Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Why Lieberman Blocks a Public Option

By Robert Parry
November 10, 2009

With the health-reform bill’s “public option” truly reduced to the “sliver” that President Barack Obama once called it – and indeed having become a feature that mostly benefits the insurance industry – the next question must be: why is it still being opposed by industry defenders like Sen. Joe Lieberman?

Read on.
Posted by at

5 comments:

democratic core said...

Lieberman is, in essence, an undercover Republican, always has been. He was elected originally with the support of people like William F. Buckley in order to oust Lowell Weicker, the bete noir of conservative Republicans. Lieberman obviously sees his future as being with the Republican Party, either as a lobbyist or if he wants to run again in '12. His best shot in '12 would be for the Republicans to run only token opposition, which was the key to his winning in '06. Lieberman can best serve his Republican masters by helping them achieve Obama's "Waterloo", namely, the defeat of healthcare reform. This is not really about the substance of the legislation; it is about the political theater of creating the narrative of a failed Obama Presidency. Blocking the public option (in any form) could create a major "wedge issue" for Democrats, that could cause enough "progressives" in the House to peel off so as to defeat HC reform in its entirety. The mystery to me: what was Gore smoking when he nominated this guy in '00.

Tue Nov 10, 11:11:00 AM 2009
priscianus jr said...

Lieberman, through his hostility to health care reform and general contempt and disloyalty to so many who have helped and supported him in the past, is increasing his already great unpopularity to make himself one of the truly most hated politicians in America. Somebody please tell me how a spokesman with such a dishonorable reputation is supposed to be good for Israel?
As to what was Gore smoking when he nominated Lieberman in '00, it is interesting to note that at that time Lieberman was the head of the DLC. Bearing that in miond, it has always been my theory that Lieberman nominated Gore as much as Gore nominated Lieberman, in other words there was a a quid pro quo. I wish an excellent investigative journalist like Mr Parry would look into Lieberman's role in the Gore nomination.

Wed Nov 11, 12:27:00 PM 2009
democratic core said...

As for Gore, I don't really think that there was anything conspiratorial about it. I just think that Gore was (is) a very inept politician who basically fell into politics because it was the family business. Clinton once remarked that Gore would have been much happier being a college professor, which I think is right. Gore decided that the right strategy was to run away from Clinton and putting "Holy Joe" on the ticket was a good way to send that message. He ignored the fact that Clinton was probably the most successful economic President in US history and was hugely popular. The miscalculation cost Gore the election and led us to 8 years of gross economic mismanagement and the Iraq War, the worst foreign policy blunder in US history.

Wed Nov 11, 12:51:00 PM 2009
democratic core said...

Correction to my last comment: Gore did win the election, but after Clinton's economic record, the victory should not have been stealable.

Wed Nov 11, 12:53:00 PM 2009
Unknown said...

LIEberman has received over $300,000 of Big Health and Big Pharma money since 2005. "Bought-Out" Baucus has received even more. Follow the money you will very likely find the reason for a particular course of action.

Wed Nov 11, 01:36:00 PM 2009

Post a Comment