joe lieberman

Things are getting interesting in the land of half term governors:

Republican leaders are angry with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) for jeopardizing their chances of winning the Senate. 

Murkowski’s decision to mount a write-in campaign risks splitting the Republican vote between two candidates and could cost her party a safe GOP seat.

“I am bothered by anything that makes it less likely that we can elect a Republican, especially in a state where we had every hope of electing one,” Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Monday.

But what I find interesting is that this is the same GOP that cheered on Joe Lieberman’s run for Senate in 2006. They laughed at the netroots, accusing us of creating the problem with Ned Lamont. Well now the GOP has a much bigger Lieberman problem, with Murkowski only being one part of it. You also have O’Donnell and numerous others around the country. As matter of fact the GOP’s Lieberman problem has most likely cost them any chance of regaining control of the Senate. This is Karma in its purest form.

Leave it to Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins to figure out ways to let the government extend their reach even more:

Lieberman and Collins’ solution is one of the more far-reaching proposals. In the Senators’ draft bill, “the President may issue a declaration of an imminent cyber threat to covered critical infrastructure.” Once such a declaration is made, the director of a DHS National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications is supposed to “develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of covered critical infrastructure.”

“The owner or operator of covered critical infrastructure shall comply with any emergency measure or action developed by the Director,” the bill adds.

These emergency measures are supposed to remain in place for no more than 30 days. But they can be extended indefinitely, a month at a time.

So we continue to ignore the 4th amendment. Forget the fact that these networks are private property and this would constitute a government seizure of that property without a court issued warrant. That pesky Constitution stuff doesn't matter to the likes of Lieberman and Collins.

Adding...with the history of our government losing private data, how much would we trust them "securing" private networks? I sure wouldn't.

With Charlie Crist facing more pressure to drop out and the rumors growing of him running as an independent, it leaves a big question; if Crist wins, who will he caucus with?

Now take that a step further. Imagine a Senate much like we had after 2006, one that was pretty much evenly split. The balance of power in the Senate could lie in the hands of Joe Lieberman and Charlie Crist. Crist could feel burnt enough by the Republicans that he decides to caucus with the Democrats, which could push Joe Lieberman to caucus with the Republicans. That would leave the problem intact. Of course the Democrats would still hold control with the tie breaker going to Biden, but it still makes for a very interesting dynamic.

Then there’s a bigger possibility. Having both Crist and Rubio on the ballot could split enough votes for the right that Meek ends up pulling out a win.

It’s like 2000 all over again. Florida will be the state to watch this fall if Crist goes the independent route. Stuff like this is why I love politics – the strategy and the outcomes.

A grim assessment about the future of health care reform:

Another senior House Democrat familiar with negotiations on the bill said no progress has been made this week on any of the key sticking points in the House and Senate bills, despite steady meetings with union leaders and the White House.

“There’s no agreement. No deal on anything. Nothing,” the lawmaker said.

The reality, said this lawmaker, is that House-Senate negotiators will need to continue working out their differences into February. Congressional leaders have been aiming to deliver a final bill to President Barack Obama before his State of the Union address, which normally takes place in late January.

It’s also creating even more tension between the House and Senate:

With all of these issues at a standstill, tensions are growing between the two chambers. Several House lawmakers have voiced frustration with Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) over concessions and special deals they cut in the Senate version.

“The Senate is just a pain in the ass to everybody in the world as far as I can tell. I’m so angry that I just wish from now on that we’d just find out what it is that Lieberman and Nelson will let us have,” the senior lawmaker said. “But we’re not giving up on anything in the House.”

“We keep hearing them squeal like pigs in the Senate that they had a tough time getting to 60,” Weiner said. “Well, it wasn’t particularly a picnic for us to get to 218. Generally speaking, the Senate kabuki dance has lost its magic on those of us in the House.”

Ezra Klein interviewed Sen. Tom Harkin and this really caught my eye:

Tell me a bit about your reform bill. When you first introduced this, Joe Lieberman was your co-sponsor, right?

Well, I introduced that first in 1995, when we were in the minority. I'm going to reintroduce that again in January. And people are going to say I only worry about this because I'm in the majority. But I come with clean hands! I started when I was in the minority!

The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there's some reason to have extended debate. If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously. Make sure you're not missing something. My proposal will do that. It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it's 54 votes. And then you'd wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.

I really hope he is successful in this move, but I’m not too optimistic. The problem is that even Democrats in the majority realize that a time will come when they are in the minority again and will want the power of the filibuster. You also have a problem with people like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. The power of the filibuster is what gave them so much leverage over health care, and I doubt they will want to get rid of that, despite the fact that Lieberman was the co-sponsor of this bill in 1995.

That’s what he told the Washington Post.

Obama said the public option "has become a source of ideological contention between the left and right." But, he added, "I didn't campaign on the public option."

Now I have to swallow some pride and quote Rep. Joe Wilson - ‘YOU LIE’

Does President Obama really expect to win back support from his dithering base by lying about them? If that’s the case then I fear he will really be a 1 term President.

Honestly I believe this reaffirms what Russ Feingold, Jim Webb and Joe Lieberman all said – that President Obama didn’t push the public option. Instead of admitting that strategic failure, President Obama is taking the all to easy path of simply lying. As a progressive I for one won’t sit back and not call him out on it.

For the record Think Progress highlights some major times in which President Obama pushed for the public option:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

If this is true then we see another yet a bit more evidence that the Obama administration failed in delivering true health care reform:

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) insists that the White House did not pressure him to get in line behind either a public health insurance option or a Medicare buy-in compromise during the health care debate this year.

"Well, no. I think I got pressure from the president to be for health care reform," Lieberman said when asked by HuffPost about any pressure from the administration to support either the public option or the Medicare buy-in. "I'd have to think about this, but I didn't really have direct input from the White House on this."

He added that Nancy-Ann DeParle, a top administration health care aide, downplayed the public option's significance early in the debate.

I never believe much of what comes out of Lieberman’s mouth, but he is echoing what other senators, namely Russ Feingold and Jim Webb, have said. If this is the case then President Obama owes the people who fought tooth and nail to elect him a serious explanation.

For those who have maintained that Obama never campaigned on a public option, I give you this from his campaign (PDF). It wasn’t called a “public option”, but rather a “public plan” and is mentioned throughout.