Liebermania 2009 Continues

True, the list of people to blame for the shittiness of the reform bill is a mile long. True, some people on that list played a larger role than Lieberman. But it's also true that Lieberman has deserved pretty much every mean word aimed at him during the entire debacle. Here, enjoy this short video made by people who have The Right Idea:



Lieberman: will you just go back to Connecticut and get out of our way?

"No."

Which Side Are You On?

Are you in favor or real reform or a givaway to the health insurance companies? Are you with Joe Lieberman or Howard Dean?

Well at least Obama's making his position clear:

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs strongly hit back at former DNC Chairman Howard Dean for criticizing the Senate health care bill, suggesting, at one point, that Dean was being irrational and didn't understand the contents of the legislation.

"I don't know what piece of legislation he is reading," said Gibbs.

"I would ask Dr. Dean, how better do you address those who don't have insurance: passing a bill that will cover 30 million who don't currently have it or killing the bill?" he added. "I don't think any rational person would say killing the bill makes a whole lot of sense at this point."

Asked if Dean was acting irrationally, Gibbs replied: "I can't tell what his motives are, to be honest with you."

. . .

"If this is an insurance company's dream, I think the insurance companies have yet to get the memo," he summarized.

As Sam Stein points out, Gibbs must have missed Ben Smith's report where an insurance company lobbyist emailed him "we win", after the senate bill was negotiated. But regardless, calling Dean "irrational", and accusing him of not having read the bill? Where was one tenth of this anger towards any of the people actually responsible for giving us a shitty legislation?

And the president's feelings towards Joe Lieberman after he killed any prospect of a good bill?

Obama thanked Lieberman privately for his statement issued earlier Tuesday pledging support for the bill as long as the Medicare expansion and public option were eliminated from the bill, Lieberman said.

Well, fuck.

A reader at TPM says it best, it's not just about the losing:

I think people are pissed right now less at the fact that they didn't get what they wanted, and more at the fact that they feel like their people didn't really fight for it. Leaders don't always get what they want. But people recognize when true leaders at least give it a shot. And people judge that leadership by what they say in public and how hard they see them publicly pushing for it. Closed door negotiations don't count.

They wanted to see Obama push the public option and say that it was crucial, important part. His broad outlines of "cuts the deficit, improves coverage" is too bland and not something people can rally around, and he gives the impression that he's ceding power and leadership to a less capable bunch in the legislative branch.

They wanted to see news stories about how "staffers close to the majority leader" say that chaimanships and other perks were on the line for any Democrat who talked about filibustering this crucial bill.

They wanted to see congressional leadership and the president campaign hard for an "up or down vote on healthcare" the way the Republicans did so effectively for the judge appointments.

But none of that happened, and the things that people care about died with a whimper.

I know there's been a lot of game theory from people about how that would never work, etc. But the fact is that you can show leadership for big ideas and there's always still room to compromise at the end. At least then it would be clear that there was no other way, that you put up the good fight, better luck next time.

Instead they feel like the people they voted for and trusted to lead them failed. And it's hard to imagine making that same emotional commitment again in the future. Self defeating, yes. Temporary, maybe. But we're talking primal stuff here - people don't like wimps, not matter what party.

Watching Howard Dean completely dismantle Mary Landrieu on hardball last night is a nice reminder of what that type of emotional commitment and leadership actually looks like:

Any time someone tells you how you need to "come home" and support this bill, remember how much they've actually battled for real reform throughout this process. You don't owe them shit. They haven't fought for you, why should you fight for them?

Remove the mandate or kill the bill.

They've put us in a position where there are no good outcomes, but that doesn't mean we need to accept the worst possible one.

It's Not Just Lieberman

Yes, Joe Lieberman may very well be one of the worst human beings on the planet. Even in a US Senate filled with narcissistic corporate whores who only care about the spotlight and enriching the industries that paid for their reelection, Lieberman his has risen to his own special level of asshattery.

But here's the thing: he's not president, he's not speaker of the house and he's not the majority leader. He's only as powerful as the Democratic leadership lets him be. Chris Bowers:

Nothing Lieberman is doing would be possible without the ongoing support of the majority of the Democratic caucus. If Democratic Senators wanted to punish Lieberman for his consistent transgressions against the party, they could. If Democrats wanted to use reconciliation, and just circumvent him altogether, they could do that to. But they are not going to do either.

As such, Lieberman is simply taking the power that is being handed to him by the rest of the caucus. Since he knows that Senate Democrats won't ever punish him, and won't ever circumvent him, he now has free reign to dictate whatever legislation he wants, get tons of face time with the White House and Senate leadership, regularly be the top story on news outlets around the country, receive millions in campaign contributions, and appease his Republican base (at this point, most of Lieberman's supporters are Republicans). It is a great deal for Lieberman, and it would not be possible without the ongoing consent of the majority of the Democratic Senate caucus.

