TPMDC

Rahm To Reid: Give Lieberman What He Wants

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Obama administration officials were not pleased when word leaked out earlier today that the White House was leaning on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Lieberman on a public option alternative--and they gave their counterparts on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. an earful about it. But in the end, sources are unanimous: The White House wants Reid to hand Joe Lieberman the farm.

An aide briefed on discussions with the White House says that there would be no story if Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel hadn't interceded. The aide confirmed an account, reported by Huffington Post, that Emanuel visited Reid personally, telling him to cut a deal with Lieberman.

Then the aide provided more detail.

Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers.

"It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman--not twisting his arm.

This is the second Senate aide to provide nearly identical accounts of the White House's intervention. It seems very much as if officials there desperately want the Senate to pass a bill, at all costs.

At this point, the Medicare buy-in isn't in exactly what you'd call "good health." But the fact that it hasn't been officially nixed by Reid suggest there's some remaining tension between Reid and the White House over this issue. We'll know soon who wins.

Comments (333) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (3)

December 14, 2009 8:08 PM   

Why stop with the farm? Give him Illinois.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:32 PM    in reply to bluebell

We folks from the Illinois territory wouldn't appreciate this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:40 PM    in reply to Vavasseur

Maybe Harkin will thrown in Iowa and Brown will contribute Ohio.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:48 PM    in reply to bluebell

Dems already gave him the whole USofA by way of Homeland Security Chairmanship. He wants more. He wants Mr Reid's job. Heck, why stop there? He may want Mr Obama's job.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:35 PM    in reply to bluebell

Shocking that a weasel like Rahm would stop at nothing to get a bill passed no matter how bad. He's one of the worst strategists of all time. He'll go down in history as the man whose advice sank mighty America and turned it into a third world disaster.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 10:58 PM    in reply to oleeb

America was a disaster way before Rahm. You know that, but choose hyperbole. It's tiring.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 11:22 PM    in reply to Dorn76

It's not hyperbole. He's an amoral, totally unethical person. None of this means anything to him in terms of the human costs of his lying and double dealing.

For you though, being a true believer and an Obama can do no wronger, I'm sure that thinking this is hyperbole sooths you and allows you to continue to comfortably deny reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 11:01 PM    in reply to oleeb

'He'll go down in history as the man whose advice sank mighty America and turned it into a third world disaster."

Really. This comment could only come from a complete moron or someone who was deep in a coma for the last nine years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 11:26 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Have some more kool aid. It'll keep ya feeling like you have a clue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 4:51 AM    in reply to oleeb

This is not just a failing Rahm, Obama, Reid or even LIEberman strategy — this includes the "good guys" like Harkin and Sherrod Brown.

There is a single strategy already on the table, a parliamentary trick that would only require 50 senators and whoever is acting president of the senate, and it's a trigger that can be pulled at any time the senate is in session.

If there were senators actually interested in stopping this runaway train of filibusters (139 in the last senate, a number absolutely guaranteed to be broken in this one), that parliamentary trick of the so-called "nuclear option" (it's explained relatively well @ Wiki) could be played.

If there were enough senators that actually want this nightmare to stop.

However, secretly in their heart of hearts, I think every senator kind of likes the idea that they can pony up and leverage such single-senator power. Because once the "nuclear option" special handshake language is uttered and ruled upon by the president of the senate, the filibuster dies, not just on this issue but for all time.

Dead. And gone. Forever. Why they call it nuclear. Why nobody's really talking about it.

And it needs to happen. Now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 10:59 PM    in reply to bluebell

Talk to Connecticut. We like Schakowsky, Durbin and (yes, even) Burris just fine, thank you very much.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:08 PM   

Will cost Reid his senate seat, along with Dodd and Lincoln. It's really going to hurt Obama as well as he has his pitbull threatening 59 Senators to appease one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:10 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

threatening them with what?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:12 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

Who knows, maybe just a mean look. I mean Reid is famous for his sternly worded letters.

Reid has to lose in 2010. Addition by subtraction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:04 AM    in reply to Viva!America!

Maybe with the disaster America faces if there is no health care bill passed? Because of all the actions that might return the Republicans to power in 2010 / 2012, that is the most likely.

HCR, even the rump form that will meet Lieberman's sick egotistical requirements, is so far above what we have right now as to be in a different universe. And it's just the first bite at the apple. Pass something now and then improve on it because the Republicans will not be able to reverse whatever is passed.

Don't pass anything right now and the Republicans have won and America has lost for a decade or more - again. The President's choice and that of Rahm Emmanuel is to lose big time with honor and flags flying or they can win part of the battle and come back again later to continue the battle. It's decision time, and it looks like the White House has decided to take whatever can be won right now and try again later.

If that's a correct analysis of what Rahm is doing then we are all going to look back later and agree that it was the right decision. America, Obama and the Democrats simply cannot accept the defeat that Clinton took on health care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:16 AM    in reply to Richardxx

Spoken like a true Rahm/Lieberman apologist. You guys are all over the place tonight. Gotta hand it to Rahm & Ari - nobody can mobilize a hoard of media and blogospheric spinners and damage control artists like the Emmanuel brothers. Keep up the good work. America may lose the war, but you guys will almost certainly win the battle of the news cycle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:53 AM    in reply to ched

"nobody can mobilize a hoard of media and blogospheric spinners and damage control artists like the Emmanuel brothers"

nice tin-foil dome yer sportin' there chad!

Teh eeevil Emanuels rule the world!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 9:43 AM    in reply to ched

I suppose that you think the Democrats should fully participate in the testosterone battle over health care. That means killing what remains of the hcr that exists right now after half a year of battle just to get back at Lieberman. Grow up. Getting revenge does not mean hitting yourself.

