"Playing Us for Chumps" -A Senate Democratic Chief of Staff weighs in ...

"Playing Us for Chumps"

A Senate Democratic Chief of Staff weighs in ...

I don't pretend to know Joe Lieberman's motivation, but it's working to perfection if his goal is to divide Party leaders (Obama, Reid, etc.) from the Democratic progressive base. I don't remember seeing this level of outrage from movement progressives before, and I wonder if the only possible way to quell it is to secure Snowe's vote for reform and then remove Lieberman from his chairmanship. I'm not necessarily advocating that, but many people (including many on the Hill) believe that he is playing us for chumps (not waiting for the CBO score of the Medicare buy-in, opposing something he advocated a couple of months ago), and there need to be consequences. It's not an easy decision, though, and I don't envy Reid.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/playing_us_for_chumps.php?ref=fpblg

Lieberman should have been bounced the moment he even hinted he would oppose the public option.

...in 2006.
Bounced, publicly shamed, and shunned.

...that Leiberscum only differed with us on Iraq and the middle-east. That, leaving those two aside, he would vote with us on all other matters, whereas, if we shunned him, he'd jump to the Repugs and vote their party-line on everything. That was why we decided to let him keep his chairmanship -- that he might get us to 60 and, although he might break with us on military matters, would be a reliable vote for the rest of our agenda.

If we had any idea how massive his ego was, and how he'd be just waiting to stab us in the back again and again, we would have pointed the way to the Republican caucus back then.

for the presidency and then trashing the Democratic candidate when he spoke at the Republican National Convention--even though Obama had actually endorsed him against Lamont when he ran for the Senate in Connecticut.

Hell, he should have been dumped as soon as he abandoned the party rather than accept defeat in the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

but why isn't this an easy decision for Reid? I would think it's a slam dunk to revoke Lieberman's chairmanship. Republicans aren't ever going to vote for Dems, and Dems applaud this action by an overwhelming majority. I would think Independents clearly see what a tool Lieberman is as well.

Or, does it have nothing to do with voters at all and it's all about their delusional club...the out-of-touch-with-the-average-American-club that is the Senate, for the most part?

:shrug:

that each party takes turns playing. Strangely, few people see it for what it is.
It is more noticable when one steps back and looks at the big picture over the last 25 years.
Despite Democratic majorities in the Clinton era, big business and banking still won out over the
needs of people ( think NAFTA).
ie: the is no essential difference between parties any more.

...to keep him from flitting off to pink elephant land, then the "playing us for" part is superfluous.

It's not as if this came out of the blue.
If you weren't prepared for this, then you ARE chumps.

Let's just be clear about that.

:dem:

-Laelth

There is not much to choose from but making Lieberman irrelevant is some consolation.

But his reversals and stated motivation for opposing what he previously supported - "because liberals wanted it" - are clear indications that he is not bargaining in good faith.

I don't have a problem with someone who, on some principle, disagrees with me.

But Mr. Lieberman is being unprincipled here. That should not be encouraged.

"At long last, have you no shame?"

..possibly in a dark alley.

(Not that I would personally advocate violence against him, of course.) :evilgrin:

This is going to destroy budgets in households across the land (many will only be able to afford the poverty excise tax). Others will do without lunches and eat more french toast for dinner, have the cable turned off - just to afford a shitty policy with a deductible too high for the insurance to ever be used.

All this to provide care to an industry that denies us care. Why is our President siding with the few wealthy (and Lieberman) against the entire working class of our country?

Why do so many defend this crap saying bullshit like "I don't like everything in it but it is a good bill".

If it makes things worse for most people - IT IS NOT A GOOD BILL!! I wish they would stop assuming we are just stupid, it is infuriating to think they believe we would consider a poverty tax and mandated profits to the health vultures to be good legislation.

No one is that stupid and their assumption that we are is almost as infuriating as their betrayal.

First off, speaking objectively, I would question a great many of your assumptions. While I would have to know the income level and family size you might be referring to, in most cases, subsidies will make the cost of health insurance affordable for most middle- and lower-income people. And, even if it doesn't, the exemptions built into the Senate version of this bill pretty much assure that no individual making less than $50,000, or family making less than $100,000, would be subject to penalties for not obtaining insurance.

But it doesn't matter. While, if you look over the details of the bill, you might come to the conclusion that it's too onerous, and may even be a positive on balance, the immediate, reflexive, emotional reaction is very much what you expressed above: "this will force huge numbers of Americans -- including me and my family -- into poverty!!!" And that emotional reaction, for most people, will be what dominates in their overall view of the bill and the party that passed it -- that they ignored the will of the American people and steamrollerd through a program that "lays heavy burdens upon our backs." First impressions are important, and the impression above is what lots and lots of "average Americans," not necessarily Republicans, will take with them to the voting booth next November and in 2012.

It's funny: if this bill contained a public option, even if it was so limited and weakened that premiums would wind up costing more than the available private insurance plans, the damage probably wouldn't be as great. Why, because the first impression would be "the government is requiring us to buy insurance, but is providing a public option plan to help those who can't afford it" rather than "the government is requiring us to buy insurance, period."

Lieberman has pretty much screwed everyone he ever "worked with". Remember the 2000 election? Or the last election?
:puke:

Seems to be a tad less egregious than any of 20 things that Lieberman has done. I don't really want to hear about how hard it would be to ding Holy Joe.

My three year old makes better decisions than Reid lately.

How many times do we all have to keep butting our head against that same brick wall before these asshat "leaders" of our party - not theirs - realize that we are fed up with this crap?