« Open Thread At One | Main | A Totally Uninformed, Utterly Prejudiced Notion »
02 Nov 2009 02:00 pm
Lieberman's seat was up that year, and he decided to run simultaneously for senator and Vice-President. Lyndon Johnson had taken out a similar insurance policy forty years earlier, but there was a difference. The governor of Texas in 1960 was a Democrat, so when Johnson resigned his Senate seat after the election a Democrat was appointed to replace him. The governor of Connecticut in 2000 was a Republican. If Lieberman had made way for the state's popular Democratic attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, who would have won easily, and if the Supreme Court had allowed Gore to take office, then the new Senate would have split 50-50, with Vice-President Lieberman breaking the tie in favor of the Democrats. But, by insisting on having it both ways, Lieberman single-handedly guaranteed that the new Senate would be Republican--either by a 51-49 margin under a Gore Administration or (as it turned out) by the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Dick Cheney. This was more than just routine political expediency. It was what was known that year as a character issue.
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/17121
I wonder what he has to gain though? He'll not be re-elected, his poll numbers in CT are in the tank. So what is this?
It's certainly not a matter of genuine policy concern as 1) he's not spoken up about any concerns until this moment 2) there's plenty of tape of him expressing views supportive of comprehensive healthcare reform from this very decade streaming on TPM and elsewhere.
I just can't figure out what he's doing except making a naked power-play. But does he gain any long-term (even for the rest of his Senate term) leverage?
I just don't get it. I keep thinking of a Professor friend of mine who always used to say that once he got tenure, he was going to stand up in a tired, divisive faculty meeting and just urinate on the table.
When asked why he'd shrug and say, "what are they gonna do?"
Maybe that's where Lieberman is. He's just peeing on the table. Because he can.
I think what he'll gain is a nice job with a lobbying firm after his state tells him to kick rocks. Someone somewhere has got a nice bag of money waiting ofr him when he's done.
Ding! We have a winner. He's already working for his new overlords.
You got it.
But doesn't he get that either way? His bad behavior doesn't improve his lobbying prospects. His long tenure in the Senate does.
But his bad behavior doesn't diminish his lobbying prospects, either. He's "peeing on the table" because it's fun, and no one's spanking him.
That doesn't seem to make sense. You would increase your utility to a lobbying firm by being popular and well-connected with your (ex-)colleagues. Lieberman's move doesn't help in that regard.
Maybe he just means what he says, no matter how unpopular it may make him in his state.
Of course, there's no real guarantee that his previous statements in favor of comprehensive healthcare reform (with some sort of public plan) were anything other than political posturing. Maybe this is what he genuinely thinks. Or maybe he's just being vindictive. Honestly, I would have been surprised if some Dems didn't drop off of this plan. I'm not saying this is Lieberman making a principled stand. I'm simply not convinced that he was making anything other than a political stand on the campaign trail.
yup. lieberman is a despicable, malevolent thug.
he was once an interesting, thoughtful, articulate independent. slowly he has morphed into a second dick cheney, with a full head of hair.
i think he should be stripped of any perks that he gets by pretending to be a democrat.
Shouldn't Joe go back to complaining about violence on teevee or something? "Don't bend over for the wives of big brother." Especially if the wife is a dood.
This foolishness has gone on long enough. At some point, Harry Reid needs to decide "I ain't no punk" and deal with Holy Joe. All he wants in life is to stand up there in his Droopy Dawg face and speak mournfully about how awful his own team is - kick his ass to the curb. It's not like he's going to starve; he'll be on Meet The Press more than Johnny Mac. It's not like it's going to prevent the Dems running their S - because they aren't running their S now. Because of Holy Joe, the working Democratic majority is under 60, and if it's under 60, it doesn't matter how far long as it's over 50.
So Harry: man up and smack. Hard.
It seems like a game of chicken to me. He's basically weighing that the GOP will make a comeback in 2010 vs. the risk of losing all the power he has under a Democratic senate.
The thing is, I don't see the GOP possibly winning back the senate in 2010. And if the GOP picks up more seats, but not enough to do anything will, well people will dislike government even more, and especially him. Personally, I think he has, at this point, a pathological fear that we live in a "center-right" country, and that a republican takeover is omnipresent, so always makes nice with them. Also, his views on the middle east are extreme and completely in line with even most hawkish members of the GOP which makes sense.
BTW, this isn't to say he's not entirely wrong about all of these things. If you can win a general after losing a primary, you'd be pretty confident too, maybe even enough to try it again.
I'd guess that the Dems lose seats in 2010, but do they lose the Senate? That's hard to imagine. The GOP is a little bit better about assigning chairmanships based on something besides seniority, so he might have some sort of leadership position if he switches, but it's still pretty hard to see how it's a good move for him.
I think he has always been playing for the other side. Remember in 2000 he made less than a half-ass attempt to debate Cheney. And during the recount he took the Republicans' side on the counting of overseas military ballots. He was trying to lose.
I'll be extra-cynical.
Joe has one cause dear to his heart: Israel. The Democrats are starting to get skeptical about Israel. He's burning the rest of his political capital to back strong, pro-Israel candidates, and increasingly those are in the Republican party.
As an American-Israeli, if I may:
1) I'm not sure about that, because I personally think that his #1 cause is his own outsized ego BUT
2) if that is the case, we should be careful and say "...has one cause dear to his heart: The official line of hawkish Israeli politicians."
