should strike out by losing his chairmanship and all of his seniority if he backs a Republican filibuster on health care and if he does not at least agree to allow an up or down vote on it!
If Lieberman threatens to caucus with the Republicans, then he should be told something tough like this:
"We have done all that we can for you Joe and we have forgiven you more than enough so far, we will absolutely not allow you hijack us without VERY serious consequences, so there is the door if you do not like it. If you want to join the Republicans, then that is fine with us. You can deal with them as far as your seniority is concerned, you can deal with their tea party activist base who will probably purge you out if you do not vote their way all of the time, and we will work extra hard to defeat you in 2012 assuming that you survive a Republican primary.
So when you walk out of this room Joe, one of these three things is definitely going to happen:
1) We want you to promise us right here and right now that you will not support any Republican filibusters which will stop an up or down vote on health care or on any other issues. If you do that, then everything will be okay between us and it will be business as usual.
2) You can refuse to make that promise to us and we will strip you of your chairmanship and all of your seniority right now. You will sit on the least important committees at the lowest levels where you will basically be just one vote out of 100 after we are finished with you!
3) You can join the Republicans and deal with them, deal with their hard core activist base who purges out Republicans in Congress who do not vote the way that they like, and you will be in the minority.
The choice is up to you Joe and we hope that you make the right decision but those are your ONLY three choices. If you walk out of here without giving us an answer, then we will automatically strip you of your chairmanship and all of your seniority right now. You are NOT in the driver's seat here Joe, we are, and your days of trying to hold us hostage are over RIGHT NOW one way or another!"
Joe Lieberman is doing far more harm than good right now in my opinion and he is making Harry Reid look like a weak leader. I definitely think that it is time for Lieberman to be given an ultimatum to either get with the program or just get out. Lieberman is one of the most ungrateful people I have ever seen!
Mitch Dworkin
http://mitchdworkin.com/
Check out my political website!
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/34437811#34437811 (07:13)
2010 looks bleak for the Democrats
Dec. 15: Politics Fix: As more House Democrats decide to call it quits next year and not run for re-election, a Hardball panel (Chris Cillizza and Susan Page) debates whether they sense disaster ahead for their party.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/34437811#34437811 (07:13)
Here is the Hardball transcript of the end of this video where Susan Page said about Joe Lieberman "Some Democrats think it‘s not about where Lieberman really stands on this issue, but just the pay-back:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34446894/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Tuesday, December 15th, 2009
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Guests: Julia Boorstin, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Irshad Manji, Susan Page, Chris Cillizza, Tyler Drumheller, Phil Hare, Aaron Schock
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: "Susan Page, the men up there and the women in the big high-rise insurance companies in Hartford, Connecticut, watching this show right now at the office, are clinking their glasses, saying, good for Joe. He‘s fighting for us. He‘s keeping the government out of health care.
SUSAN PAGE, “THE USA TODAY”: This is what really bugs some Democrats. Some Democrats think it‘s not about where Lieberman really stands on this issue, but just the pay-back..."
Lieberman has always been in it for Lieberman, Wes said country before party, if one thing has been true of Lieberman it is his innate willingness to do whatever it takes to stay on office.
I'm not sure he actually has any principles, other than "stay in office". He certainly isn't a democrat or even democrat leaning, he'd be a much better republican.
I completely agree with you but what many people are not seeing is that Joe Lieberman would probably not survive very long in the Republican Party because Rush Limbaugh and their kook tea party activist base are trying to purge the GOP of any Republicans who do not think like them and who do not vote their way all of the time on major legislation!
While Rush Limbaugh likes Joe Lieberman personally, he still thinks that "Lieberman is a liberal Democrat and at the end of the day that's where his loyalties are always going to be" and he believes in "No more RINOs. No more reaching out to moderates" which means to me that Lieberman would also be subject to being primaried and purged out of the Republican Party when he has to run again in 2012:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121509/content/01125106.guest.html
Democrats Will Do Anything to Pass Obamacare; RINOs Clueless
December 15, 2009
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "The Medicare buy-in's gone. For now. The public option is gone, for now.
It is clear they don't care what's in this bill. I saw Susan Collins and she just epitomizes the problem. She's talking to the press: (paraphrasing) "I think Senator Lieberman has improved this bill. I have been working with everybody, the president and his chief of staff, to improve the bill. We can't just say no. We have to sit here and improve the bill." I want to tear my hair out. You know, we've got to get rid of these RINOs. Getting rid of the RINOs in our party is the key to this...