I'm no defender of Lieberman. I'm also no fan of the continued existence of the Senate. The Senate itself has no value to America. It is simply a useless left-over relic of aristocracy that is a dagger at the heart of our country and at the America people. Joe Lieberman has just proven why the Senate should be removed from any position where it and individual egoistic Senators can continue to damage America.

I am angry at Joe Lieberman (May he and his family rot in Hell forever), at the murderous insurance companies and at the conservatives generally. I am as angry as I was at the shooter who killed JFK that Fall Tuesday afternoon in 1963. I also blamed and still blame the city of Dallas and conservatives for JFK's assassination. That was a level of anger I had never again had. Until now. That level of anger is back.

But I also remember when Medicare was passed, and I have watched as it saved lives ever since. I also know about the still existing provisions in the Senate bill that will cram reforms down the throats of the insurance company gutterslime. Kill that now in a fit of self-destructive anger and we won't get those reforms back. Lieberman and the Insurance companies will win again.

The remaining reforms still cover almost everyone in America and they still prevent the insurance companies from skimming a lot of the money from the healthy while shoving off the sick to the government or to no one but god. I refuse to sacrifice that just to feel a sense of sanctification because sanctimonious Joe and the insurance companies he serves want that to happen.

This is time to remember the old saying: Revenge is a dish best served cold. Lieberman is the new Benedict Arnold. It's time to salvage what can be saved from the last six months and then to target Lieberman, the insurance companies and the conservatives. It's time to support FireDogLake if you haven't already.

We also need a new organization entitled something like "Give Lieberman was he deserves!" (or "Get Joe!") as a pressure group to focus political pressure on getting him and focusing public opprobrium on him every time he leaves his home or office. The organization should make sure that Lieberman is not forgotten and that he is not allowed to get away scot-free. It can be done. People still remember Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard and make sure he does not get forgotten. But the way to get Joe is NOT to kill what is left of hcr right now. That will just make his current win even bigger.

The Democrats also need to focus this anger at Lieberman towards the GOTV effort for 2010 and 2012. I'm not the only one this angry, and I still to this day blame the City of Dallas and Texas Conservatives for killing JFK. Anger like that needs to be harnessed politically - because it will be, one way or another. Lieberman and the Party of "No!" are good and appropriate targets.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 3:12 AM    in reply to Richardxx

The President's choice and that of Rahm Emmanuel is to lose big time with honor and flags flying or they can win part of the battle and come back again later to continue the battle. It's decision time, and it looks like the White House has decided to take whatever can be won right now and try again later.

I realize that actual policy is, y'know, too nerdy 'n' stuff, but the above-quoted reasoning is a crock, as explained by Tanjaouli a while back:

Some people are saying this bill can be improved later, like Social Security and Medicare. But that comparison flatters Reid's bill, which entrenches a wasteful private sector of the economy. Those bills did just the opposite. And while it's a fact the bill could be improved upon, that's also a hazardous political calculation. In my opinion, we should start over. There are other ways to get this done, and they're better

Those other ways (e.g. pass the regulatory reform in regular order, then a PO by reconciliation) have been discussed here and elsewhere. There are available to the Dems in Congress, the POTUS, and his pit bull, should they choose to use them. The fact that they are not so choosing speaks volumes. But the apologies for this failure from the TPM commentariat grow awfully tiresome.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 8:41 AM    in reply to Richardxx

Close. Rahm is playing a brilliant game of poker, at Obama's behest. Pass this half hearted bill to get insurance industry under control, THEN pass the expansion of Medicare for those over 55 option with 51 votes, as a budgetary measure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 9:16 AM    in reply to Richardxx

I agree with Richard. It appears that the Dems are going to jettison the proposals to insure the uninsured (other than through Medicaid eligibility adjustments) and move forward with the insurance reforms. If necessary, they can take care of the uninsured or under insured through reconciliation. I don't understand the vitriol against either Reid or Rahm. There is a total of 60 senators who caucus with the Dems, and every single one of them has veto power because not a single Repub will vote for anything. They can't play this game forever; something has to get passed.

I don't agree that Lieberman walks. At some point, there will be a price to pay; obviously, Lieberman has thought about this and doesn't care since the Ct insurance companies have likely promised to make his position worth his while. It's nice to be idealistic, but sometimes pragmatism is necessary to get things done.

Finally, I note everyone railing about how Bush got things done when he had 60. The difference is he was able to rely on Dems who cared more about getting some kind of legislation through. Obama doesn't have the luxury of working with R's who think the same way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:29 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

Reid is gone and I am not disappointed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:42 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

Will save Reid's seat, if it can be saved at all. The alternative you propose (no bill at all) would cost Reid and other Democrat's their seats. Same goes for Obama. Also, Rahm is not threatening anyone. You're just lying again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:46 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

you people are funny.

you dont have a clue.

everything you see happening has the complete support of obama.

lol..and to think people come to this site thinking they are helping to influence change and reform.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:48 PM    in reply to JadeZ

And here come the PUMAs with their conspiracy theories. Keep hunting that Whitey Tape, Jade. I'm sure it'll turn up one of these days.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:51 PM    in reply to JadeZ

And Hillary and the whole pack of neo-neo-cons.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:13 PM   

Why don't we bypass Traitor Joe and give Olympia Snowe what she wants, including the chair of the Homeland Security Committee? It will probably be less expensive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:19 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

She doesn't want a bill until next year, so if you want to pass a bill now and get this over it, you go with Lieberman.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:31 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

WTF pass a bill any bill. Who really gives a shit if its does any good, it could just as well make things worse, but it is done! Hooray!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:51 PM    in reply to henk

"Who really gives a shit if its does any good, it could just as well make things worse, but it is done!"