There are plenty of folks in Israel who would suggest that support the official line of hawkish Israeli politicians, as Lieberman does, is not actually going to work out all that well for Israel. Not as many folks as I wish there were, but they're there.
unfortunately "the official line of hawkish Israeli politicians" has majority support in both houses of congress
On Tuesday, November 3, Congress is poised to vote on H.Res.867, which calls on the “President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.’ ” The Resolution instructs the Obama Administration to prevent further consideration of the Goldstone Report (as it is informally known) in any international body. For Congress to do so, without a hearing where Judge Goldstone can testify and based upon a Resolution rife with factual errors, makes a mockery of assertions by the United States that fundamental protections of human rights laws law apply equally to all. It leaves the United States, and especially Congress, without a thread of moral authority.
The Resolution instructs the Obama Administration to prevent further consideration of the Goldstone Report (as it is informally known) in any international body. For Congress to do so, without a hearing where Judge Goldstone can testify and based upon a Resolution rife with factual errors, makes a mockery of assertions by the United States that fundamental protections of human rights laws law apply equally to all. It leaves the United States, and especially Congress, without a thread of moral authority.
mondoweiss
Oy, I know.
It makes me ill. Americans for Peace Now has a good take on it: http://peacenow.org/entries/apn_on_house_goldstone_resolution
Regardless of how one judges the Goldstone Report and its findings, the report serves as a clear reminder of both the horrors of war and the critical importance of President Barack Obama's efforts to renew peace talks. Whatever Members of Congress may feel about the Gaza war or the Goldstone Report, the reality is that absent progress towards peace, it is only a matter of time before another war breaks out and more lives are lost. We believe that H. Res. 867 does not serve the cause of peace and therefore, regrettably, cannot support it.
It could be argued -- and I have certainly argued -- that these sorts of resolutions are not nearly the foregone conclusion that they once were, but, my "oy" remains in force.
Ella, your point 2 is well-taken.
mrein, I will simply cut-and-paste from Wikipedia:
"Mark Vogel, chairman of the pro-Israel National Action Committee Political Action Committee (NACPAC), has stated that "Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions ... is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community." According to The Center for Responsive Politics, Lieberman currently ranks fourth on the list of candidates who received money from pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) in 2006."
Lemmy,
I don't disagree that Lieberman is pro-Israel or that he cares about Israel.
But how does your cut-and-paste suggest that Lieberman "only" cares about Israel?
Well, "extra-cynical" is one way to describe it.
I really doubt that all Lieberman cares about is Israel considering he's dedicated his life to the public service of America.
I especially doubt that his position on *health care* is all part of a subterfuge designed to generate more support for Israel.
Plus, if all Lieberman cared about was a foreign policy, why would he go out of his way to infuriate the person who has more control over U.S. foreign policy than anyone in the world?
But if bashing Israel is your hammer, Lieberman must make an awfully attractive nail.
I think this is a symptom of a problem.
Joementum has one cause dear to himself: himself.
Since he happens to be Jewish, he has decided to support the state of Israel because he seems his Jewishness and Israel as intertwined.
It's not so much about Israel, Israelis, or their security, as it is about Joe Lieberman.
Not on the topic, but did anybody notice that he defended Karzai for "playing by the rules" in the same sentence that he referred to throwing out over a million fraudulent votes? Come on Joe! You're laying it on too thick!
I'd be for kicking him out of the caucus and directly down a flight of stairs, Kadeem Hardison and Damon-Wayans-style.
You skipped the best line:
A couple of weeks ago, in a reprise of his 2000 maneuver, he suddenly announced that if he loses the primary he will seek a place on the November ballot as the candidate of a new “Connecticut for Lieberman” party. “I’m a loyal Democrat,” he told reporters, “but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” No kidding.
Speaking as a Jew, I really have but one question:
Can we throw him back?
"Down the Well," so to speak?
Also speaking as a Jew, I've hated the guy since the day he was named Gore's running mate. There's something about a public figure in the 21st century wanting a 'get' so he could re-marry that rubs me the wrong way.
You're an bigot.
Even by the unparalleled lows set by DC as a city, Lieberman has a startling lack of principles, especially for someone who's also such a moral scold.
On the one hand, the idea of this megalomaniac derailing HCR for the sake of his poor ego is terrifying. On the other hand, his statements on this front have done nothing except show how meaningless just about everything else he's said since the election is. I don't think Obama has any interest in having another roadblock in the way of reform courtesy of the disingenuous gentleman from CT - I would love to see the threat of removing his chairmanships made publicly. (If such a thing happens, though, I'm sure it'll be in private, unfortunately. I would love to see someone Youtube his groveling though.)
Isn't it weird how the best-funded establishment politicians somehow are seen to represent the "working man"? That's how Lieberman beat Lamont IIRC, by carrying blue collar votes.
I definitely agree with you that this betrayal is deep. Endorsing McCain and other slaps in the face were the price that the Democrats were willing to pay in exchange for...his vote for when it matters, like now.
Agreed that on a partisan level he's far from a team player. I wouldn't strip him of power now...I'd prefer to not have to demand retribution, which is something that is done when you're in stinging defeat.
As for the public option itself, well, I do have to say that many of the arguments for sound a lot like...socialist arguments, that taking the profit out of the business will somehow result in better outcomes. You do get something for all of the money spent on overhead: less fraud and less waste.
But if Joe had honor, he'd go against the filibuster and vote against the bill in an up and down vote.
I'm getting exceedingly weary of people using socialism as a dirty word. What do you mean "somehow"? We already know that socialized healthcare works in other countries. And not only does it work, but it works better than the American healthcare system. You'll have to excuse me for not accepting tens of thousands of deaths each year due to lack of access to healthcare as a fair trade for combating fraud and waste.
It's the best term. I'm not using it in a derogatory way. Lots of things are socialistic: the police, for instance, the fire department, the garbage crews, the public library. In my neck of the woods SEPTA is socialistic...employees there regularly make 50k/yr for little more than manning clerking booths...but I digress.