RUSH: Now, I like, as a person, Joe Lieberman. I've met him on a number of occasions...
But I like him as a person. But, you know, he taunts us all the time by saying, "You know what, I can't vote for this," and we gotta love Lieberman. And I keep reminding people there's not really an I next to his name, it's a D. Lieberman is a liberal Democrat and at the end of the day that's where his loyalties are always going to be..."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121509/content/01125111.guest.html
The Limbaugh Strategy for 2010: We Will Be Heard Next November
December 15, 2009
RUSH: "As for whether our side is strong enough, folks, to pull this off, this is why we need a big election -- and the people that we elect need to have backbone, spine. No more RINOs. No more reaching out to moderates. No more excuses for who we are. No more running around apologizing for our party. We don't need to act like Barack Obama, apologizing for America around the world. We have too many people in our party run around apologize for us. "Well, uh, yes, we have been racist in the past and we've been on the wrong side of certain things. 'Will not balance the budget on the backs of the poor,'" all that rotgut. No more! This moderate Republican crap is why we are where we are..."
The hard core activist base of the Republican Party are far less tolerant of dissenting views than most Democrats are. That is a lesson which Joe Lieberman would learn very quickly if he ever decides to officially caucus with the Republicans!
He'll stay an independent, but he may start caucusing with the republicans before too long. He's going to end up persona non grata with most Connecticut democrats and liberals if he keeps pushing to the right on big issues. Joe just really doesn't represent their views, Connecticut is a rather liberal state to begin with and Joe is no liberal.
I think the Democratic party is going to take a major lurch to the left after the Obama era is over. A lot of red state and red district Dems are going to meet the political guillotine in the next two cycles. Lieberman will be even less at home and he is going to have to find something resembling a constituency, and it is going to be the Republicans. Rush Limbaugh is a powerful force in right wing grass roots, but really he's not as powerful in the north east as he is in the south, the rust belt and the mid west.
Joe's got to split the difference between the Lamont crowd and the Limbaugh crowd, and honestly I think given his votes, he is going to have a better shot angling to the right. The Repubican party elders know they are never going to elect a full red blooded republican like a Jim Inhofe or a Sam Brownback in Connecticut no matter what the national political climate is.
No doubt Limbaugh will throw a hissy fit over it, but in the end the Republican party elders will back Lieberman rather than face a race between a full blue blooded Dem like Lamont and a red blooded Republican who could never win.
I think the Democratic party is going to take a major lurch to the left after the Obama era is over.
When pigs fly, I think. In particular, it won't be because of or in reaction to Obama.
People will have perceived that the lurch to the left occurred when Obama was elected. They will think that that didn't work out very well, so why do it again?
Furthermore, if the Republicans come up with some reasonable candidates who don't spew venom in every utterance and actually propose an idea or two, those candidates will get elected in droves.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
"People will have perceived that the lurch to the left occurred when Obama was elected. They will think that that didn't work out very well, so why do it again?"
The question here is which people will think that, and the answer is conservatives, be it republicans, red state dems or right leaning indies. They are going to be the ones thinking we went too far.
Many progressives and liberals on the other hand view Obama as way too far to the right. I mean take most people here at CCN as an example, if you asked people here if Obama was too far to the left or right what answer do you think you would get?
So, given those two sets of facts, it is easy to extrapolate that a lot of 'moderate' Dems are going to swept out in 2010 and 2012. Conservative dems and Indies will vote republican in the swing districts, and a lot of liberals and progressives are going to stay home. The survivors will mainly be in deep blue states and districts where there is a strong enough 'base' to stay afloat.
Hence my prediction of a lurch to the left, the vast majority of districts and states in play for the dems in the next two cycles, maybe even three or four are going to be Dem strongholds. Given that liberals and progressives are already fed up they will want even more radical changes.
Think they were hungry for 'change' when Bush was in? It'll be even more so now that Obama and their own party with a super majority have let them down and failed to deliver on Universal Health Care, ending all of the wars ASAP, and expanding entitlement programs.
This at the same time a huge Democratic constituency, the baby boomers, are about to retire and are rightfully scared there will be no government support for them when they do, no Social Security, no Medicare. People are going to be seriously ticked off to put it mildly.
