Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Letting Lieberman Off the Hook.
The big news coming out of the Sunday shows is that Joe “with Democrats on everything but the war” Lieberman told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation that he is so vehemently opposed to the inclusion of a public option in health-care reform that he would join Republicans in their filibuster of the bill if it contains the provision. When Schieffer noted that that would mean no reform at all, Lieberman happily proclaimed that he would prefer no reform to reform that included the public option.
While we can thank Schieffer for helping to clarify things, this was one more missed opportunity of the kind we see nearly every Sunday. If Schieffer had bothered to challenge Lieberman on the blizzard of misinformation he spewed out in those few minutes, he would have exposed the hollowness of Lieberman’s arguments. But as is usually the case, all the questions he asked were about the politics of reform.
We’re not surprised when Republicans who have no goal other than to kill reform and see President Obama fail come out with lie after lie about health care in general and the public option in particular. But Lieberman has plenty of incentives running in the other direction. He comes from an extremely Democratic state, and he maintains his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee because Democrats are kind enough to let him -- presumably because he won’t do things like, say, join a Republican filibuster of the most important domestic legislation of the president’s term. Nevertheless, when he starts to talk about health care, Lieberman sounds indistinguishable from the typical disingenuous GOP shill.
Among the baloney that Lieberman sneezed all over Schieffer:
- He said a public option would “hurt the economic recovery.” The public option, and the rest of health-care reform, won’t take effect until 2013.
- He said including a public option will “end up causing the government to raise taxes, will probably raise premiums, or it will put us further into debt.” The legislation mandates that the public option be paid for entirely by premiums, so it can’t cause the government to raise taxes or take on more debt. As for the public option “rais[ing] premiums,” if Lieberman has an explanation for how it is supposed to lead private insurers to raise their premiums, I’d sure like to hear it. Some argue that competition from the public option will lead insurers to lower their premiums, while others are skeptical. But this is the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest what Lieberman did, because it is simply nonsense.
- He said “The public option I think was raised in the last year by people who really want to have a government-controlled health insurance system.” Actually, there were versions of the public option in the plans proposed during the 2008 campaign by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards.
You don’t have to be a health-care wonk to know that these things are false. All you have to be is informed on the debate that is currently gripping Washington. But Schieffer challenged Lieberman on none of his claims -- in fact, Schieffer didn't ask him a single substantive question during their discussion about health care.
If hosting a Sunday talk show were your job, and you were going to be interviewing a senator and asking him about the public option, don’t you think it would behoove you to bone up a bit on the facts? And when the senator comes on and puts this kind of crap out to your viewers, don’t you have a responsibility to call him on it?
Apparently not.
-- Paul Waldman
COMMENTS (12)
Ok, lets make a deal with him - no (fatally watered down, anyway) public option, but no mandates and no tax penalties for lack of coverage. I'm sure that would make his health insurance lobbyist friends real happy.
Posted by: scott | November 2, 2009 9:54 AM
How about another deal? We privitize the Federal Flood Insurance and Federal Crop Insurance programs in exchange for universal health care. Let the insurance industry take over the property insurance programs and let government focus on what is essential for the health of our citizens.
Posted by: Linda | November 2, 2009 10:28 AM
"Lieberman has plenty of incentives running in the other direction. He comes from an extremely Democratic state"
I think it's pretty obvious Holy Joe is starting to set himself up for his 2012 reelection bid -- either on another "Leiberman-for-Conneticut" ticket, or after making the fullblown switch to the GOP.
Either way, he's going to need a f*ckload of Republican votes to supplement whatever is left of his Democratic base. And he may figure that supporting a GOP filibuster of the Senate health care bill is a necessary part of the price that has to be paid for those votes (not to mention the campaign $ he will need to raise from his insurance industry friends). I expect for Holy Joe to be campaigning for the elephants this time next year.
However, by Harry Reid's logic, Lieberman would still OK -- after all, he's with the Dems on everything except the war, the 2008 presidential election, health care reform and party control of the US Senate.
To quote the late, great Casey Stengal take on the '62 Mets: "Can't anybody here play this game?"
Posted by: Peter Principle | November 2, 2009 11:11 AM
Never forget that Schieffer said of Dubya, after one of the debates with Gote, that "Bush showed an amazing grasp of foreign policy".
Schieffer never mentioned that his brother was one of the Texas Rangers partners with Dubya. No conflict of interest there.
Posted by: Woody Guthrie | November 2, 2009 11:30 AM
I dislike Lieberman as much as the next Democrat, but I have a feeling that his opposition to the Public Option has more to do with the fact that the insurance industry is a huge part of Connecticut's economy. This is probably more garden variety big money politics than contrarian douchebaggery. Not that that makes it any better...
Posted by: Mark | November 2, 2009 11:40 AM
Mark, as a CT Democrat, I dislike Lieberman more than the usual Democrat, but you miss an essential point of this discussion. If this were solely garden-variety, big-money politics, one would expect Dodd to be folding on this issue as well - Dodd coming from CT and all that. Dodd isn't. Dodd has stated explicitly that he wants a robust public option in the legislation. Re Lieberman, I believe that it's more personal, on at least two levels. He still smarts from being dumped in 2006, never understanding that his pro-Iraq war stance was political suicide. Two, his wife gets paid big bucks to promote this health insurance crap. Lieberman personally benefits from the health insurance bonanza. That's garden variety corruption.
Posted by: PrahaPartizan | November 2, 2009 11:51 AM
Great topic, they are more attractive than others,
thank you for share, nike air max 90/95 on new models.
Posted by: Nike Air Max | November 2, 2009 12:42 PM
Bob Schieffer?
OLD.
If Bob Schieffer were a kind of whiskey, he'd be Old Granddad.
What up Schieffer!
You just got POST'D!
Posted by: ondioline | November 2, 2009 5:32 PM
Schieffer not only failed to ask Lieberman anything substantive, he failed at doing the most basic homework and asking Lieberman to reconcile his current "stand" with his 2006 campaign position in favor of universal health care, including this little quote: "I have offered a comprehensive program...MediChoice to allow anybody in our country to buy into a *national insurance pool* like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have." Another lame performance.
Posted by: mampdx | November 2, 2009 8:45 PM
Now that Russert is dead, Schieffer is interviewing for the position of go-to guy for the Repubs. Course, he was always a suck-up guy for the Bushies, so he's already got a [leg] up.
Posted by: elbrucce | November 2, 2009 10:33 PM
Remember that the right thought he threw softballs at Kerry, Murtha and other key Dems.
He simply is a poor newsman.
Posted by: gene | November 3, 2009 1:26 PM
I believe that it's more personal, on at least two levels. He still smarts from being dumped in 2006, never understanding that his pro-Iraq war stance was political suicide. Two, his wife gets paid big bucks to promote this health insurance crap.
Posted by: expansion valve | November 19, 2009 10:28 PM