Since we have already defeated Lieberman in a Democratic primary, there is nothing more severe we can do as progressive activists to directly threaten Lieberman. What we need to start doing is taking action against the Democrats who enable Lieberman and his ilk. If other Senate Democrats are not going to do anything about Lieberman taking control of the entire caucus, then really, what is the difference between those other Senators and Joe Lieberman?
Never thought I would echo George W. Bush, but we have reached the point where it is time to stop differentiating between problematic Senators like Joseph Lieberman and the other Senate Democrats who enable them.

Lieberman is many things, but stupid is not one of them. He (like many of us) knows that the majority of the Democrats in the senate a bunch of pussies when it comes to actually fighting for anything that matters. He knows that Harry Reid won't use the leverage he has to strip him of his chairmanship, or that Obama won't threaten him in the slightest. You'd think these people would be tired of getting repeatedly screwed over by this man, but apparently not.

When Lieberman was in the race for his political life in Connecticut against non-antichrist candidate Ned Lamont, Obama used his star power and popularity to endorse him in the primary. Lieberman repaid this favor by endorsing and campaigning for his opponent in the presidential election, which included standing on stage when vile, hateful slurs were used to attack him.

Other than this brief lapse with sanity, Obama returned to his usual bipartians/pragmatic/generic-David-Broder-cliche self upon winning the election, telling senate Democrats not to expel Lieberman from the caucus and to let him retain his chairmanship. And then we have yesterday, where Lieberman repaid him by obstructing Obama's main domestic initiative, vowing to join a filibuster to oppose it.

While most sane people see this finally crossing the uncrossable line, the White House seems to have decided to bend over and wait for his demands:

The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations.

But Reid is described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he is not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill, and first wants to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.

"There is a weariness and a lot of frustration that one person is holding up the will of 59 others," the official said. “There is still too much anger and confusion at one particular senator’s reversal.”

To call that a failure of leadership isn't strong enough. He may be a powerful Senator, but no one has done more to keep him in this position then Harry Reid and Barack Obama. They may not be scum of the earth like Lieberman is, but this situation is just as much their fault as it is his.

Motives behind Corporate Whore's Corporate Whoring Remain Unclear

In case you were wondering who was excited about Joe Lieberman's douchery...

(image via Thinkprogress)

Not that this is surprising, it would just be nice if the press made this the focus of their coverage rather than going along with his plea for attention. Or they could have gone with this angle:

Following Lieberman's threat to filibuster a public option, every paper played up the story of how the "centrists" are now rebelling. Watch out, the centrists are coming! "Centrists unsure about Reid's public option," the Washington Post reported Wednesday. Let's get real. These holdouts are not centrist Democrats; they are corporate Democrats, which should be an oxymoron. They'll do whatever the healthcare industry wants and use their red state constituents as an excuse to do so. Only Lieberman is from Connecticut, one of the bluest states in the country. So what's his excuse?

Well, some rather large insurance companies reside in Connecticut and, as Joe Conason points out, Lieberman's wife just so happens to have been a drug industry lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton. Conason reports:

"Among Hill & Knowlton's clients when Mrs. Lieberman signed on with the firm last year was GlaxoSmithKline, the huge British-based drug company that makes vaccines along with many other drugs. As I noted in July, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill in April 2005 (the month after his wife joined Hill & Knowlton) that would award billions of dollars in new "incentives" to companies like GlaxoSmithKline to persuade them to make more new vaccines. Under the legislation, known as Bioshield II, the cost to consumers and governments would be astronomical, but for Lieberman and his Republican cosponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the results would be worth every penny. Using the war on terror as their ideological backdrop, the pharma-friendly senators sought to win patent extensions on products that have nothing to do with preparations against terrorist attack or natural disaster."

Calling these people "centrists" has always been one of my pet peeves. While the media can't call them whores or douche bags like some assholes do, pointing out extremely obvious conflicts of interest would be nice.

But He's With Us On Everything But The War!

Someone wasn't getting enough attention:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told reporters today that he would in fact filibuster any health care bill he doesn't agree with--and right now, he doesn't agree with the public option proposal making its way through the Senate.

"I told Senator Reid that I'm strongly inclined--i haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined--to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together because it's important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill."

Hey Democrats, it's not like we didn't warn you...

Douche Caucus Angered that Other Senators are Doing Their Jobs

Calling all attention whores:

Six key Senate Centrists--Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Ron Wyden (D-OR)--are asking Democratic and Republican leaders to slow down the pace of health care reform efforts.

"[I]n the view of [CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's] statement, there is much heavy lifting ahead," reads a letter the group signed today. "We look forward to working with you to develop legislation that is vital to the well-being of the American people and urge you to resist timelines which prevent us from achieving the best results."