We are all about to witness the 'Limbaughification' of the Democratic party, our politics are about change, radically. I'm not saying that we are going to swing to Limbaugh's political views. But we are going to move towards his style of very aggressive "no compromise" no holds barred politics. The level of seething populist anger we've seen on the right is going to boil over on the left too.
You can bank on it.
As for the Republicans, yes there will be some moderates elected, but honestly, the push back against Obama and the current Congress is going to be so strong that Limbaugh and company are going to get a lot of red bloods into office, which will polarize the left even more.
Don't forget that the active left--the blogosphere--is a small minority of the voting populace. The people who decide elections will believe what the media tell them. And most voters don't pay enough attention to know on their own if Obama is liberal, moderate, or conservative. Nor could they name many, if any, of the administration people the blogosphere vilifies and why.
What they'll remember, probably, are broken promises and a Democrat-led but fumbling Congress, especially the performance of the Democrats in the health care reform fiasco. So why, pray, would they want to do even more of what didn't work?
If the first six to eight months of 2010 is seen as a string of successes, most importantly a dramatic turn in the jobs picture, then the Democrats may hold on, but it's hard to see how they could increase their majorities.
By the way, the 2010 state legislature elections are critical, since it is those new legislatures who will conduct redistricting both at the state and congressional levels.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
Howard Dean, Wes Clark and Ned Lamont would never have made it as far as they did, and nobody would know who Micheal Moore is.
Not saying all these people are well informed and know their stuff like you, or I or any number of other people here at CCN do. But they do listen to the same sort of people, be Olbermann and Maddow or Stewart and Colbert.
A lot of people are just institutional liberals, not a majority over all, but in the north east, and coastal pacific west there are enough to push the party to left in those areas. There is going to be a lot of hostility towards Dems like Jane Harman and Dianne Finestein. Enough to tip the scales.
Rust belt and red state dems on the other hand are as a rule going to lean to the right when Obama/Pelosi/Reid fail to deliver.
- Look at the success Dean and Wes Clark had toward the nomination. Not even close.
- Nobody would know who Michael Moore is? Fahrenheit 911? Sicko?
- The audiences for Olbermann, Maddow, Stewart, and Colbert are small relative to Fox News. Those audiences, by and large, are the bloggers. And I'd bet that there are huge overlaps in the audiences of those four.
- There may be, in fact, a lot of hostility to Dems like Jane Harman and Dianne Feinstein. If so, they'll be replaced by Republicans, not more liberal Dems.
Q.E.D. Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
I've been wrong before, obviously given my vote for Obama.
But as a rule, after Wes in 04, I've been pretty good at guessing which way the political winds are blowing. Knowing who is going to win, and who will lose.
Either way, we will find out soon enough I'm sure.
I can speak for one household in LA that is lurching left gratis to Obama.
And.... well just about every single Obama voter I know out here as well.
Lurching with an intensity as if their lives depended on it. Like a ship that's going down on its starboard side --and all the passengers are frantically running over to the aft side to try to BALANCE it, weight it, and prevent its inevitable sinking. That's the kind of momentum I'm sensing out here. And ... I do talk to lots of people.
I don't sense apathy behind some of the threats to not vote. It's more like not doing your grocery shopping at the Korean market if you don't eat Korean food. Options. No options.
I don't see how this ship of state can recover without some form of revolution honestly. Not sure what kind and how it might go down but I fear that the ballot box aint what it used to be as a tool to right the wrongs in what's left of our "democracy". I am afraid it's kind of a quaint window dressing to make us serfs feel like participants. :(
There is a really strong anti Obama mood out there right now on the left, in my district it means a low dem turnout, and a lot of enthusiasm on the right. But in LA and the traditional dem strongholds I fully expect a lot of very liberal, populist dems to come in after the current crop is flushed out in 2010/2012. I wouldn't care to speculate whether that is a good thing or not, too divisive.
Regardless I'm not thrilled about the concept of 'revolution' other than off the balloted variety. Nine times out ten it ends badly. Given the fact that the left has a strong hatred of firearms I think the winners of any such revolution are easily predictable.
Maybe we will give the two party system the boot, shake things up a little bit, but odds are the status quo will remain supreme, at least for a little while longer until things start really getting messy.