Every argument I've heard in favor of a public option argues that by being non-profit it will better allocate resources. While the monies not spent on shareholder profits can be used for medical care, there's no indication that a public option will by dint of being non-profit make better decisions on health care. There haven't been any proposed new techniques in relation to the public plan. It would still be fee-for-service, which is the fundamental problem with health care, only "non-profit". Another thing to consider is the flip side of the public option: difficulty in raising new money. Aetna, etc can raise new money on Wall St by issuing stock. How would the public plan do it? What if it ran into problems? Amtrack and the Postal Service, two other quasi-public entities regularly run into budget problems, and I do have to say that in general compared to their private competitors are lacking. I think the temptation for a bailout would be too much.
As for foreign countries, let me propose something: they free ride off of American medical innovation. The high cost of US healthcare allows the US a competitive advantage, like how Germany produces industrial equipment and Japan has electronics.
Amtrack and the Postal Service, two other quasi-public entities regularly run into budget problems, and I do have to say that in general compared to their private competitors are lacking
What competitors and lacking how? I suppose you could argue that in some areas, the Postal service is competing with say, UPS and FEDex. But the USPS gets consistently high customer satisfaction ratings and is significantly cheaper than their private competitors in the areas where they do compete. Thats aside from offering services that their competitors actually don't. The problems that the USPS has with its budget has always had to do with expensive public services its mandated by law to provide and its labor costs. In other words, if it were forced to operate as its competitors it would only mean that it would have to offer less service, to fewer people and offer their employees less benefits and all at a higher price. I am not sure why that would be in the public's best interest.
Amtrak has no real private competitors unless you mean to compare its eastern corridor service to say, Greyhound. Train service has never really been profitable anywhere so it makes little sense that completely private trains services would be offered. Nonetheless, inter-regional rail services, the whole world over are among the most popular services that any government provides. Governments everywhere but the US are resolved to the fact that interregional train systems, especially highspeed trains, offer major boosts to regional economies and have invested accordingly. Maybe we will catch up in 30 years or so but I doubt it.
As for foreign countries, let me propose something: they free ride off of American medical innovation. The high cost of US healthcare allows the US a competitive advantage
This is a claim I have seen brought up and shot down quite often. I have found it pretty unconvincing in the past but if you have something you can cite which makes a good case, I will be happy to read it.
Having not done extensive studies on either, I can say that my interactions with the post office have been marked by long lines and unhurried clerks who do not seem to care.
Amtrak I've generally been happy with, until I discovered that Chinatown buses can deliver me for roughly a quarter of the price.
But those are just examples. A few more I could bring up would be...the local campus food options at the school I am at. The food trucks provide a great variety of food for low prices, while my experience with food venders at school-sanctioned locations is that they are on a whole slovenly, slow, and not so good. Take that for what you will.
Anyways, the main point is that a public option changes one aspect of health-care delivery, a tangential element, that of the profit motive, which to many might seem unseemly especially when someone is denied a treatment.
The profit motive happens to also allow for outside funding outside of the taxpayer, and I don't see anyone complaining about people investing money in insurance companies, only when they take profits out of them. Also, insurance companies are known historically for being too slow to raise insurance rates -- that's right, too slow.
Now, some reforms like eliminating lifetime caps and recission practices are broad-based market reforms that many of these companies agree with. But simply killing them off sounds too much like shooting the messenger for the bad news -- in this case the insurance company is the messenger/disciplinarian and the message is high costs of health care.
Now, some reforms like eliminating lifetime caps and recission practices are broad-based market reforms that many of these companies agree with.
If by "agree with" you mean that they (some companies) will agree to go along with limited approaches to these reforms in order to forego more serious restrictions than yes, they will agree to them. They certainly do not agree to them as inherently profitable business practices because, of course, they aren't.
But simply killing them off sounds too much like shooting the messenger for the bad news -- in this case the insurance company is the messenger/disciplinarian and the message is high costs of health care.
The messenger and the message are, of course, not unrelated here. Health care costs are largely set by the buying practices and bargaining power of the insurers and for a variety of reasons, they have not controlled prices. Moreover, they have resisted the efforts of both regional and Federal governments to control prices out of fear for their own business models and profits. But it is certainly true that insurance companies are not the sole contributing factor to this particular problem. It is also true however, that constructed properly, a public option that either sets or negotiates lower rates has the potential lower costs throughout the system, which is, of course, the whole point of the public option.
Hasn't his old lady been a Health care lobbyist in the past?
It took fifteen minutes of googling but I found the comment I left here back when the "Should we boot Joe or not?" post appeared on this blog.
tom c November 7, 2008 3:07 PM I may hit a profanity filter here but so be it. Have you ever heard the expression "Its better to have somebody inside a tent pissing out of it rather than standing outside your tent pissing into it."? Having Joe Lieberman in the caucus would be like have someone standing in your tent pissing in the tent on your sleeping bag. I fail to see the benefit.
I am not what anyone would call a great judge of charactor, or circumstance, or anything else but I should win a no-prize or something for that one.
Tom, I remember that comment. Brilliant!
Seriously. If he wants to caucus with the Democrats, ok. If they want to give him leadership positions, I can see that, so long as the understanding is that he votes with the caucus on *all* procedural votes. He decides to filibuster, he's kicked out of the caucus and it's a done deal.
Look, the guy can vote his conscience - I haven't seen anything in his career to suggest he has done otherwise, even when (see War, Iraq) it has hurt him considerably. I understand everybody's upset, but to talk about betrayal - well, that would be kind of like the left wing of the Democratic party spending millions of dollars in the first place to oust their own popular, electable Democratic incumbent candidate. And as for hurting the Democratic balance of power - well, that would be kind of like... the left wing of the Democratic party spending millions of dollars in the first place to oust their own popular, electable Democratic incumbent candidate.