Not you obviously, which is why you lie about the contents of "any bill." No need to mention the ending of bans on people with pre-existing conditions, nor the ending of dropping coverage on people who get sick, nor giving 30 million extra people insurance coverage, or Rockerfeller's amendment forcing insurance companies to spend 90% of premiums on actual health care coverage. Nope, just lie about that and continue you on your insane rant. Those tactics have worked so well at passing the public option haven't they?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:54 PM    in reply to Smooth Jazz

Hey, that 90% deal is the next thing to go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:05 PM    in reply to bluebell

Believe that. I wouldn't want to stop your hysterical crying because you're not getting everything you want.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:28 PM    in reply to Smooth Jazz

I'll have to file that comment away. It will be useful on a November Wednesday come 2010 and 2012.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 2:41 PM    in reply to bluebell

Do so. Vote for Nader and Donald Duck for the rest of your life. I wipe my you know what with your one vote. ;)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:23 AM    in reply to Smooth Jazz

Rahm? Is that you? what are you doing here? It couldn't be that you suspect you've finally crossed the line, could it?

You guys remember when Obama cut loose Rev. Wright, or Samantha Powers? At the time, I thought it demonstrated a surprisingly mercenary lack of loyalty on Obama's part. Now, I hope Obama rediscovers his ability to cut off the cancerous limb, and quick. With any luck, Emanuel's toast, and he'll have to go back to Goldman (or Citi, or wherever the hell he came from).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 2:39 PM    in reply to ched

Yeah, I'm Rahm, pscyho. You figured it out. Now go back to your bitching about him...I mean me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:15 PM   

I was so hoping to read, "Rahm to Reid: Tell Lieberman to Pound Sand." So they give Lieberman what he wants and the next Democrat gets in line to issue his/her demands? Health-care reform is doomed, and the country with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:34 PM    in reply to AllanCook

You must not have been paying attention to our friend Mr. Emanuel. He and Joe are fellow travelers. He was telling Reid to give Joe what he wants. He being Rahm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 10:44 PM    in reply to AllanCook

That's just for neocons. If it was Bernie Sanders pulling a 3 yr old tantrum trick, Rahm the Asshole would tell Sanders to pound sand. Sanders wouldn't be making Rahmbo and his richie rich Bob Rubin buddies even richer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 8:10 AM    in reply to AllanCook

I'm trying to get my head around this development and to make sense of it. I'm supremely disappointed and I do believe that if the final bill turns out to be nothing more than a mandate for the uninsured to pony up for our bloated system, then we will not have true reform. However, the status quo may not be sufficiently painful for vast swaths of people who choose to remain uninsured and burden the system, and ultimately, the rest of us who do pay for health insurance. I'm reminded that the system already provides overpriced and inefficient care to the uninsured, so I wonder how much of a windfall this will actually be for insurers. From that perspective, odious though it may be, the bill being considered will do quite a bit to alter the political landscape and create a small army of people who are A) unhappy about being forced to participate, and B) unhappy that the only option available is private insurance. (Note to Republicans: be careful what you wish for) This -may- create a (necessary?) critical mass of tension that will ultimately yield true reform. It also provides the Dems with an opportunity to say that they tried mightily for a public option but couldn't overcome the Republicans monolithic opposition to the idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:16 PM   

Now we have another faux progressive, Brown, on Keith's show telling us how much he wanted the public option. Why do I care what he wanted, past tense? I care what he delivers!

I can't stand these blathering hypocrites. I can at least give Lieberman credit for his sheer determination to be totally evil.

What possible good are these pretend progressives! They tell you one thing and pose as liberals on the tube until they get their 15 minutes of fame and then the next week they SELL YOU OUT!

Sorry Senator Brown you are no different from Joe Lieberman because you are going to DELIVER JOE LIEBERMAN's BILL and smile doing it.

You get no points for capitulation, Senator Brown.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:24 PM    in reply to bluebell

And so it begins.........


I'm happy to see that your scorn is fairly distributed.

I mean that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:29 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

Well, no surprise there. Those are the same people who said and believed Gore was no different from Bush. Everyone else but themselves is the same. That's the mentality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:43 PM    in reply to geofu54

Every time I hear that I remember Lieberman was on the ticket with Gore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:22 PM    in reply to geofu54

The DCC and Obama must be really worried about 2010, now that they have all these shills on TPM posting garbage. This is amazing. Who the f- do they think we are? Comments like those above just reinforce my utter contempt for the democratic party. I have been consulting TPM on a regular basis, and the flood of new posters here are totally artificial trolls trying to create artificial dissent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:26 PM    in reply to sanssouci0

What are talking about? are you calling me a plant?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:19 PM   

Rahm Emanuel has to go. He really needs to go now.

We should start a campaign to have him resign.

I will not vote for another Democrat while Rahm Emanuel is in the White House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:20 PM    in reply to rbeats

Or we let Harkin introduce a bill to end the filibuster so we would only need 51 votes, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:27 PM    in reply to rbeats

Oy vey!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:00 AM    in reply to rbeats

Time to send him a dead fish.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 1:01 AM    in reply to rbeats

Don't kid yourself, Rahm is doing exactly what Obama wants him to do. So is Lieberman. Thats why he still has his powerful committee seat. He is a beard for the real agenda.

The WH shouldn't be involved with telling shiftless Harry what to do, there are 3 branches for a good reason.

