How Joe Lieberman helped the Democrats lose the election

By Ezra Klein

Since the election, there's been a lot of talk about what President Obama and the Democratic leadership could've done differently. I offered six ideas here. But there's been rather less discussion of what individual legislators could've done differently. Consider, for example, Joe Lieberman.

The health-care law doesn't really kick into effect until 2014. There are a couple of reasons for that. The most legitimate is that it takes some time to properly set up exchanges and subsidies, to dialogue with the industry and advocacy groups so the regulations work for both consumers and providers, and to give the various stakeholders time to adjust to the new rules and transition smoothly.

The less legitimate -- but perhaps more important -- reason was that self-described moderates in Congress (and eventually the President of the United States) arbitrarily decided that the bill shouldn't spend more than $900 billion over its first 10 years, no matter whether the bill cut and taxed its way to deficit neutrality. But for the system to work, it would have to spend more than that implied on a per-year basis. So the legislation's architects simply delayed its start. That way, the 10-year price tag was only capturing six years of spending. That got them to a per-year number that could actually work.

The problem, of course, is that this meant the bill didn't begin delivering benefits until 2014. But it was always possible to add provisions that would begin earlier, and thus would give the legislation supporters more quickly. A few of these -- for instance, allowing parents to keep children on their insurance until age 26 -- made it into the final law. But the most promising idea didn't. And it was Joe Lieberman's fault.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=121843

of Trojan Horses into HCR to ensure it's eventual failure.

It wasn't just lieberman, it was also lincoln, both nelsons, bayh, and other blue dogs who were not behind it

Remember when Obama urged Reid to no punish Lieberman at all was considered to be the first move in his brilliant Jedi knight, mind trick, powers of persuasion, 12 sided dice, 8 level chess strategy? And how it was all going to work out so well because he did that?

Now it just seems clearer that it was more because they agreed with Lieberman and needed an advocate for their own side who they could also add to their list of excuses (especially Senate related excuses).

The expenditures are on a dferent time period?

He would qualify for Israels gov't healthcare right?

You'd think if it was good enough for Israel it would be good enough for the US?

Or if it wasn't you'd think he'd be pressuring the Israeli gov't to do away with their gov't health care under threat of cutting the foreign aid to the country.

... I am sure these facts will not stop them from continuing to whine. Any excuse will do, I guess.

:eyes:

Liebermann decided to side with the insurance companies. I wonder how much insurance lobby cash went into his off shore accounts. On his best day, Liebermann will only serve a a bad example.
The Democratic Senate leadership handled Herr Liebermann poorly. They should have stuck him in a janitor's closet and told him it was his office.

The DSCC supported him over Ned Lamont in the primaries even though he would not agree to abide by the results of those primaries. And even before then the party elevated him to Vice Presidential running mate.

Our party just doesn't know how to stop hurting itself. Or maybe that's really it's intention. :shrug:

However the DSCC should put some $$ into 2012 to make sure a real Democrat takes that seat. It's clear where Lieberman's interest lie (in bed with corporations).

to abide by the results of the primary.

They also tend to support more corporatist candidates over more progressive ones when there is no incumbent.

Can you name an example of when they supported a corporatist candidate over a progressive candidate when there's no incumbent?

They supported the man who LOST in the Colorado caucus against the progressive candidate who won. And that candidate who became a senator then went on to support Lieberman AFTER he lost in the primaries. He supported a non-Democrat who was running against a Democrat.

Our party does this sort of thing consistently, and I'm just about finished with them.

By 2012 we probably won't have to care about Lieberman any more though he has done a lot of damage. If CT went incredibly blue this election in this type of year Lieberman does not stand a chance in 2012. His poll #'s are abysmal and no one really trusts him.