You make the mistake of conflating liberals with the Democratic party.
I think he can vote his conscience on the final bill. On procedural votes, he needs to vote with the caucus, or else lose his leadership positions.
Look, the guy can vote his conscience
Of course he can. The point is that if "voting his conscience" mean actively obstructing the majority will of the Democratic caucus, then he can vote his conscience from outside the caucus. What exactly is the point of having something called a caucus otherwise?
I said this after the election in Nov but I have simply never heard of any group at any level of organization, from the Girl Scouts to NATO, that would allow a member to do to them what the Democrats allowed Lieberman to do without, at the very least, some sort of very serious penalty. Forget about some of his nastier comments during the campaign. If Lieberman had succeeded in what he very much wanted to achieve, every single item on the Democratic agenda, every single one, would have been dead on arrival for at least four years. They responded to these actions with some mild criticism and offering him the reward of his committee chairmanship which he had already neglected to use for anything substantive during the Bush years and which continues to languish as anything other than a sinecure for Lieberman now.
But as much of a slimy weasel as Lieberman is, he is not really the problem. My question for the Dem Senate caucus is: Why exactly did they imagine Joe wouldn't work against their interests on key legislative priorities now? They have already made it clear that he faces no consequences for several key attempts to damage Democratic legislative priorities in the past. If they are surprised by then they are too dimwitted to be trusted to govern in any case.
It's not even voting his conscience--it's obstructing a vote. I have no problem with him voting against the package. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about not letting it get to the floor.
Isn't it the same thing though?
Lieberman was, fairly, condemned on the left for voting for cloture on the Alito nomination. That brought the nomination to the floor and Lieberman's vote against Alito at that point was pointless. The real damaging vote was made at the procedural stage.
That's if you make the distinction that a vote against a filibuster is the same as a vote for a bill. However, given how times have changed...effectively, a vote against the filibuster of a bill is a yes vote, even if you do vote no. This also means accepting the reality that a supermajority in the senate is needed to get anything accomplished, instead of treating the filibuster as the parliamentary technicality that it is.
I wouldn't say so. It is certainly true that, depending upon the circumstance, one vote can be more damaging than the other. But, for me, the operative principle here whether one actually believes in democracy, or whether they believe they should have a sort of veto power, especially within their own caucus.
Any group, any team, work around the same basic idea. The team discusses what they want to do. Dissenting voices are heard but one way or another, the group decides how to move forward. When you decide that as a member of a group an issue is important enough to you that you will obstruct the decision of that group because you disagree with it, then you aren't really a member of that group.
You disagree with the team's decision? Fine. You have your opportunities to convince the team that you are correct (and Lieberman's arguments are transparently stupid and unconvincing) and if they still don't agree, you will have a chance to vote against it. But if your choice instead is to make sure that the team never even gets a chance to make the play, then what is the point of belonging to that team.
However, given how times have changed...effectively, a vote against the filibuster of a bill is a yes vote, even if you do vote no.
Times haven't changed. It has always and forever been the case that, for the most part, legislators more or less know where the votes are going to end up. What has changed is that many legislators have determined that it is best not to let it get to that stage. There is no intrinsic political reason that it needs to be that way.
Joe Lieberman is Fredo Corleone.
I think we're pretty close to the end of Godfather II...
The issue isn't whether Joe Lieberman votes his conscience. The issue is whether his conscience allows him to be a member of the Democratic caucus in good faith. In my opinion, if you want to caucus with the Democrats, it is incumbent on you to allow their legislation to proceed. If you find that you can't, do the honest thing and resign from the caucus. That's what a person of principle would do.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/66005-reid-reassures-the-left-lieberman-is-on-board . It seems that Joe Lieberman has reversed course again. Is he now filibustering himself?
deva (Replying to: BabylonSista) November 2, 2009 3:40 PM "But doesn't he get that either way? His bad behavior doesn't improve his lobbying prospects. His long tenure in the Senate does."
His bad behavior could derail any real, significant healthcare reform this year. Barring some very good fortune for the Democrats, that means for the rest of the Obama administration (if it can be blocked now, it can be blocked later). Given that the only 'reform' a GOP administration would support would be to pump more money into the insurance/pharmaceutical companies, this means no chance of real, significant reform until ~2020. This means many, many billions of dollars per year in profits ensured, for at least a decade.
When Joe gets his cushy post-Senate payoff, it won't be for what lobbying he *will* do, it'll be a payoff for what he *did* do.
Dan W November 2, 2009 2:42 PM "It seems like a game of chicken to me. He's basically weighing that the GOP will make a comeback in 2010 vs. the risk of losing all the power he has under a Democratic senate."
Remember, he's repeatedly told the Democratic leadership to f*ck off and die, and has been rewarded as if he were a former Republican who defected to the Democrats. At this point, I can't see the Democratic leadersihp (Reid *or* Obama) having any credibility with him. He doesn't fear them.
I think delf (presume it was a typo for self) interested should join the ranks of internet typo-driven jargon.
delf is the new pwn. That guy's so delf! (Liebermanesque, derivation: See T-N Coates at the Atlantic, 11/2009)
Eh. Nerd here.
although suddenly alert to how that might appear to, say, the graduates of Gallaudet, because I just noticed that why that might work for some is the analogy to "deaf." I did not mean that AT ALL. Selfish is what I had in mind (deaf hadn't occurred to me at all, just the ease of hitting 'd' when you meant to hit 's' and the self-interestedness of Sen Lieberman). Delf would work if everyone mentally pronounced the l, as in selfish, but probably too many wouldn't.