According to Huffington Post's Ryan Grim, who first obtained the letter, "The organized effort to slow down the process is a blow to the reform effort." And, indeed, there letter exemplifies a growing sense among centrists and health reform skeptics that the pace of reform should be slowed down. But it's also a restatement of very publicly held views. Earlier today, Nelson himself appeared on CNN and suggested congressional health care leaders should not to move too quickly.

Just like the way Nelson, Snowe and Specter held up the stimulus to be seen as kingmakers who get meetings at the white house, none of these six actually care about working on the bill, as much as how they look while tinkering with it.

The good news is that unlike what the article states, these six senators aren't "key" at all. In fact, since the Democrats can pass health care reform with 51 votes through reconciliation, they can (and should) be told to go fuck themselves.

Leiberman "Moving Forward" Past his Support of the Public Option

Once again a big thank you to Harry Reid and Barack Obama for keeping this guy relevant:

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has a bipartisan group of senators ready to help pass health care reform — minus a government-run insurance plan.

During a New Haven stop to support overall reform, Connecticut’s independent fourth-term senator gave his strongest statement to date opposing Democrats’ and President Obama’s call for a “public option” health care plan.

I'd say I told you so, but it's not like I (or anyone else in the netroots) made some sort of bold prediction. No, I'm pretty sure anyone halfway paying attention could tell that Joe Lieberman was a self serving jackass and see this type of thing coming. It's just unfortunate that those with the power to make these decisions 8 months ago didn't see it that way:

Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.

"This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward."

Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.

Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."

But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?"

"I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward."

Lieberman himself, meanwhile, said he was able to keep his slot thanks to Barack Obama, whose recent statement said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying.

So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.

Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.

While they deserve most of the blame for this mess, we can't overlook the fact that a diary titled "Lieberman vote IS the change we need, not its repudiation" was Rec listed on the same day that Lieberman was voted back into the party.

Everybody makes mistakes. But the Democratic party takes this stuff to new heights. It might be the most frustrating part of politics: Watching (for the most part) otherwise very smart people repeatedly fail to learn from their mistakes.

Who could have imagined?

What this blog wrote about Joe Lieberman being allowed to keep his Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship back in November:

When the top rec listed diaries on Dailykos are titled "Lieberman vote IS the change we need, not its repudiation" and "Revenge, Dean had it right", it's enough give you serious pause.

I frankly don't care that two people who a greatly respect like Howard Dean and Barack Obama think that this was the right way to handle this situation. It isn't. In this case, they are wrong. It shouldn't matter who they are, and it doesn't mean they are bad people. But they are wrong. And they can say that it's about revenge and bipartisanship all they want, but I'm sure even they know that's not true. It's about investigating Hurricane Katrina, and it's about stopping someone who says you hang out with terrorists a platform to speak for you and your party. Competent governance and allowing someone to spread lies under your banner are bigger issues than something as petty as "revenge". The worst part in all of this is that defending people blindly when they are wrong shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics works, and reminds those leaders exactly why they didn't listen to you in the first place.

Tuesday, Jane Hamsher:

One, Two, Three, Let’s All Say It Together...

From the Hill:

Lieberman, the self-described independent Democrat who questioned Obama’s credentials to serve as commander in chief during the 2008 campaign, has panned the Obama administration’s proposal to cut the nation’s missile defense shield.

Lieberman’s opposition is problematic for the Obama administration because he is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the panel charged with assessing threats to the nation.

AAAAAAGHHHHHHHHH*%@#!!~$%#@&^%$#@#$%#%^!!!!!!!!!!!

My feelings exactly. This would be an "I told you so post" if it wasn't so blatantly obvious that this would be the outcome of empowering Lieberman back in November. We gave a self serving douche power... AND HE'S ACTING LIKE A SELF SERVING DOUCHE!?!?!?!? NO! NOT POSSIBLE!!!

And while opposing Obama on Missile defense isn't the end of the world, it's also just the first time of many that we'll be seeing this sentance in the paper:

Lieberman’s opposition is problematic for the Obama administration because he is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee

I'd say I can't wait till 2012, but I'm sure by then Reid and Obama will be bending over backwards getting every popular Democrat to hit the campaign trail for him. You'd think there would be only so many times you could screw someone over or call them a terrorist before they fight back, but apparently not.

Lieberman on Lieberman

Good to see a US senator helping a racist nutjob get international respectability:

Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman met with his American namesake, US Senator Joseph Lieberman, on Sunday in what sources close to him said was an audition for the role he wants in Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu's government: foreign minister

. . .

The senator requested the meeting, because he wanted to better understand the Israel Beiteinu leader's views. He advised his namesake to go to the US to explain his views.

Just a refresher: (JN gives background here as well)

Under the party slogan "No loyalty, no citizenship", Mr Lieberman also wants a law demanding Israeli-Arabs pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state and committing them to some form of national service.