I like to think it (a 'revolution') could be a ground up kind of effort to run candidates like an Eric Massa - who come from non traditional backgrounds for politics. Who have fire in them and still believe in the Constitution enough to defend it at all levels regardless, and who understand representative government. I've always been fond of veterans running for office in a time of war because I find combat vets at least, far less likely to be hawkish than your average armchair war scholar and more sensitized to the special needs of wartime.
But if we could foster a whole new genre of candidate - populist yes - let the dead wood fall out of congress, death by attrition, to be replaced with the new. That could work. Maybe. Be they Dems or third party if there was such an animal with any hope of getting elected. We need a functional Congress again that represents the electorate. Desperately. Hell, a functional Judiciary and Executive would be nice too, but why be greedy?
When I think about this possibility.... the biggest obstacles I can see are the really obvious.
1) Money (lack of big money for newcomers, not pursued by lobbyists and special interests)
2) Media (lack of "press" coverage for outsiders' campaigns)
3) Money
And right at about this time - I replace my idealist hat with my realist hat... and begin hunting for the pitchfork. ;)
Bid on Morning Joe on Thursday, December 17!
It looks like Obama may have bigger problems to worry about beside Joe Lieberman because if Howard Dean is not enthusiastic about Obama's reelection, then much of the Democratic base who helped to get Obama elected in 2008 will probably follow Dean's example in 2012:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdaG2GZuQu
Dean: I Won't 'Vigorously' Support Obama's Re-election Bid (0:26)
Submitted By: MarkF
Uploaded: 17 hours ago
Date Aired: December 17, 2009
"On Morning Joe, Howard Dean says he will support Pres. Obama's re-election bid "not vigorously."
Here is the actual Morning Joe video where Howard Dean starts talking about how he will support President Obama's re-election bid "not vigorously" at about 11:58 into this video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/34461661#34461661 (15:22)
Dean: Health bill can still be saved
Dec. 17: Former DNC chairman Howard Dean joins the Morning Joe gang to reiterate his belief that the health reform bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/34461661#34461661 (15:22)
I think that Obama will probably be much more concerned if he loses Howard Dean's support than he is about the problems that Joe Lieberman is giving him right now. That is what Lawrence O'Donnell seems to think in this Countdown video and I agree with him:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/34454990#34454990 (04:15)
What will happen with the health reform bill?
Dec. 16: The Huffington Post’s Lawrence O’Donnell talks about the next steps Democratic Senators should take with health reform legislation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/34454990#34454990 (04:15)
Here is the Countdown transcript of the key portion of this video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34464730/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Wednesday, December 16th, 2009
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show
Guests: Lawrence O‘Donnell, Rep. Anthony Weiner, Wendell Potter, Markos Moulitsas
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: "The White House, not at all angry with Senator Lieberman. Not any member of the Senate, Democrat or Republican. Instead, it was seemingly focused—and understandably, this didn‘t just happen out of the ground, it wasn‘t organic, they were asked questions about Governor Dean‘s remarks—but that‘s what they spent the day dealing with.
How does that make sense that he‘s the bad guy in this equation?
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Because they fear Howard Dean and fear what Howard Dean represents. Howard Dean is speaking for a minimum of 100 Democrats in the House who think about the Senate bill exactly the same way that Howard Dean thinks about it. They have to make up their minds, as you raised with Anthony Weiner, the question of, “How do I vote on this if this is what‘s going to come at us in the House after a conference with the Senate?”
And Howard Dean is saying to senators and congressmen who faced that vote, the vote to cast is no. Howard Dean is a serious man of government, a governor, a physician, former chairman of the Democratic Party. This is not some flake outside of the political establishment who‘s saying this.
It‘s a—it‘s a very scary crack in the Democratic wall on this bill at this time..."
If health care goes down or if a bad health care bill is passed, then Obama should be very worried about Howard Dean in my opinion. This could turn into a very serious primary movement (especially if Obama keeps our troops in Afghanistan past the timetable that he set):
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19581
Howard Dean is perfectly positioned to primary Obama in 2012.