About Ta-Nehisi Coates
Subscribe to RSS News Feed
religion Did Christianity Cause the Crash?
Preachers spread a gospel of debt
books Books of the Year
The 25 best in a crowded field
college football Ground War
Army's best option to finally beat Navy
Andrew Sullivan
A Million Little Fabrications 11.23.09 7:26 P.M.
Megan McArdle
Are AIG FP Traders Worth Their Pay Packets? 11.23.09 5:44 P.M.
Marc Ambinder
"Political Correctness Killed Americans" 11.23.09 4:08 P.M.
Ta-Nehisi Coates
A Great Day In Harlem 11.23.09 3:00 P.M.
James Fallows
One more on scholars, career paths, and Wall Street 11.23.09 4:23 P.M.
Jeffrey Goldberg
Sarah Palin and the Rapture 11.20.09 1:23 P.M.
Clive Crook
How to do a second stimulus 11.20.09 1:27 A.M.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood
Buy the book:
Amazon | Barnes & Noble
Borders | Indiebound
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle
I like to say I was prophetic. Okay, so maybe not. Still this is a decent piece on the beginnings of the end of gangsta rap.
Some fun at the brother's expense. This was written after he slapped up Dale Peck.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Haha! This was fun. After this, I got a bunch of wing-nuts on the internets yelling "Hands off!"' Too bad she's been so terrible at her job. Ah, well.
Me on Russell Simmons. fun, Fun FUN!! Seriously, I got to take a yoga class with the dude.
My first feature for the NY Times Magazine. Man I agonized over this one. Still, props to Paul Tough, my awesome editor on this one.
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I wonder what he has to gain though? He'll not be re-elected, his poll numbers in CT are in the tank. So what is this?
It's certainly not a matter of genuine policy concern as 1) he's not spoken up about any concerns until this moment 2) there's plenty of tape of him expressing views supportive of comprehensive healthcare reform from this very decade streaming on TPM and elsewhere.
I just can't figure out what he's doing except making a naked power-play. But does he gain any long-term (even for the rest of his Senate term) leverage?
I just don't get it. I keep thinking of a Professor friend of mine who always used to say that once he got tenure, he was going to stand up in a tired, divisive faculty meeting and just urinate on the table.
When asked why he'd shrug and say, "what are they gonna do?"
Maybe that's where Lieberman is. He's just peeing on the table. Because he can.
I think what he'll gain is a nice job with a lobbying firm after his state tells him to kick rocks. Someone somewhere has got a nice bag of money waiting ofr him when he's done.
Ding! We have a winner. He's already working for his new overlords.
You got it.
But doesn't he get that either way? His bad behavior doesn't improve his lobbying prospects. His long tenure in the Senate does.
But his bad behavior doesn't diminish his lobbying prospects, either. He's "peeing on the table" because it's fun, and no one's spanking him.
That doesn't seem to make sense. You would increase your utility to a lobbying firm by being popular and well-connected with your (ex-)colleagues. Lieberman's move doesn't help in that regard.
Maybe he just means what he says, no matter how unpopular it may make him in his state.
Of course, there's no real guarantee that his previous statements in favor of comprehensive healthcare reform (with some sort of public plan) were anything other than political posturing. Maybe this is what he genuinely thinks. Or maybe he's just being vindictive. Honestly, I would have been surprised if some Dems didn't drop off of this plan. I'm not saying this is Lieberman making a principled stand. I'm simply not convinced that he was making anything other than a political stand on the campaign trail.
yup. lieberman is a despicable, malevolent thug.
he was once an interesting, thoughtful, articulate independent. slowly he has morphed into a second dick cheney, with a full head of hair.
i think he should be stripped of any perks that he gets by pretending to be a democrat.
Shouldn't Joe go back to complaining about violence on teevee or something? "Don't bend over for the wives of big brother." Especially if the wife is a dood.
This foolishness has gone on long enough. At some point, Harry Reid needs to decide "I ain't no punk" and deal with Holy Joe. All he wants in life is to stand up there in his Droopy Dawg face and speak mournfully about how awful his own team is - kick his ass to the curb. It's not like he's going to starve; he'll be on Meet The Press more than Johnny Mac. It's not like it's going to prevent the Dems running their S - because they aren't running their S now. Because of Holy Joe, the working Democratic majority is under 60, and if it's under 60, it doesn't matter how far long as it's over 50.
So Harry: man up and smack. Hard.
It seems like a game of chicken to me. He's basically weighing that the GOP will make a comeback in 2010 vs. the risk of losing all the power he has under a Democratic senate.
The thing is, I don't see the GOP possibly winning back the senate in 2010. And if the GOP picks up more seats, but not enough to do anything will, well people will dislike government even more, and especially him. Personally, I think he has, at this point, a pathological fear that we live in a "center-right" country, and that a republican takeover is omnipresent, so always makes nice with them. Also, his views on the middle east are extreme and completely in line with even most hawkish members of the GOP which makes sense.
BTW, this isn't to say he's not entirely wrong about all of these things. If you can win a general after losing a primary, you'd be pretty confident too, maybe even enough to try it again.
I'd guess that the Dems lose seats in 2010, but do they lose the Senate? That's hard to imagine. The GOP is a little bit better about assigning chairmanships based on something besides seniority, so he might have some sort of leadership position if he switches, but it's still pretty hard to see how it's a good move for him.
I think he has always been playing for the other side. Remember in 2000 he made less than a half-ass attempt to debate Cheney. And during the recount he took the Republicans' side on the counting of overseas military ballots. He was trying to lose.
I'll be extra-cynical.