Reid should be lining up a lobbying position. He wont be in the senate next year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:20 PM   

Our only hope is Burris?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:24 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

Well.The.Hell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:29 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

And with that I quote Homer: Doh!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:24 PM   

Rahm looks so Seuss-like in this photo. He looks, oddly, like the Grinch.

I was really hoping that Rahm would be a bad-ass for proper Democratic goals.

Like real health care reform.

I don't understand this guy, and I don't understand why he was appointed to Chief of Staff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:46 PM    in reply to again

Seriously, what happened to the behind the scenes butt-kicker? It seems he only delivers when it means bad policy outcomes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:41 PM    in reply to Joshua the Teacher

What do you mean? He essentially kicked the ass of 59 Senate Dems in order to please one. That's a helluva feat. I mean isn't there one Senate Democrat that would get right in Rahms face and tell him to sit his useless ass down? Rahm will not be in the White House in four years time, so if a Senator was elected on '08 Rahm can't touch him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:26 PM   

Message to Rahm Emanuel, from a longtime supporter of Senator/President Obama who pretty much no longer gives a crap: F*&% you.

I am so, so SICK of watching this administration bully progressives and beg, beg, beg Joe Lieberman and a handful of conservadems to please, please, PLEASE not join a GOP filibuster. They are weak, and they are not willing to fight, and they are no longer worthy of any financial support from me. At this point, I'm pretty much ready to join the "won't be voting" crowd next year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:28 PM   

I hope house liberals and progressives defeat the bill when it goes back to the house.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:48 PM    in reply to ru4862

Word.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:29 PM   

Look on the bright side. The Goracle has proclaimed that the polar caps will be gone in 5 years, so you won't need health care anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:39 PM    in reply to Silence

Fa Cough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:31 PM   

Now who is next to say no? I hope it is all the real Democrats in the house. We should just kill this thing. I received a letter from my health insurance company today. They are still trying to figure my rates for next year. They say they will let me know later. I hope Lieberman sends them the good news. They will be celebrating for a while.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:32 PM   

Awesome job democrats. Mandates for everyone to buy crappy overpriced insurance. Insurers keep their antitrust exemption, and their lifetime - oh I mean "annual" - limits. Meaning the bill will have zero effect on medical bankruptcies, and might just boost them some. This bill is going to be, rightly, hated by everyone not working for or owning stock in Aetna. Democrats will be playing defense on this for years. Unbelievable. Hey Rahm: Lieberman ran against your party in both of the last elections. He wants you to, you know, LOSE. Morons.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:32 PM   

I can't support this thing if all it has in it is "no rescissions" but with a mandate.

I've been fighting the "scrap everything and start over" argument, but that is the only option left to me at this point.

What is the relationship between Rahm and Lieberman?

Why is Rahm giving Lieberman such preferential treatment?

Why should we support an administration that allows the Chief of Staff to reward such prima donna behavior?

Do any of these guys have any balls to do what is good for the American people?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:37 PM    in reply to again

no

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:39 PM    in reply to again

Rahm is trying to save the 2012 election for Obama.

Remember, it's not about you. It's about them.

Welcome to the TEA party!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 6:44 AM    in reply to Silence

That is the palpitating heart of the matter - it is all about THEM and Obama and Rahm are like two peas in a pod.
The Senate never stop parting - do you hear the corks popping?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 8:49 AM    in reply to Silence

I'm sorry -- I couldn't possibly be associated with any group of people who are so clueless as to let themselves be associated with the expression "teabagging." Y'all are too damn stupid for me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 9:17 AM    in reply to Signalman

It's difficult to see the truth through Wall Street issued blinders.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 11:21 AM    in reply to Silence

It's even more difficult to see when you have dozens of teabags dangling off the brim of your hat and when you have conservative bullshit smeared all over your face and eyes.

But more to the point, Wall Street's got no hold on or claim to me. *You're* supposed to be the badass bond trader, remember? That's what you said on Sunday.

Man, you're a pathetic troll. You can't even keep your lies straight from one day to the next.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:56 PM    in reply to again

Scrap it.

I am beside myself right now.

I hope to Gawd that they have some fuggin' pictures of Joe Red on his knees in front of Tiger Woods or something...

That LIEberman SOB is an insufferable piece of shite.
The Dems are pussies.
And we are all collective FUBAR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:35 PM   

I still don't know why Reconciliation isn't an option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:46 PM    in reply to Ickyma

The way its been explained to me is that it can only be used for Budgetary measures not Policy. Creating the public option would be policy. Taxing Cadilac insurance plans would be budgetarty. They could split the bill up, but it looks like they want to do it as a whole so someone gets the "Got Health Care Done" knotch on his belt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:56 PM    in reply to Ickyma

(1) You cannot do insurance reform with reconciliation. That means you cannot end the bans on people with pre-existing conditions, nor can you end the bans on people who get sick and then get dropped. Nor can you mandate that insurance companies spend 90% of their premiums on actual coverage.

(2) Reconciliation may be filibustered. Within the reconciliation vote, there are areas where the filibuster may be employed. Lawrence O'Donnell mentioned that reconciliation was never an option many months ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:35 PM    in reply to Smooth Jazz

No.

It can only be filibustered if you are trying to overturn the ruling of the presiding officer if he concludes that an item is not allowed through reconciliation. So no, you cannot actually filibuster an item in reconciliation unless it is an item that does not belong there. (Basically a non-budgetary item)

You would either have to drop some elements, or pass two seperate bills; but that's not at all undoable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 10:10 PM    in reply to Kevin Sutton

Yes.