By: fflambeau Thursday December 17, 2009 8:49 pm
Rahm-Obama may have done Howard Dean a huge favor when they froze the good doctor out of the Obama administration. Recall that there was talk of Dean as being head of Health & Human Services or even Surgeon General but this was vetoed by Rahm and Obama. Obama didn’t extend his "team of rivals" concept to one of his biggest rivals and that might turn out to be a historic blunder by Team Obama. Because now, Howard Dean is perfectly positioned to primary Obama in 2012. So what was an initial disappointment to the progressive base might turn out to be a blessing.
Dean can publicly criticize the Obama administration as he did recently when he said the health care bill being advanced in the Senate is not worth voting for. He’s not tied in any way to this administration which is looking more and more like the S.S. Titanic-Obama.
That’s why the Obama administration and its various spin-meisters immediately struck back hard at Howard Dean after his comments on the senate bill. Note that press secretary Gibbs and others in the administration even went so far as to invoke the Dean-is-crazy theme that the mainstream media made up after the so-called "Dean Scream." Dean’s having a "temper tantrum" they have complained (this is discussed below in the paragraph on Jane Hamsher’s diary) in language that calls up the images that were played on in 2004 of an unstable Dean.
Notice too that the Obama administration has been far more critical of Howard Dean, an acknowledged champion of real health care reform, than it has been of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Max Baucus–old-line politicians who have never really favored health care reform from the beginning and have been bought off by big Pharma and insurance companies.
Glenn Greenwald made this very point:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
Why didn’t they [the White House] do any of that to the "centrists" who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care? Why didn’t they tell Blanche Lincoln — in a desperate fight for her political life — that she would "never hear from them again," and would lose DNC and other Democratic institutional support, if she filibustered the public option? Why haven’t they threatened to remove Joe Lieberman’s cherished Homeland Security Chairmanship if he’s been sabotaging the President’s agenda? Why hasn’t the President been rhetorically pressuring Senators to support the public option and Medicare buy-in, or taking any of the other steps outlined here by Adam Green? There’s no guarantee that it would have worked — Obama is not omnipotent and he can’t always control Congressional outcomes — but the lack of any such efforts is extremely telling about what the White House really wanted here.
…
Over at Politico, Jane Hamsher documents how Joe Lieberman’s conduct on the health care bill provides the perfect vehicle to advance the agenda of the White House and Harry Reid. Consistent with that, she independently notes media reports that White House officials are privately expressing extreme irritation with Howard Dean for opposing the Senate bill as insufficient, but have nothing bad to say about Lieberman, who supposedly single-handedly sabotaged what the White House was hoping for in this bill.
…
an NBC reporter explained how Robert Gibbs used his Press Briefing today to harshly criticize Howard Dean for opposing the health care bill. Why did Gibbs never publicly criticize people like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and the like if they were supposedly obstructing and impeding the White House’s agenda on health care reform (this is a point Yglesias acknowledges as a "fair" one)? Having a Democratic White House publicly criticize a Democratic Senator can be a much more effective pressure tactic than doing so against a former Governor who no longer holds office.
Jane Hamsher has written a very lucid diary about this: "White House ‘Irritated’ with Howard Dean, Not Joe Lieberman" right here at Firedoglake. From the video clip attached to Jane’s diary:
"A lot of animosity…from the administration (toward) Howard Dean. They’re not pleased with Dr. Dean speaking out about health care reform…They’re irritated…they’re not too angry at Lieberman…the highest insult was to call him (Dean) "irrelevant"…Dean is having, what one official called, a tantrum…
Credit Pat Buchanan (I never thought I’d write that!) for saying on the clip, too, that what Dr. Dean is doing is calling the bill a fraud, a sell-out to insurance companies.
Why has the Obama administration treated Howard Dean so differently than it has Joe Lieberman? Because the Obama-Rahm team has never ever, even remotely had any common cause with progressivism or with progressives. Don’t believe me? Well, just check out who Obama has chosen as his Chief of Staff–Rahm Emanuel–or who he has chosen as his Defense Secretary–Robert Gates, a George W. pick. And look at how few progressives are working in this administration (far fewer than the number of people from Goldman Sachs). Look too at all the progressive positions that Obama successfully ran on but dumped as soon as the election returns came in: FISA, DADT, DOMA, NAFTA renegotiation etc.
Dean, of course, is a progressive. The Obama White House also recognizes that Dean, should he want to, could be a political threat to their sand castle presidency.
Think about it. If Howard Dean wants to (and I don’t know that he does, I have no insider information), he could primary Obama in 2012.