Joe has one cause dear to his heart: Israel. The Democrats are starting to get skeptical about Israel. He's burning the rest of his political capital to back strong, pro-Israel candidates, and increasingly those are in the Republican party.
As an American-Israeli, if I may:
1) I'm not sure about that, because I personally think that his #1 cause is his own outsized ego BUT
2) if that is the case, we should be careful and say "...has one cause dear to his heart: The official line of hawkish Israeli politicians."
There are plenty of folks in Israel who would suggest that support the official line of hawkish Israeli politicians, as Lieberman does, is not actually going to work out all that well for Israel. Not as many folks as I wish there were, but they're there.
unfortunately "the official line of hawkish Israeli politicians" has majority support in both houses of congress
mondoweiss
Oy, I know.
It makes me ill. Americans for Peace Now has a good take on it: http://peacenow.org/entries/apn_on_house_goldstone_resolution
Regardless of how one judges the Goldstone Report and its findings, the report serves as a clear reminder of both the horrors of war and the critical importance of President Barack Obama's efforts to renew peace talks. Whatever Members of Congress may feel about the Gaza war or the Goldstone Report, the reality is that absent progress towards peace, it is only a matter of time before another war breaks out and more lives are lost. We believe that H. Res. 867 does not serve the cause of peace and therefore, regrettably, cannot support it.
It could be argued -- and I have certainly argued -- that these sorts of resolutions are not nearly the foregone conclusion that they once were, but, my "oy" remains in force.
Ella, your point 2 is well-taken.
mrein, I will simply cut-and-paste from Wikipedia:
"Mark Vogel, chairman of the pro-Israel National Action Committee Political Action Committee (NACPAC), has stated that "Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions ... is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community." According to The Center for Responsive Politics, Lieberman currently ranks fourth on the list of candidates who received money from pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) in 2006."
Lemmy,
I don't disagree that Lieberman is pro-Israel or that he cares about Israel.
But how does your cut-and-paste suggest that Lieberman "only" cares about Israel?
Well, "extra-cynical" is one way to describe it.
I really doubt that all Lieberman cares about is Israel considering he's dedicated his life to the public service of America.
I especially doubt that his position on *health care* is all part of a subterfuge designed to generate more support for Israel.
Plus, if all Lieberman cared about was a foreign policy, why would he go out of his way to infuriate the person who has more control over U.S. foreign policy than anyone in the world?
But if bashing Israel is your hammer, Lieberman must make an awfully attractive nail.
I think this is a symptom of a problem.
Joementum has one cause dear to himself: himself.
Since he happens to be Jewish, he has decided to support the state of Israel because he seems his Jewishness and Israel as intertwined.
It's not so much about Israel, Israelis, or their security, as it is about Joe Lieberman.
Not on the topic, but did anybody notice that he defended Karzai for "playing by the rules" in the same sentence that he referred to throwing out over a million fraudulent votes? Come on Joe! You're laying it on too thick!
I'd be for kicking him out of the caucus and directly down a flight of stairs, Kadeem Hardison and Damon-Wayans-style.
You skipped the best line:
A couple of weeks ago, in a reprise of his 2000 maneuver, he suddenly announced that if he loses the primary he will seek a place on the November ballot as the candidate of a new “Connecticut for Lieberman” party. “I’m a loyal Democrat,” he told reporters, “but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” No kidding.
Speaking as a Jew, I really have but one question:
Can we throw him back?
"Down the Well," so to speak?
Also speaking as a Jew, I've hated the guy since the day he was named Gore's running mate. There's something about a public figure in the 21st century wanting a 'get' so he could re-marry that rubs me the wrong way.
You're an bigot.
Even by the unparalleled lows set by DC as a city, Lieberman has a startling lack of principles, especially for someone who's also such a moral scold.
On the one hand, the idea of this megalomaniac derailing HCR for the sake of his poor ego is terrifying. On the other hand, his statements on this front have done nothing except show how meaningless just about everything else he's said since the election is. I don't think Obama has any interest in having another roadblock in the way of reform courtesy of the disingenuous gentleman from CT - I would love to see the threat of removing his chairmanships made publicly. (If such a thing happens, though, I'm sure it'll be in private, unfortunately. I would love to see someone Youtube his groveling though.)
Isn't it weird how the best-funded establishment politicians somehow are seen to represent the "working man"? That's how Lieberman beat Lamont IIRC, by carrying blue collar votes.
I definitely agree with you that this betrayal is deep. Endorsing McCain and other slaps in the face were the price that the Democrats were willing to pay in exchange for...his vote for when it matters, like now.
Agreed that on a partisan level he's far from a team player. I wouldn't strip him of power now...I'd prefer to not have to demand retribution, which is something that is done when you're in stinging defeat.
As for the public option itself, well, I do have to say that many of the arguments for sound a lot like...socialist arguments, that taking the profit out of the business will somehow result in better outcomes. You do get something for all of the money spent on overhead: less fraud and less waste.
But if Joe had honor, he'd go against the filibuster and vote against the bill in an up and down vote.
I'm getting exceedingly weary of people using socialism as a dirty word. What do you mean "somehow"? We already know that socialized healthcare works in other countries. And not only does it work, but it works better than the American healthcare system. You'll have to excuse me for not accepting tens of thousands of deaths each year due to lack of access to healthcare as a fair trade for combating fraud and waste.
It's the best term. I'm not using it in a derogatory way. Lots of things are socialistic: the police, for instance, the fire department, the garbage crews, the public library. In my neck of the woods SEPTA is socialistic...employees there regularly make 50k/yr for little more than manning clerking booths...but I digress.