And his blunt invective and the blatant disregard for political correctness have further raised concern internationally and on the Israeli left.

For example, he has said that Israeli-Arab MPs who met Hamas should be executed like Nazi collaborators after the Nuremburg trials.

And according to the Jerusalem Post he said in January 2009 that Israel should "continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II" - widely interpreted as a reference to the dropping of nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima…

Mr Lieberman is a champion of the Israeli settlers and takes a tough line on unilateral withdrawals from Jewish settlements arguing that Israel gets nothing in return, particularly security guarantees.

He pulled out of [an earlier] government in January 2008, however, refusing to back its peace talks with the Palestinians on core issues under the US-backed Annapolis process.

Joe Lieberman: Always finding new ways to be an asshole.

The Senate Democrats get spineless, and the Netroots loses their understanding of politics

Can anyone say they were surprised? TPM:

Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.

"This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward."

Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.

Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."

Honestly Harry, I really wouldn't go there.

But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?"

"I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward."

Lieberman himself, meanwhile, said he was able to keep his slot thanks to Barack Obama, whose recent statement said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying.

So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.

Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.

Just another reminder of what we're "moving forward" from:


A committee chairmanship is a reward, not something anyone is entitled to. And let's remember making him chair isn't meaningless, he used his power to block any investigations of the Hurricane Katrina incompetence, which you'd think would be reason enough to strip him of his post alone.

And then there's this: (Via Stoller):

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

I started to write a response, but just found that Sirota had already said the same thing but better:

It's pretty odd that only two weeks after a landslide election that saw a huge ideological progressive mandate, Democratic congressional leaders think it's a great public message to declare jihad on progressives.

I don't know, call me crazy, but I think 67 million people voted for Democrats because they want Democrats to reject Bush's ideological conservatism and solve problems - not spend their time making paranoid, quasi-McCarthy-ist speeches deriding "the Left."

But they do it because they know people will continue to take this crap. I am honestly getting more and more worried about the netroots developing their own brand of "dear leader syndrome" where no matter what a popular figure does, people start justifying insane positions simply because a popular figure has taken them. Over the past couple of weeks we've seen people on liberal blogs sing the praises of Rahm Emmanuel, excitedly support the bailout because the leadership said so, defend Volker and Summers as treasury secretary candidates and love the idea of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But yesterday was a new low. When the top rec listed diaries on Dailykos are titled "Lieberman vote IS the change we need, not its repudiation" and "Revenge, Dean had it right", it's enough give you serious pause.

I frankly don't care that two people who a greatly respect like Howard Dean and Barack Obama think that this was the right way to handle this situation. It isn't. In this case, they are wrong. It shouldn't matter who they are, and it doesn't mean they are bad people. But they are wrong. And they can say that it's about revenge and bipartisanship all they want, but I'm sure even they know that's not true. It's about investigating Hurricane Katrina, and it's about stopping someone who says you hang out with terrorists a platform to speak for you and your party. Competent governance and allowing someone to spread lies under your banner are bigger issues than something as petty as "revenge". The worst part in all of this is that defending people blindly when they are wrong shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics works, and reminds those leaders exactly why they didn't listen to you in the first place.

Luckily, there are people like Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who I was fortunate enough to see speak yesterday at a Campaign for America's Future event. During the Q&A, he paused in mid answer and said this:(scribbled down from my notes, so may not be exact quote)

This may sound like sacrilege in this room, but Barack Obama has the potential to be a great president. But when you’re president, you get pulled from a lot of different directions. Right now, he’s getting pulled by a lot of centrists, and all comes down to who pulls him the hardest. He could very easily be a centrist president. But if we pull the hardest, then we have a great potential for progressive change.

And it's the netroots must do a the majority of this "pulling". As FDR said to his supporters in one of my all time favorite political quotes: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

I believe Obama operates in a similar way, and that's gives me great hope about his presidency.

"Making them do it" is the cornerstone to effective politics. And based on the results of the Lieberman vote, we obviously have a lot of work to do.

How far is too far?

I find myself wondering that quite a bit, mostly in reference to cowardly and unprincipled Democrats, willing to abandon their beliefs in order to compromise with Republicans.

The most obvious example of this came last year during the primary campaign I wondered how organized labor would even speak to a candidate whose chief strategist was a union buster. If you're a labor union and you don't make a stand against union-busting, then where the fuck do you draw the line?

Last night Joe Lieberman spoke in prime time at the Republican convention, praising the Republican candidate for president, and attacking the Democratic nominee.

What the fuck else does he have to do to be stripped of his chairmanship?! Leaving him as a committee chair has real world consequences. For all of the talk of Gustav and New Orleans in the news, HE IS THE REASON THERE HAVE BEEN NO INVESTIGATIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA!

MINUS

=

Your current Democratic leadership.