It can be filibustered if a provision being put through reconciliation is in violation of the Budget Act under the Byrd Amendment.

To quote Lawrence O'Donnell:

"Reconciliation requires 50 votes plus the Vice President for final passage only. During the process of reconciliation on the Senate floor there are countless votes that require 60 votes because it requires you to waive the rules of reconciliation - that's done constantly in every single reconciliation process that goes to the Senate floor. They can't think about going to the Senate floor without 60 votes whether they're doing it in reconciliation or outside of reconciliation."

- Lawrence O'Donnell
Former Democratic Chief of Staff of the Senate Committee on Finance and blogger at the Huffington Post

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32696599

Time Index on Video 3:30

-----------

I won't rule your dual track approach completely out of the picture, but simply saying that you can pass insurance reform through the normal procedure and the rest through reconciliation does not show enough sophistication or grounding in facts to be taken as a real alternative.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:35 PM   

No kidding re: the House. Shoot this mess down, afaic. I'm just really, truly furious right now. We have compromised and compromised and compromised...there has been NO compromising from the Blue Dogs or Lieberman/Nelson and crew. And mark my words, Ben Nelson will now get what he wants re: Stupak. I mean, why wouldn't he, after they capitulated to Lieberman? We have a 60-seat majority and we are being played for FOOLS. And yes, I surely blame President Obama for his spectacular lack of leadership on this issue...and for letting Rahm Emanuel pull stunts like this. I trust NOTHING that this White House says or does anymore. This is not what I worked, gave money and voted for...to let Joe Lieberman run the country. Man, some of the most INEPT political leadership I've ever seen in my life, from either party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:38 PM   

Yep, that's change we can believe in. I'm finished with Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:38 PM   

Will some truly progressive senator pull a Lieberman now, please?

Seriously. Bernie Sanders, anybody... just say hey, sorry, not gonna happen unless there's some tacking back to the left.

ANYBODY?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:42 PM    in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy

I agree - this is Bernie's time to stand up. Or Rockefeller's.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:38 PM   

This is just disgusting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:42 PM   

Where are the so called senate liberals like Burris, Franken, Feingold and Sanders? Kill this shitless worthless bill and send Obama a message that the base will not be taken advantage of.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:43 PM   

The one common denominator that I don't think enough people are tying to the Obama administration's continued misbegotten pragmatism during the last year is exactly the thing highlighted in this article: his chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Rahm is NOT a progressive, he just wants to WIN -- and that's why on the stimulus, on investigating Bush crimes, on healthcare, we see deals being cut with no regard to the policy consequences. I think Rahm is the problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

am4

user-pic

December 14, 2009 8:50 PM    in reply to precisioncontrol

...fake financial reform, no investigation of Wall Street crime syndicate, renomination of Bernanke, PPIP. The problem is not Rahm, it's his boss.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:55 PM    in reply to am4

co-sign. let's be honest. the buck should stop at the top, not the penultimate point before the top.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:50 PM    in reply to precisioncontrol

pathetic.

he is bought and owned by big business......
his only goal is to screw the average person to further enrich those busnesses.

why is that so hard to grasp?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:44 PM   

Do you think Whitehouse would be willing to run for the Whitehouse in '12?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:48 PM    in reply to LindaR

Right now it's impossible to imagine obama being re elected. He doesn't have an ounce of leadership in his body.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:10 PM    in reply to ru4862

I don't think so. Real liberals I talk to in real life are nowhere near as crazed....pardon me, angry as the liberals I see posting on a lot of blogs. Polling data supports this. I think it's just the internet left who are the most angry with Obama. Not enough to actually have an affect on elections.

Obama will be in fine in 12 without you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:24 PM    in reply to Smooth Jazz

So funny and so true. Something I learned very quickly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 1:54 AM    in reply to Smooth Jazz

For that matter, almost nobody in the "real world", no matter how liberal, is even following these negotiations like TPM readers are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 2:44 PM    in reply to midnight rambler

That's silly. Many other non-TPM readers are following the story as close as we are. TPM is just one blog on the internet. You seem to believe it's the only one. People who follow politics closely also post on forums and messages boards and on comments sections of online media. Then of course there's people who write in letters to the editor for newspapers. You couldn't be more wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 8:08 AM    in reply to Smooth Jazz

I totally agree and this story is from "aides" !! This is another bullshit story. Mark my words. There is no way Obama would send Rahm to tell Reid to give him what he wants.

Just use your heads for a second and stop jumping at every story you hear.

This cake is nowhere near being baked.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 8:23 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

Not bullshit. True. Ian Welsh describes current Dem strategy perfectly: go for the money. A lot of liberals are enabling this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:46 PM   

So what. JL is a jackass.

But JL is not the problem, he's just a symptom of the problem.

If RE is truly pressuring HR to give JL everything he wants, then RE is the real problem, not JL. RE has been against the public option from the beginning.

RE's smug grin is more offensive to me than JL's.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:51 PM    in reply to BruceInAustin

I have to agree. JL is an obviously demented person. Rahm's sociopathic tendencies are better disguised.

I'm over both of them. But this is Obama's loss, and I doubt he'll step up and accept any responsibility for not having pushed tougher legislation more actively in the beginning.

This administration has squandered its crisis opportunity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:48 PM   

So, unless I'm missing something, "Give Lieberman what he wants" amounts to "Give the health insurance companies what they want," i.e. "the health insurance industry wins again."

I can't decide what's worse; that the White House took single-payer off the table right from the beginning; that the progressives get hosed yet again; that Lieberman still has a committee chairmanship; or that Obama is going to trumpet this piece of crap bill as a "major achievement" (because you know he will).

