TPMDC
Dean: Lieberman, Others Have 'Moral Obligation' To Block Filibuster
Christina Bellantoni | November 3, 2009, 11:59AM
Fmr. DNC Chair Howard Dean
Share
Send to a friend!
Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean told TPMDC he supports groups like MoveOn targeting his fellow Democrats on health care because they have a "moral obligation" to stand with Senate leadership on procedural votes.
"There is no moral obligation to support the leadership on an issue," Dean told TPMDC in a wide-ranging interview this morning.
"But you have a moral obligation to help the leader run the senate the way he thinks it needs to be run. What these liberal groups are doing is fine," he said.
Dean called out Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and said caucusing with a party and benefiting from committee assignments as a member of the party is dependent on supporting the party leadership.
"Even though I disagree with him, Joe Lieberman is well within his right to vote against a public option," Dean said. "No one has the right to oppose the leader. That isn't fair."
Dean predicted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be able to reach an understanding with moderate senators such as Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Ben Nelson (D-NE).
"They honor this stuff, it's the unspoken rule," he said.
Dean said he doesn't envy Reid, who has a much more difficult job than Speaker Nancy Pelosi in getting his members in line. He said he supports using reconciliation as a tactic of getting a final bill passed if necessary.
Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said he hasn't wavered on whether a public option should be part of the health care plan.
"If we don't have a public option this is not health care reform, period," he said. "If it were me writing the bill the public option would be a lot stronger, but this is workable what you've got here."
He thinks the final bill will have a public option, but if it doesn't, he warned the Democrats risk losing their majority in 2010. He said if that happens activists would feel disillusioned and turnout would be low.
"If they don't pass a strong health care bill with a decent public option I think we could lose the majority in the house. Their fate is tied to the health care bill," he said.
"If the activists sit on their hands next year they are going down and we could lose 30 or 40 seats," Dean said.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid
- The Public Option Dead End
- Al Gore: I'll "Outcrazy the Crazy"
- Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
- What Did We Learn From Saturday's Health Care Vote
- Bachmann: 'I Don't Understand Why The Democratic Party Would Be Opposed To Me'
- Poll: Health Care Bill Could Hurt Dems -- And Not Passing It Would Be Worse
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Loses Patience in CBS5 Interview
- Coburn: I Acted As Ensign-Hampton Go-Between
- Obama Announces Programs to Boost Math and Science Education
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- November 22
- I Call Bullshit.
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- Steele: 'Moderate Democrats Sacrificed Their Principles'
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- Intel Inside? Prove It.
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Filibuster Thwarted ... For Now
- I Call Bullshit.
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Establishment Reality
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- The Cast Has Assembled
- Bernie Sanders: I Want My Leverage!
- Clinton Not Attending Health Care Event Because it's Politicized?
- Time to contact the FCC
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
CJ
November 3, 2009 12:05 PM
One word: reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
November 3, 2009 12:08 PM
Good to know that somebody out there is listening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
November 3, 2009 12:12 PM
I do not think this is an idle threat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KY Yellow Dog
November 3, 2009 12:17 PM
As a Deaniac since the spring of 2003, I have only this to say to everyone regarding Howard Dean:
We told you so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
November 3, 2009 2:46 PM in reply to KY Yellow Dog
To which imaginary anti-Dean Democrats is that statement directed? I don't think a lot of the DLC types who opposed him are posting on TPM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 3, 2009 12:31 PM
Reconciliation isn't likely to work. The parliamentarian will poke so many holes in the the bill that it won't be more Medicare reform than health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 3, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to Icon
that it will be more Medicare reform than health care reform, rather.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
November 3, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to Icon
You're mistaken. Reconciliation is likely to work. Senate Dems can take a simple, two-step process.
Step One: Pass health care reform absent a public option, absent the Blue State Public Option (i.e., the opt-out compromise), and absent a trigger. It will easily survive the filibuster and easily pass the Senate.
Step Two: Pass the most robust public option imaginable, access to Medicare for all (its parliamentarian proof), via reconciliation.
Job well done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 3, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to CJ
Step Two is far from certain. Not only is the relevance of that to the budget questionable (I say this as a person that supports such a public option), but it's not even clear a majority of the Senate supports such a plan.
There's the moderate democrats who don't want a public option (~4-5), but then there's the moderate democrats who don't want a Medicare-like public option (at least 10).
The nuclear option or installing a partisan parliamentarian are more certain ways to pass the current bill. But even breaking a filibuster doesn't change the fact that the "robust" public option does not have the votes to pass the Senate at this time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
richard f
November 3, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to Icon
Step Two is far from certain. Not only is the relevance of that to the budget questionable (I say this as a person that supports such a public option), but it's not even clear a majority of the Senate supports such a plan
I would go much farther. I don't think an access to medicare plan for everyone would get 40 votes. It might be a good idea but there is no way in hell that it gets 50 votes (especially as part of a contentious reconciliation plan)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 3, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to richard f
You may be right.
People on the left have a tendency to naively believe that were it not for Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, Bayh or Landrieu we'd have a strong public option without any problem.
The reality is the other 55 Democrats agree that there needs to be a public option, but they're divided in almost equal numbers on whether Rockefeller-like or Schumer-like public option is the best ide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Big River Bandido
November 3, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to CJ
With all due respect, that would be a disastrous course. You suggest that Congress swallow the honey first and then the medicine. That's a recipe for getting stabbed in the back by those who don't want a public option at all and will only vote for a bill with it because it's labeled "reform". They'll be happy to vote against pre-existing conditions and heap praise upon themselves for helping to pass a healthcare reform bill. And then they'll brush their hands off, say the job is done and leave public option supporters out in the cold.
If the two items are to be split up, the public option portion must be enacted first. The rest should follow only after it's too late for the nonbelievers to fuck us over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdop4
November 3, 2009 12:34 PM
With all the talk about the GOP civil war, Democratic leadership risks a large scale defection by progressives if they don't take care of business on this issue.
I've been a Democrat since I could vote, but I'm beginning to think progressives could be more effective operating as a separate party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
November 3, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to bdop4
I think there is no doubt whatsoever that progressives would be more effective with their own party, if we had fair ballot access laws and publicly funded campaigns. Under the current circumstances, I'm not sure.
On the other hand, if we could drive all the fakes and idiots and collaborators out of the Democratic party, progressives could be effective as the Democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 3, 2009 12:56 PM
"Moral" obligation? Since when have politicians had morals? Other than Obama of course, but he really isn't a typical politician.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 3, 2009 1:04 PM
He thinks the final bill will have a public option, but if it doesn't, he warned the Democrats risk losing their majority in 2010. He said if that happens activists would feel disillusioned and turnout would be low.
"If they don't pass a strong health care bill with a decent public option I think we could lose the majority in the house. Their fate is tied to the health care bill," he said.
"If the activists sit on their hands next year they are going down and we could lose 30 or 40 seats," Dean said.
Word
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brian M
November 3, 2009 1:25 PM
"If the activists sit on their hands next year they are going down and we could lose 30 or 40 seats," Dean said.
Yes, that's true - if we choose to sit on our hands and do nothing. The energy that was evidenced in the 2008 election cycle ought to be brought to bear on selected, obstructionist Dems who are in fact DINOs. Much like the situation in NY 23 where the moderate to left leaning republican was driven to withdraw, the same sort of pressure should be placed on moderate to right leaning Democrats. Let it be clear there is a price to pay for not upholding party principles and following party leaders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
November 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
November 3, 2009 10:59 PM
I hope the gubernatorial election results don't weaken further the already weak spines of these dogs (the blue kind).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?