He’d have lots of advantages. Dean has national name recognition. He can crank up a campaign quickly and attract the best people. He’s a Washington, D.C. outsider since Obama-Rahm did him the favor of not letting him in on their gig. He has the backing of most progressives and liberals, the very people who worked hard to win the primaries and the general election for Obama.
If the progressives and liberals bolt from Obama as they surely will if Dean challenges Obama, that leaves Obama with the Blue Dogs in the Democratic primaries in 2012. The progressives and liberals control the path to the Democratic party nomination, that’s why Obama garbed himself in progressive clothing in 2008 but his stealth candidacy has now exposed him for what he is: a DLCer. Obama doesn’t have the warmth of Dean or Clinton to overcome his DLC positions and win the nomination.
Moreover, Dean can use the "change mantra" on Obama in 2012. Wouldn’t it be a pleasure to see Dean taking the 2008 Obama position and Obama taking the W role in 2012?
Far fetched? Not really. Remember that in 1968 an obscure Senator by the name of Gene McCarthy (not RFK) challenged the mighty incumbent, LBJ. In the very first democratic primary, in New Hampshire, LBJ won but McCarthy came close. Just days before the April primary in Wisconsin, with polls showing McCarthy would decisively beat the president, LBJ announced he would not run again for the presidency.
Guess who’d win in 2012? My moneys on Dean and that is precisely why Gibbs and the Obama administration are pummeling him and not Lieberman. Progressives and liberal Democrats are the real enemy of this administration, not the Republicans because Obama is really a Rockefeller-type Republican. Rockefeller-Republicans were/are known for their unabashed support of big business and Wall St. coupled with a virulent and hawkish, expansionist view of American Empire and bread and circuses for the masses. Doesn’t that describe Obama’s agenda perfectly?
Let’s hope that Dean takes advantage of the situation and announces soon that he will primary Obama.
19 Comments Spotlight
Howard Fineman talked to a direct source and what he is saying makes sense to me.
Howard Fineman's explanation of Joe Lieberman's behavior ("pay-back" to the grassroots left wing Democrats who supported Ned Lamont such as Markos Moulitsas, Kos, and Fire Dog Lake) starts at about 0:43 into this video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/34421816#34421816 (05:28)
Does Lieberman have a hidden agenda?
Dec. 14: Politics Fix: A Hardball panel (Howard Fineman and Anne Kornblut) debates whether Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has a serious policy problem with health care reform or just wants to get back at the Democrats.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/34421816#34421816 (05:28)
Here is the Hardball transcript of the key portion of this video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34431078/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Monday, December 14th, 2009
Read the transcript to the Monday show
Guests: Jim Cramer, Joe Conason, John Nichols, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Howard Fineman, Anne Kornblut, Pat Buchanan, Eugene Robinson
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: "Let‘s talk about this thing with Harry Reid and Lieberman. I call him Joe the Bummer, as in Joe the Plumber, because he‘s brilliantly timing this thing of I‘m not for this; I‘m not for the public option; now I‘m not for the buy-in on age 55. He‘s just killing these guys.
HOWARD FINEMAN, “NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE”: I talked to a spokesman today.
I said, look, I‘m going on HARDBALL; give me your side of the story.
MATTHEWS: Good move.
FINEMAN: OK, their side of the story is, it‘s a principled thing. There are many parts of the bill he believes in. The Medicare buy-in is an add on because there are all these subsidies. The guy gave me a lot of plausible stuff. And I half believe it. I‘m sorry, I half—
MATTHEWS: What‘s the other half of your belief, revenge?
FINEMAN: The other half is personal—not with Obama. Don‘t forget, Obama, the president supported Lieberman in the fight in the party in Connecticut.
MATTHEWS: Oh.
FINEMAN: It‘s the grass roots left of the Democratic party that—
MATTHEWS: -- that enjoyed his torture.
FINEMAN: -- that enjoyed his torture. And this is pay-back to them. Obama‘s caught—excuse me, the president is caught in the middle here. That‘s my take on it.
MATTHEWS: So he wants Markos Moulitsas to take it.
FINEMAN: He wants Kos. He wants Fire Dog Lake. He wants all those people who rode around on—on the bus of the challenger who defeated him in the Democratic primary.
