Magox Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 It appears that Reid is strong-arming Lieberman, trying to get him to vote for the bill or else. The Associated Press is reporting that Reid is looking to remove Lieberman from his post as chairman of a powerful Senate committee: Reid, in a sternly worded statement after the 45-minute meeting, said no official decisions have been made. But an aide to the Nevada Democrat said Reid was leaning toward removing Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Oh boy, isn't democracy great! The more I hear from this Congress, the more it seems to me to be run along gang lines. But kitty-ass gang lines, like the Van Buren Boys. Maybe if Lieberman shows Reid eight fingers, he'll be fine.
KD in CA Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The more I hear from this Congress, the more it seems to me to be run along gang lines. But kitty-ass gang lines, like the Van Buren Boys. Maybe if Lieberman shows Reid eight fingers, he'll be fine. Is that story a Peterman?
keepthefaith Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 It appears that Reid is strong-arming Lieberman, trying to get him to vote for the bill or else. Fukk Reid. He needs to go away.
keepthefaith Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 It appears that Reid is strong-arming Lieberman, trying to get him to vote for the bill or else. Liberman ought to hold a press conference and expose Reid for what he is doing.
UConn James Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Reid sees the writing on the wall. The health care overhaul is going to be a final legacy for several US Senators. I believe Reid's polling at something close to 40% in Nevada, with an over 50% unfavorable rating. And that's about 10 points better than Dodd. Seems that a lot of Dems are willing to fall on their swords/take one for the team for the Kennedy boondoggle dream. If Lieberman is smart, he says 'Harry, I will not vote for public option no matter what you do,' bails now, and stays Independent until '10 shapes things up. Joe's said in the press that he won't vote for it. If he does now, he loses all credibility; I'd like to think that Joe has too much pride to cave, especially if this is going to be the impression that's created of what bought his vote. Reid is grasping at the last straw.
Adam Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Mid term elections are coming- if people don't like what the people in there are doing, they can give them a big thumbs down.
Magox Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Reid sees the writing on the wall. The health care overhaul is going to be a final legacy for several US Senators. I believe Reid's polling at something close to 40% in Nevada, with an over 50% unfavorable rating. And that's about 10 points better than Dodd. Seems that a lot of Dems are willing to fall on their swords/take one for the team for the Kennedy boondoggle dream. If Lieberman is smart, he says 'Harry, I will not vote for public option no matter what,' bails now, and stays Independent until '10 shapes things up. Rasmussen polling has a certain way of polling and from my observations they have been the best pollsters over the last few years. They have this methodology of determining people that are "very supportive" or "strongly against" pieces of legislations and politicians. They conclude that this is the main determinant of gauging public support or opposition to these topics. If you look at the numbers, people are much more strongly opposed than supportive of these measures, and Lieberman probably already acknowledges that he will have NO LIBERAL support as it is, and that he will appeal more to the moderate democrats, independents and moderate republicans. I believe this will serve as a boon for him come election time, although he isn't up for election in 2012
Magox Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Looks like the W.H is desperate to cut a deal with the "traitor".
IDBillzFan Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Looks like the W.H is desperate to cut a deal with the "traitor". While I'm admittedly new to this whole "follow politics" thing, I nonetheless find myself stunned at how desperate these people are to pass something which, in its current form, a majority of Americans simply do not want. It's like they're going out of their way to see just how much they can piss off the people.
Magox Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 While I'm admittedly new to this whole "follow politics" thing, I nonetheless find myself stunned at how desperate these people are to pass something which, in its current form, a majority of Americans simply do not want. It's like they're going out of their way to see just how much they can piss off the people. I actually believe that they believe that they know what the country needs and what is best for them, regardless of what their constituents are telling them. And as KTFBD would say "they just don't understand the bill" which in their minds justifies them going through with this process.
Adam Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Rasmussen polling has a certain way of polling and from my observations they have been the best pollsters over the last few years. They have this methodology of determining people that are "very supportive" or "strongly against" pieces of legislations and politicians. They conclude that this is the main determinant of gauging public support or opposition to these topics. If you look at the numbers, people are much more strongly opposed than supportive of these measures, and Lieberman probably already acknowledges that he will have NO LIBERAL support as it is, and that he will appeal more to the moderate democrats, independents and moderate republicans. I believe this will serve as a boon for him come election time, although he isn't up for election in 2012 This may sound overly cynical, but until the American people see the light and realize that neither the democratic or republican leadership have their best interests at heart, the future is hopeless. I am so tired of being told that if I vote for a third-party candidate, that my vote doesn't count- that is herd mentality and weak- and why our country continues to weaken. I am not saying to rule out the major party candidates, but voting for whoever you feel the best candidate is the way to go. Personally, I hope Huckbee runs in 2012. I don't know if I agree with everything he stands for on every issue, but he seems to love his country, is able to separate his own beliefs from the need to be bi-partisan and has the charisma that McCain lacked. He seems to have a very commanding presence- charisma and presence are quite often underrated.
murra Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 This may sound overly cynical, but until the American people see the light and realize that neither the democratic or republican leadership have their best interests at heart, the future is hopeless. I am so tired of being told that if I vote for a third-party candidate, that my vote doesn't count- that is herd mentality and weak- and why our country continues to weaken. I am not saying to rule out the major party candidates, but voting for whoever you feel the best candidate is the way to go. Personally, I hope Huckbee runs in 2012. I don't know if I agree with everything he stands for on every issue, but he seems to love his country, is able to separate his own beliefs from the need to be bi-partisan and has the charisma that McCain lacked. He seems to have a very commanding presence- charisma and presence are quite often underrated. A third party isn't tossing your vote away. People just need to realize that the third party needs to separate itself from the other two. After 1912, it is doubtful we'll see an emergence of a third party in America for the very misconception you've pointed out. Essentially, the Wallaces and Perot's do take away votes from other parties. A strict libertarian, or a strict fiscal conservative candidate with decent backing support could allow a new party to emerge with due time. The Progressives went for the knock out punch, missed, and that was it. I think since then you're right, America has become quite weak, democratically speaking.
