You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Lieberman’ tag.

Seems Obama gave the Senators a pep talk – well, at least the Democrats. It was so peppy, it stayed away from iffy stuff

But senators said he did not mention sticky issues like abortion or a new government-run insurance plan.

Which made Joe Lieberman very happy

“Well, it was interesting to me — of course everybody hears with their own ears — that he didn’t say anything about the public option,” said Lieberman. “

That’s as much as Huffpo reported. But Politico, in a gloomy titled piece

Chances shrink for pure public option

(we get an impure one?)

goes into more of what Lieberman said

“That’s exactly what I’ve been saying to my colleagues who are pushing for the public option. This bill has so much good in it, and it does so much good — it’s deficit neutral and all the rest. Why are you insisting on getting a foot in the door for single-payer?

A foot in the door…Sounds almost like slippery slope. How mny times needs Joementum remind us: IT’S NOT WHAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES DECIDED THEY DO. Again, this is what insurers paid for in 2008and declared last December

Insurers oppose the creation of a Medicare-style public insurance option,

The insurers also do not support an employer mandate.

Insurers would agree to stop denying coverage to people because of pre-existing conditions as long as all individuals were required by law to buy insurance.

To help make coverage affordable to middle class people, particularly the self-employed and those who work for small businesses, the government would give refundable tax credits on a sliding scale, according to income

This is the insurers bill, as written by them. Do you see single payer, public option in there?

Also, for those who might have forgotten, Obama intervened for Lieberman’s preserving his full rights after his support for McCain

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

As the media keeps harping on the Obama era, I have been trying to figure out a defining feature – besides “Jr.jr”.

I found this news on Political Wire

Lieberman Bounces Back

In the wake of Sen. John McCain’s loss in the presidential election, “many political analysts said Lieberman was done. Defying the pundits yet again, Lieberman survived a major effort to take away his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship. And his political stock has spiked.”

And there’s one comment which best sums it up:

This is a greater reflection on Obama’s leadership, rather than Liebermans.

Indeed. How did courageous Bush critics fares? Let’s see:

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame – told to STFU

Paul Krugman seems to have been coopted in the process of Wooing the Gray Lady

having already given face-time to Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, David Brooks and Maureen Dowd.

Dan Froomkin from WaPo was fired. Laments Greenwald:

what one finds virtually nowhere in the establishment press are those who criticize Obama not in order to advance their tawdry right-wing agenda but because the principles that led them to criticize Bush compel similar criticism of Obama.

For those who missed the count, this is the guy who joined WRWC against Clinton expressing ‘indignation” in the senate, betrayed Gore, selling the election by demanding phony military ballots to be counted, sponsored (with Edwards0 the IWR, supported every neocon excess during Bush, was reelected with Cheney’s and the GOP help by running against the Dem candidate (DNC helped too) and for the finishing touch endorsed McCain.

So, yeah, that someone like Lieberman (Obama’s mentor, BTW) flourishes in these times, is a reflection on Obama, more than it is on Lieberman.

I have to say, this is for me a sit on the sidelines and enjoy situation as both sides disgust me for different reasons. So, I’ll kibitz and score their points

The subject of the gloating is Lieberman. On substance I am entirely on the side of the netroots – he should be out. Not for supporting McCain, but for supporting the war. And selling the 2000 win. And a few more things.
But I also recognize that his very election, like Obama’s is testimony of the collusion of the so called 2 parties.

That being said, let me  fully enjoy the title

Barack Obama doesn’t fear the enraged, impotent Netroots

Richard Kirchik from the New Republic is happy:

That the Netroots – the fabled bloggers who, in 2004, carried Howard Dean from being an unknown governor of a small state to a Democratic presidential front-runner – are not the potent political force that the media portrays was confirmed this past week when Senate Democrats resisted their “demand” that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman be punished for endorsing John McCain for President

yes, the feud started with Dean’s candidacy, and is not forgotten.

For weeks, they pounded their keyboards, huffed and puffed on their Internet radio shows and called on their readers to flood the offices of Democratic senators with phone calls and e-mails demanding that Lieberman be stripped of his chairmanship over the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

and the Orange Cheeto gets a special mention

“He wasn’t sanctioned,” seethed Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos. “And Senate Democrats trying to make that claim are dishonestly trying to cover up the extent of their betrayal of the American people’s vote for change.”

Imagine the shock, Marcos! The guy who had Barbara Boxer and Dick Cheney campaign for him in 2006 – each to his own party – is not “punished”! Oh, the humanity!

Jane Hamsher is also quoted with a statement that I find insightful

“No matter what Joe Lieberman does,” wrote Jane Hamsher, proprietor of the popular liberal blog Firedoglake, “the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.”

and a story unknown to me about a doctored photo in the 2006 campaign

That being said, I fully agree with this delicious statement

Given the intensity of blogger rage over Lieberman, one can understand how their defeat at the ends of their own party would lend itself to hyperbole, but when did the “American people” appoint Markos Moulitsas their spokesman?

and profoundly disagree with this one

many liberals have been quick to claim that the Democratic triumph means that we’re now living in a liberal country.

They should take a deep breath before reaching such conclusions. Only 22% of voters this year consider themselves “liberal” while 34% call themselves “conservative,” numbers roughly unchanged from four years ago.

There wasn’t a “democratic” triumph, and the many liberals in this country have been had.

But this is the DLC – and the article ends with “neener, neener, neener – Obama is ours” – which is true:

The week before Tuesday’s meeting, Obama let it be known that he bore “no grudge” against Lieberman. Setting a positive tone so early after a hard-fought election, he is already making good on his promise to, if not end, then at least lessen the “petty partisanship” he decried in the campaign. Among the positive outcomes of this week’s abject lesson in letting bygones be bygones, it is reassuring to see that the leadership of the Democratic Party isn’t as petty, vindictive and small as its left-wing supporters.

How many times did I read during the primaries the accusation: “Hillary is DLC?”

And of course the reality (as of February 2007) is this

In a Washington Post interview, Harold Ford, the new chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, says Illinois’ junior senator has expressed interest in “find[ing] ways he could work with the DLC.Ford describes Obama as a “personal friend” and says they talk regularly.

Not Your Sweetie

September 2020