The insurance companies get millions of new customers, with no cost controls; folks who don't want or can't afford insurance will be forced to buy it, partially paid by "subsidies"; The Peepul get nothing. Again.

My rage is unlimited. How about y'all?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:58 PM    in reply to dougom

The medical loss ratio limits and non-profit options will effectively prevent price gouging on the insurer's end. Serious cost controls will have to go after providers, a concept that was out the window once the robust PO went down in flames.

The Peepul will get a Medicaid expansion, regulatory protection, and hundreds of billions of dollars in direct aid. This is the largest assistance package for the working poor and lower middle class (who will virtually every cent covered by this bill) in the country's history.

The mandate isn't forcing anyone to do anything. If the people who don't qualify for subsidies don't want to purchase insurance, no one is going to force them to do it. They will pay a marginally higher income tax rate (still significantly less than they did under Clinton) and they can apply for financial hardship exemptions if necessary.

I'm fucking pissed at Lieberman for making this bill more expensive for basically no reason, but Harkin is right that this is still a good bill. This is why Harkin, Brown, Bernie Sanders and all the other "traitors" will support it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:12 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Good try, but people are not going to buy it. Without competition and a guranteed mandate along with a fucked up exchange and little of this taking affect for yesrs this is nothing but a protect the private for profit insurance corporation act. The Democratic Party just committed hari-kari today.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:21 PM    in reply to VictorLH

Right, I understand that this is like debating birth certificates with tea baggers, but as Krugman pointed out recently, the Massachusetts reforms currently enjoy overwhelming support... and they didn't provide nearly as much direct assistance or competition as this bill. The reality is that only a tiny, tiny minority of Democrats view the primary function of health care reform as retribution against the insurance companies. Moreover, the actual emerging Democratic base (i.e., African-Americans and Hispanics, not bloggers) are going to be receiving the bulk of benefits from this bill via the lower income subsidies. They'll view this as Obama delivering in a big way.

I completely agree that more cost controls are going to need to be implemented in the long term. That doesn't change the fact that the bill does a lot of good and much of the "progressive" fear-mongering is just Palin-esque BS.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:30 PM    in reply to Stroszek

But you know, just keep convincing yourself that Russ Feingold and others are only trying to protect private insurers when they support this bill and celebrate its passage. The fact that this process has been fraught with disappointment doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to help those most in need in whatever way we can. The bill is no wonk's dream, but Obama has a responsibility to deliver something for his largest constituencies (again, not bloggers) and this will do that, if in an unnecessarily expensive way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:36 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Keep trying, but none of that will happen for years. In the meantime Health Care costs will continue to rise at a greater rate than inflation and the CEO's will be paying themselves bigeer bonuses.

Oh, the Demorats will not win elections with just the Hispanic and African-American vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:48 PM    in reply to VictorLH

Okay, you also have upper middle class whites and union workers who already have decent insurance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 3:56 AM    in reply to Stroszek

You are full of shit. The bill maxes out increases at around 8 percent annually with no fucking triggers thanks to your good friend Lieberprick. My single insurance went up from 350 to 450 and if you don't think the insurance cos. aren't going to give you the max. that they can get away with annually then I wanna smoke what you're smoking. There is no end of recissions. All there is is that you have to take preexisiting conditions but there's a ridiculous amount more you can charge for that so you end up with cherrypicking again. And,oh, you get subsidies if you're poor. If you're middle class you get fucked yet again by the tax on the "cadillac" plans and no subsidies. And BTW this tax is around $2,000 a year which will half the plans offered. Meanwhile Lloyd Blankfein can still take his money offshore and fuck American taxpayers. I am sick and tired of the Obama apologists on TPM. Are you paid to post here?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 8:36 AM    in reply to aikbay

I've wondered about this, too. Why are people deliberately closing their eyes to Dem strategy? The evidence is all around them. We're being asked to take our cues from leadership: 'Trust us, we know what we're doing'. Sorry, but without people willing to stick it out in NH in February (for example), they lose. Obama gets a second term only because the Republicans are in disarray. More and more people are going to stop caring. Until the dollar finally plummets and they can't buy the latest gadget anymore (the Chinese will get them years before we do instead of the other way around) and their employers - if they are employed - drop or pare down their insurance to junk status. The Democrats are really taking a very risky gamble. They're assuming that they're going to be able to create 300,000+ jobs/month and reinflate the housing bubble. They're giving no thought to sustainability and a social safety net. Re're really rucked.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 16, 2009 12:21 AM    in reply to Stroszek

Right, I understand that this is like debating birth certificates with tea baggers,

Once again employing Propaganda Rule # 47: When you've got no rational arguments, pathologize the opposition. izzatxeaux notes directly downthread that the medical loss ratios are already gone, per Elmendorf's contortions with CBO numbers. Does Stroszek respond to that, either to deny it or to explain it? No: all you get is the sound of crickets. Which shows that Stroszek continues to talk out his ass as he grabs desperately for the next excuse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:54 PM    in reply to Stroszek

The medical loss ratio limit will be the next thing to go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 10:01 PM    in reply to bluebell

Not if we don't draw attention to it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 10:56 PM    in reply to Stroszek

The medical loss ratio is already gone - per Jon Walker, Elmendorf did some baffling contortions with CBO numbers and reduced it back to 80%

Medicaid expansion is already gone

now we have WH directing Reid to take away MediCare Buy In

and who in their right mind thinks these are the guys who are going to enforce anything wrt recission ?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

December 14, 2009 10:31 PM    in reply to Stroszek

You mean the way Blue Cross/Blue Shield provided competition?