Adam Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 A third party isn't tossing your vote away. People just need to realize that the third party needs to separate itself from the other two. After 1912, it is doubtful we'll see an emergence of a third party in America for the very misconception you've pointed out. Essentially, the Wallaces and Perot's do take away votes from other parties. A strict libertarian, or a strict fiscal conservative candidate with decent backing support could allow a new party to emerge with due time. The Progressives went for the knock out punch, missed, and that was it. I think since then you're right, America has become quite weak, democratically speaking. I am glad to see somebody agrees. Although, I don't consider them as taking votes away from the big two, as those votes have to be earned. The democrats saying that Nader cost Gore the election really bothered me.
Adam Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Looks like the W.H is desperate to cut a deal with the "traitor". hahaha, traitor? I do have to admire the man. He is single handedly removing the majority party from power without an election. They are so desperate to get something with the name 'health care reform' passed, they would just as soon write those three words on a blank piece of paper to get it done. Everything the democrats wanted is coming off the table, but they will still trumpet it as a victory if it gets signed into law. He holds the power, the democrats have none. Its a shame he is even considering running as a Republican- I prefer his type to continue as an independent, so he is allowed to think for himself and not have to parrot the party line.
/dev/null Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 hahaha, traitor? I do have to admire the man. He is single handedly removing the majority party from power without an election. They are so desperate to get something with the name 'health care reform' passed, they would just as soon write those three words on a blank piece of paper to get it done. Everything the democrats wanted is coming off the table, but they will still trumpet it as a victory if it gets signed into law. Meanwhile Lieberman has said if they removed both the Medicare expansion and the OPM run "private" plan that he would support the rest of the bills Meaning both will be removed from the bill and something will pass the Senate The Senate and House will then go to reconciliation where the public option will be put back in the bill. Nancy will pick 40 vulnerable House Democrats and tell them to vote against it and it passes the House 218-217 Harry will pick 7 vulnerable Senate Democrats and tell them to vote against it and it passes the Senate 51-49
Magox Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 Meanwhile Lieberman has said if they removed both the Medicare expansion and the OPM run "private" plan that he would support the rest of the bills Meaning both will be removed from the bill and something will pass the Senate The Senate and House will then go to Conference where the public option will be put back in the bill. Nancy will pick 40 vulnerable House Democrats and tell them to vote against it and it passes the House 218-217 Harry will pick 7 vulnerable Senate Democrats and tell them to vote against it and it passes the Senate 51-49 Fixed, but other than that I believe you may be right. Sherod Brown hinted something along those lines yesterday, and I believe that the rest of them are remaining quiet, knowing that if they make it explicitly clear that this was their intentions then they may lose a few moderate votes. The loony left is so outraged right now, that I can't see them not doing this. It's amazing how they see things from their narrow perspective, they keep saying "One person shouldn't be able to hijack health reform". It's not one person! 38% of the public is for this bill, and there are 40 other senators that are not for this bill, and Ben Nelson, Lincoln and few others are not for the Public Option and a bunch more are not for the expansion of medicare. There were at least 5 other senators from the Democratic Caucus that expressed major concerns about the Public Option and expansion of Medicare, Joe Lieberman was the only one with the Balls big enough to give an outright NO! So he took the fall, got all the blame, meanwhile there were about 10 other moderates who were greatful as hell that he was the one to get lambasted. This administration and congress has shown that they will pull out all the stops to get what they want, and I wouldn't expect them to do anything less. I'm pretty sure that once it gets to Conference the Bill will be drastically changed.
PastaJoe Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 The last Quinnipaic poll shows that Lieberman isn't even representing the majority view of his own state in regards to a public option. Of course I'm sure the insurance companies in Conn. are happy with him. 64. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans? .......................Tot.....Rep.....Dem....Ind.....Men....Wom Support...........56%.....28%...76%....54%....54%....57% Oppose............37........68......14.......41.......39.......35 DK/NA...............8..........5......10........6.........7.........8 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1395
IDBillzFan Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 The last Quinnipaic poll shows that Lieberman isn't even representing the majority view of his own state in regards to a public option. Of course I'm sure the insurance companies in Conn. are happy with him. 64. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans? .......................Tot.....Rep.....Dem....Ind.....Men....Wom Support...........56%.....28%...76%....54%....54%....57% Oppose............37........68......14.......41.......39.......35 DK/NA...............8..........5......10........6.........7.........8 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1395 I wish I had the time to break down how many majorities in a given state share the same position as their representative when it comes to health care, spending, cap-n-trade. But hey, at least you're not going after Lieberman's wife, so that's something.
Recommended Posts