Every argument I've heard in favor of a public option argues that by being non-profit it will better allocate resources. While the monies not spent on shareholder profits can be used for medical care, there's no indication that a public option will by dint of being non-profit make better decisions on health care. There haven't been any proposed new techniques in relation to the public plan. It would still be fee-for-service, which is the fundamental problem with health care, only "non-profit". Another thing to consider is the flip side of the public option: difficulty in raising new money. Aetna, etc can raise new money on Wall St by issuing stock. How would the public plan do it? What if it ran into problems? Amtrack and the Postal Service, two other quasi-public entities regularly run into budget problems, and I do have to say that in general compared to their private competitors are lacking. I think the temptation for a bailout would be too much.
As for foreign countries, let me propose something: they free ride off of American medical innovation. The high cost of US healthcare allows the US a competitive advantage, like how Germany produces industrial equipment and Japan has electronics.
Amtrack and the Postal Service, two other quasi-public entities regularly run into budget problems, and I do have to say that in general compared to their private competitors are lacking
What competitors and lacking how? I suppose you could argue that in some areas, the Postal service is competing with say, UPS and FEDex. But the USPS gets consistently high customer satisfaction ratings and is significantly cheaper than their private competitors in the areas where they do compete. Thats aside from offering services that their competitors actually don't. The problems that the USPS has with its budget has always had to do with expensive public services its mandated by law to provide and its labor costs. In other words, if it were forced to operate as its competitors it would only mean that it would have to offer less service, to fewer people and offer their employees less benefits and all at a higher price. I am not sure why that would be in the public's best interest.
Amtrak has no real private competitors unless you mean to compare its eastern corridor service to say, Greyhound. Train service has never really been profitable anywhere so it makes little sense that completely private trains services would be offered. Nonetheless, inter-regional rail services, the whole world over are among the most popular services that any government provides. Governments everywhere but the US are resolved to the fact that interregional train systems, especially highspeed trains, offer major boosts to regional economies and have invested accordingly. Maybe we will catch up in 30 years or so but I doubt it.
As for foreign countries, let me propose something: they free ride off of American medical innovation. The high cost of US healthcare allows the US a competitive advantage
This is a claim I have seen brought up and shot down quite often. I have found it pretty unconvincing in the past but if you have something you can cite which makes a good case, I will be happy to read it.
Having not done extensive studies on either, I can say that my interactions with the post office have been marked by long lines and unhurried clerks who do not seem to care.
Amtrak I've generally been happy with, until I discovered that Chinatown buses can deliver me for roughly a quarter of the price.
But those are just examples. A few more I could bring up would be...the local campus food options at the school I am at. The food trucks provide a great variety of food for low prices, while my experience with food venders at school-sanctioned locations is that they are on a whole slovenly, slow, and not so good. Take that for what you will.
Anyways, the main point is that a public option changes one aspect of health-care delivery, a tangential element, that of the profit motive, which to many might seem unseemly especially when someone is denied a treatment.
The profit motive happens to also allow for outside funding outside of the taxpayer, and I don't see anyone complaining about people investing money in insurance companies, only when they take profits out of them. Also, insurance companies are known historically for being too slow to raise insurance rates -- that's right, too slow.
Now, some reforms like eliminating lifetime caps and recission practices are broad-based market reforms that many of these companies agree with. But simply killing them off sounds too much like shooting the messenger for the bad news -- in this case the insurance company is the messenger/disciplinarian and the message is high costs of health care.
Now, some reforms like eliminating lifetime caps and recission practices are broad-based market reforms that many of these companies agree with.
If by "agree with" you mean that they (some companies) will agree to go along with limited approaches to these reforms in order to forego more serious restrictions than yes, they will agree to them. They certainly do not agree to them as inherently profitable business practices because, of course, they aren't.
But simply killing them off sounds too much like shooting the messenger for the bad news -- in this case the insurance company is the messenger/disciplinarian and the message is high costs of health care.
The messenger and the message are, of course, not unrelated here. Health care costs are largely set by the buying practices and bargaining power of the insurers and for a variety of reasons, they have not controlled prices. Moreover, they have resisted the efforts of both regional and Federal governments to control prices out of fear for their own business models and profits. But it is certainly true that insurance companies are not the sole contributing factor to this particular problem. It is also true however, that constructed properly, a public option that either sets or negotiates lower rates has the potential lower costs throughout the system, which is, of course, the whole point of the public option.
Hasn't his old lady been a Health care lobbyist in the past?
It took fifteen minutes of googling but I found the comment I left here back when the "Should we boot Joe or not?" post appeared on this blog.
tom c November 7, 2008 3:07 PM
I may hit a profanity filter here but so be it. Have you ever heard the expression "Its better to have somebody inside a tent pissing out of it rather than standing outside your tent pissing into it."? Having Joe Lieberman in the caucus would be like have someone standing in your tent pissing in the tent on your sleeping bag. I fail to see the benefit.
I am not what anyone would call a great judge of charactor, or circumstance, or anything else but I should win a no-prize or something for that one.
Tom, I remember that comment. Brilliant!
Seriously. If he wants to caucus with the Democrats, ok. If they want to give him leadership positions, I can see that, so long as the understanding is that he votes with the caucus on *all* procedural votes. He decides to filibuster, he's kicked out of the caucus and it's a done deal.
Look, the guy can vote his conscience - I haven't seen anything in his career to suggest he has done otherwise, even when (see War, Iraq) it has hurt him considerably. I understand everybody's upset, but to talk about betrayal - well, that would be kind of like the left wing of the Democratic party spending millions of dollars in the first place to oust their own popular, electable Democratic incumbent candidate. And as for hurting the Democratic balance of power - well, that would be kind of like... the left wing of the Democratic party spending millions of dollars in the first place to oust their own popular, electable Democratic incumbent candidate.