And I can think of better ways to spend tax dollars than providing increased profits for insurance companies. Medicare comes to mind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:04 PM    in reply to dougom

Excuse me, Candidate Obama told everyone PRIOR to his election to office that single payer was not on the table. And the obvious reason for that is that there is no political will on the part of Congress to do it. The votes weren't there for single payer and they aren't there now. Obama didn't pull that statement out of his ass. He's worked with these guys.

And how much of the blame do the Progressives and Libs in Congress get for this? Almost everyday, TPM had a comment from one of them promising this or that and they didn't come through. Why didn't they stand up and hold firm to their threats?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:11 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

For the White House to take single payer off the table, it had to be on the table to begin with. I understand the desire to hear the President talk about your pet policy idea, but if it's going to die a miserable, fiery death in committee anyway, what's the point?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:28 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Huh? you talkin' to me or the other guy?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:31 PM    in reply to Stroszek

The point is that you start as high as you can, and negotiate down from there. How on Earth do you think Bush got so many of his nutty policies through Congress?

You folks remind me of my old housemate at a yard sale. "How much is that?" someone asked her. "Oh, I dunno, 5 or 10 dollars." "How about 5," he replied.

Saying, "Oh, no, don't you worry! We would never consider that nasty single-payer plan! No sir!" puts you in a tremendously weakened position from the outset.

And with regards to this being my "pet policy idea;" please. A fairly large percentage of the American people actually support it, and a majority of providers. It hardly deserves to be dismissed under the rubric of "Doug's Pet Policy Project."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:41 PM    in reply to dougom

Bush didn't get many of his nutty policies through Congress. He got his tax cuts through reconciliation and exploited a national trauma to run off on a foreign policy venture, but in terms of constructive changes to our society, he was a miserable failure (and any Freeper will tell you as much). Social Security Reform was supposed to be his big domestic achievement and it went down the pooper.

In terms of starting high and working your way down... that is true in certain types of negotiations, it's not true when:
(a) high demands will alienate segments of public support needed to continue with the negotiations.
(b) the other side is perfectly happy with nothing
The most recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll on single-payer had support at 40%. In politics, starting from an unpopular position most definitely weakens your position.

I'm also skeptical of the fabled provider poll given that providers are consistently the chief obstacle to expanding Medicare. I believe the poll in question said national insurance, which could be interpreted as a lot of things. Tell doctors that the cost savings from single-payer mean a significant pay cut and I can guarantee they'll change their tune.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:44 PM    in reply to dougom

You are not paying attention. The single payer suggestion is NOT NEW! It's been debated and discussed and not enough people in Congress want to touch it. It's like going to a yard sale that says CASH ONLY and you try to pass them a check.

And what really blows my mind is that despite NOT getting a half assed public option, some on the Left want to scrap the current HCR and go for single payer. What's that like? that's like asking the bank for a $20,000 loan when you were just denied a $10,000 loan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 6:47 AM    in reply to Viva!America!

You're a voter, we are. We are the ones who should - need to - stand up for solutions. You refer to this as someone's 'pet issue'. I guess for some of us health care is a human right. You probably don't see it that way. This is like passing women's right to vote for all the brunettes in the crowd. It'll placate soft liberals, people who aren't paying attention. Single payer advocates are in the wilderness, but so were suffragettes, for generations, abolitionists, civil rights advocates. Without their conviction and fortitude, their causes - essentially one (human dignity and equality) would be lost. Now you might be willing to heed your master's voice, but some of us aren't. We see that as taking your cues from those in power. They need to hear from us down here now...and for as long as it takes. We want - right now - to have Sanders' single payer amendment brought to the floor of the Senate for a free, fair and open debate. We want the public to hear about this, and to begin a national discussion on a solution to a human problem. So don't stand up for what you believe, if you believe it's a human right. But please don't enable this country's slow drift to the right while calling the rest of us selfish or unrealistic. It's condescending.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:50 PM   

...and Rahm is an idiot appeaser if he thinks this will somehow be a "win." He just kissed any chance for the D's holding onto Congress next year goodbye.

You know, if I thought President Obama had truly fought for a progressive bill--if I thought he had put just as much pressure on the centrists, DINOs, etc. as he's put on the progressives--then I would be heartbroken about this, not in a rage. I'm in a rage because this admin is selling their soul for nothing save a hollow political "victory." Screw that. I'm no purist, I'm way pragmatic, but this is too many bridges too far for me. To read that Rahm Emanuel is telling Harry Reid to give Lieberman whatever he wants is just too much to stomach. I'm calling the DNC tomorrow and telling them to take me off their mailing lists, and I'm going to tell OFA the same. I don't want to hear from them anymore. Through with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:57 PM    in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy

co-signed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:54 PM   

Why is RE the problem and not Obama? Did he abdicate while I wasn't paying attention?