MATTHEWS: Wow. You think this goes back to that defeat in the primary up in Connecticut, where, after all those years in Connecticut politics as a Democrat, he got bumped by the party?
ANNE KORNBLUT, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: I think Howard makes a really good point. I have two colleagues at the Post, Ezra Klein and Alec McGillis, who have been covering this really closely, who both earlier today made the point that it was hard to find the policy reasoning here behind this. You know, he says it‘s got to make it more expensive. The CBO hasn‘t scored it yet.
MATTHEWS: Especially since he came out for this very proposal three months ago. Luke Russert, Tim‘s son, who works for NBC News now, went out and dug this story up, that three months ago, he came out for exactly the same thing he‘s now saying is unacceptable. He initiated it.
KORNBLUT: More recently than that, even, was cool to the idea, but didn‘t outright oppose it, and, of course, could have blocked it sooner. The timing couldn‘t be worse. It‘s so I think hard to—there‘s absolutely no way to overlook the politics in this, because it‘s driving the liberals crazy. As a result, as Howard points out, it‘s driving the White House crazy.
MATTHEWS: So, as a straight news person, who is not allowed to tell opinion, you can say now, Anne Kornblut, that this is an act of political revenge?
KORNBLUT: I can say there‘s a good case to be made. It sure looks like it.
MATTHEWS: Political observers believe that..."
Joe Lieberman in my opinion is acting like a power hungry, spoiled brat to be punishing the entire country over health care right now because he is upset with the grassroots left of the Democratic Party over what they did to him in 2006!
I think that Joe Lieberman needs to "Grow up" which is discussed in this Morning Joe Video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/34428338#34428338 (10:22)
Hayes on Lieberman: Grow up
Dec. 15: The Nation's Chris Hayes joins Morning Joe to talk about Joe Lieberman's flip-flop on the expansion of Medicare, suggesting it is out of spite.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/34428338#34428338 (10:22)
While I realize that this was not one of my most popular posts, I warned everybody back in 2006 that something like this would probably happen if Ned Lamont won the primary and if Joe Lieberman won the general election running as an Independent:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7782
ANALYSIS: Why I encourage Democrats to support Joe Lieberman in the CT primary!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 4, 2006 - 9:03am.
"And if Lieberman wins in the general election should Lamont win the CT primary, then what might he do as revenge if he is upset with the Democrats who supported Lamont in what will more than likely be a very bitter and nasty fight?"
It could also be seen that Joe Lieberman had excellent chances of winning the 2006 general election Senate race when the official Republican Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger was very weak & flawed, when the RNC Chairman at that time (Ken Mehlman) would not outright endorse Schlesinger, and when Sean Hannity officially endorsed Lieberman in the general election:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7880
DOCUMENTATION: Rush Limbaugh on giving money to Lieberman & Ken Mehlman's views!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 10, 2006 - 8:20am.
While I knew that Joe Lieberman would probably seek revenge if he won the 2006 CT general election Senate race running as an Independent candidate, I never thought that he would take it to such an extreme where he would punish the entire country (which is what I definitely think that he is doing with health care right now) when his issue is only with the left wing Democratic grassroots activists who supported Ned Lamont!
I really hope that MANY people in the media will ask Joe Lieberman why he is punishing the entire country over health care reform which would help everybody when his issue is ONLY with the Democratic activists who supported Ned Lamont in 2006 and after Obama was VERY generous to him right after the 2008 election when he supported McCain and Palin?
If Lieberman tries to deny that he is doing this, then the follow up question to ask him would be why he is contradicting his own previous positions on BOTH Medicare buy-in and the use of a filibuster?
1) Joe Lieberman proposes Medicare buy-in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIb13mYoy0Q
FLASHBACK: Joe Lieberman proposes Medicare buy-in (2:17)
LiebermanFlip
December 14, 2009
2) In 1995, Joe Lieberman co-sponsored legislation to curtail use of the filibuster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIFyQgMPJow
Joe Lieberman of 1995 vs. Joe Lieberman of 2009 (1:00)
SEIU
December 08, 2009
"In 1995, Joe Lieberman co-sponsored legislation to curtail use of the filibuster. Now, in 2009, he's single-handledly using the threat of a filibuster to delay and disrupt the legislative process. It's time for Joe to listen to Joe, and let Connecticut residents have a voice on health insurance reform."