You make the mistake of conflating liberals with the Democratic party.
I think he can vote his conscience on the final bill. On procedural votes, he needs to vote with the caucus, or else lose his leadership positions.
Look, the guy can vote his conscience
Of course he can. The point is that if "voting his conscience" mean actively obstructing the majority will of the Democratic caucus, then he can vote his conscience from outside the caucus. What exactly is the point of having something called a caucus otherwise?
I said this after the election in Nov but I have simply never heard of any group at any level of organization, from the Girl Scouts to NATO, that would allow a member to do to them what the Democrats allowed Lieberman to do without, at the very least, some sort of very serious penalty. Forget about some of his nastier comments during the campaign. If Lieberman had succeeded in what he very much wanted to achieve, every single item on the Democratic agenda, every single one, would have been dead on arrival for at least four years. They responded to these actions with some mild criticism and offering him the reward of his committee chairmanship which he had already neglected to use for anything substantive during the Bush years and which continues to languish as anything other than a sinecure for Lieberman now.
But as much of a slimy weasel as Lieberman is, he is not really the problem. My question for the Dem Senate caucus is: Why exactly did they imagine Joe wouldn't work against their interests on key legislative priorities now? They have already made it clear that he faces no consequences for several key attempts to damage Democratic legislative priorities in the past. If they are surprised by then they are too dimwitted to be trusted to govern in any case.
It's not even voting his conscience--it's obstructing a vote. I have no problem with him voting against the package. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about not letting it get to the floor.
Isn't it the same thing though?
Lieberman was, fairly, condemned on the left for voting for cloture on the Alito nomination. That brought the nomination to the floor and Lieberman's vote against Alito at that point was pointless. The real damaging vote was made at the procedural stage.
That's if you make the distinction that a vote against a filibuster is the same as a vote for a bill. However, given how times have changed...effectively, a vote against the filibuster of a bill is a yes vote, even if you do vote no. This also means accepting the reality that a supermajority in the senate is needed to get anything accomplished, instead of treating the filibuster as the parliamentary technicality that it is.
Isn't it the same thing though?
I wouldn't say so. It is certainly true that, depending upon the circumstance, one vote can be more damaging than the other. But, for me, the operative principle here whether one actually believes in democracy, or whether they believe they should have a sort of veto power, especially within their own caucus.
Any group, any team, work around the same basic idea. The team discusses what they want to do. Dissenting voices are heard but one way or another, the group decides how to move forward. When you decide that as a member of a group an issue is important enough to you that you will obstruct the decision of that group because you disagree with it, then you aren't really a member of that group.
You disagree with the team's decision? Fine. You have your opportunities to convince the team that you are correct (and Lieberman's arguments are transparently stupid and unconvincing) and if they still don't agree, you will have a chance to vote against it. But if your choice instead is to make sure that the team never even gets a chance to make the play, then what is the point of belonging to that team.
However, given how times have changed...effectively, a vote against the filibuster of a bill is a yes vote, even if you do vote no.
Times haven't changed. It has always and forever been the case that, for the most part, legislators more or less know where the votes are going to end up. What has changed is that many legislators have determined that it is best not to let it get to that stage. There is no intrinsic political reason that it needs to be that way.
Joe Lieberman is Fredo Corleone.
I think we're pretty close to the end of Godfather II...
The issue isn't whether Joe Lieberman votes his conscience. The issue is whether his conscience allows him to be a member of the Democratic caucus in good faith. In my opinion, if you want to caucus with the Democrats, it is incumbent on you to allow their legislation to proceed. If you find that you can't, do the honest thing and resign from the caucus. That's what a person of principle would do.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/66005-reid-reassures-the-left-lieberman-is-on-board
.
It seems that Joe Lieberman has reversed course again. Is he now filibustering himself?
deva (Replying to: BabylonSista) November 2, 2009 3:40 PM
"But doesn't he get that either way? His bad behavior doesn't improve his lobbying prospects. His long tenure in the Senate does."
His bad behavior could derail any real, significant healthcare reform this year. Barring some very good fortune for the Democrats, that means for the rest of the Obama administration (if it can be blocked now, it can be blocked later). Given that the only 'reform' a GOP administration would support would be to pump more money into the insurance/pharmaceutical companies, this means no chance of real, significant reform until ~2020. This means many, many billions of dollars per year in profits ensured, for at least a decade.
When Joe gets his cushy post-Senate payoff, it won't be for what lobbying he *will* do, it'll be a payoff for what he *did* do.
Dan W November 2, 2009 2:42 PM
"It seems like a game of chicken to me. He's basically weighing that the GOP will make a comeback in 2010 vs. the risk of losing all the power he has under a Democratic senate."
Remember, he's repeatedly told the Democratic leadership to f*ck off and die, and has been rewarded as if he were a former Republican who defected to the Democrats. At this point, I can't see the Democratic leadersihp (Reid *or* Obama) having any credibility with him. He doesn't fear them.
I think delf (presume it was a typo for self) interested should join the ranks of internet typo-driven jargon.
delf is the new pwn. That guy's so delf! (Liebermanesque, derivation: See T-N Coates at the Atlantic, 11/2009)
Eh. Nerd here.
although suddenly alert to how that might appear to, say, the graduates of Gallaudet, because I just noticed that why that might work for some is the analogy to "deaf." I did not mean that AT ALL. Selfish is what I had in mind (deaf hadn't occurred to me at all, just the ease of hitting 'd' when you meant to hit 's' and the self-interestedness of Sen Lieberman). Delf would work if everyone mentally pronounced the l, as in selfish, but probably too many wouldn't.