Enjoy the show. What you get will be what Obama wants, make no mistake. He could tell Reid to use reconciliation and have a real health bill. But that would p.o. his sponsors.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:32 PM    in reply to lexicon

So the argument that reconciliation will produce a crappy bill is of no concern?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:55 PM   

this sucks and joe sucks. i take solace in the fact that one day, he'll die. i can only hope that by some twist of fate, he dies because he has fallen on bad times and was without insurance and any way to pay out of pocket for the care he needs. won't go down that way, but it'd be nice.

that said, i bet dollars to donuts that teddy would have done the same thing that administration is trying to do -- get something done. anything. just a start.

as for the people raging out that progressives got hosed, that's what you get when you sit at one end of the spectrum. there are teabaggers out there who want to drop nukes on north korea, iraq, iran and new england. they won't get their way, either. because they're not in the fat part of the bell curve. while on a theoretical level i am behind most of what so-called "progressives" are behind, i realize that reality is more than a theory. frictionless vacuums are useful in physics class, but they don't describe what really happens on the pool table in your basement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:03 PM    in reply to nova voter

This is what we get from the establishment spin merchants. Progressives = teabaggers. That's supposed to make us feel bad and salute Rahm - or stay home in 2012 more like.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:11 PM    in reply to bluebell

i knew the crazy cake you've been baking was missing something, but i couldn't put my finger on it. paranoia was definitely it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:13 PM    in reply to bluebell

I have to agree - the more I'm told that I, a loyal Democrat, have "progressive" views that are somehow unreasonable, and that supporting those "progressive" aims like the public option and banking reform (aims which USED to be the province of the Democratic Party before Bill Clinton) makes me some kind of tea bagger, the more it convinces me that I'm right, and that my Democratic Party has been hijacked by some highly unintelligent 22-year-old interns.

The more you tell loyal Democrats that they should suck it up because the option is Palin or some other weak excuse, the more disaffected we become.

For the first time in my life today, I thought about voting for a third-party candidate.

I was the number one "don't vote for Nader" beeyatch in 1999-2000. But I'm thinking third-party at this point.

To me, that's shocking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:26 PM    in reply to again

i'm not saying you're unreasonable. i'm saying you're not being pragmatic.

the FACT is that you aren't going to get a single payer past a filibuster. the FACT is that you aren't going to get a public option past a filibuster. the FACT, it appears, is that you aren't going to get a medicare expansion past a filibuster. so the question is, what CAN you get past a filibuster? whatever that is, get it.

i'm not saying it doesn't suck. it sucks. but it is what it is -- bitching about it and throwing tantrums doesn't make joe lieberman any less likely to be a fucking prick. the argument to be had is whether that "something" is (that can get past a filibuster) is any better or worse than the status quo. but that's not the argument that people like bluebell are having. they're having the "I'M NEVER VOTING AGAIN, EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET ME, AND FUCK RAHM" tantrum.

i'm quite sure that it didn't take 2000 pages to codify the public option and/or the mandates. so what about the other 1900 pages? better or worse than the status quo? THAT'S being pragmatic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 7:57 AM    in reply to nova voter

They can use the nuclear option - or the threat of it - to pass a robust public option (prepopulated, tied to Medicare +5% rates, protected by a good risk adjuster mechanism, open to anyone who wants to buy in) once they're in reconciliation. In fact, they can pass anything (Medicare buy-in, Sanders' Medicare for All amendment, repeal McCarran-Ferguson, 90% medical loss ratio, 75, 85, and 95% actuarial values for plans in the exchange, 2:1 rather than 3:1 variance of premiums based on age, closing the loophole allowing insurers to form regional compacts thus circumventing state regulations). Why do progressives seem willing to let Democrats off the hook? They'll have to pass separate bill and use the nuclear option (or perhaps even the threat of the nuclear option since it eliminates Senators' individual power).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:15 PM    in reply to bluebell

You're a "spin merchant", not an "establishment spin merchant" mind you, merely just a childish and unintelligent "spin merchant." I'll go with the sane "establishment spin merchant."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:55 PM   

In the end, I don't blame Reid or Rahm. I blame Lieberman, and Lieberman alone. To say that you would threaten him with losing his chairmanship of homeland security is meaningless, I think at this point he does not care. He knows that his career is over, since he has no hope of getting reelected in 2012, when CT AG Blumenthal has already promised to run for his seat on the Democratic ticket. The sad truth is he would kill the public option even if he lost all of his committee assignments. The guy is slime, motivated only by spite.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:12 PM    in reply to El Puerco

Not the most compelling argument for giving in to him...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:58 PM   

Wait! Why avoid a filibuster in the first place? It could be great fun on C-SPAN and might actually pre-empty reality shows.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:59 PM   

If I'm not mistaken, Lieberman is up for reelection in '12, right? Doesn't he know that he will never be elected to anything ever again? I mean, srsly, who would ever want to vote for this punk aside from health insurance CEO's? The GOP won't take him- he'd get Teabagged in the primaries. Either he plans to retire, or has the foresight of a 2 year-old. What garbage...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 10:49 PM    in reply to Joshua the Teacher

He doesn't give a shit. He and his pimp wife will be whoring him out to various insurance/pharma cos. where he'll make lots of money lobbying so that more Lieberpig children will have money to run in Conn. elections. Kinda like the Connecticut Jewish version of the Bushes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:03 PM   

Obama gave himself a B+.

If this is true, I give him an F-.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:07 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

Not an F. Please. If ANYTHING passes, it will be a success. Remember that nobody's ever gotten this far. I give Obama an A. Senate Dems a C. Republicans and Lieberman F.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:09 PM    in reply to ilovebacon

He should have some spine and let them filibuster. Let the public see what's at stake 24/7 (because it will be on cable news all day and all night). Then cut a deal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:13 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

You think cable news would negatively spin a Republican filibuster?

They'd have Lieberman (D) and DeMint (R) on hourly to "debate" who hates the bill more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:18 PM    in reply to Stroszek

It's not about spin. It's about reality. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. They can spin it any way they want. The truth will out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 9:18 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

Who the fuck cares about making a statement? Making statements is something losers do. I don't mean losers in the name-calling sense, I mean losers as in people who have lost elections and have no political power. People with power pass laws. Losers make political statements. I'm in favor of passing laws.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?