Lieberman will filibuster if there is a public option, Sanders will filibuster if there's not

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ed Shultz: "When it comes to health care reform, if the choice is between a bad bill and a delayed bill, I gotta tell ya, folks, I'll take the delay. I don't think liberals should give away the store on this one if the bill isn't what they want, they should wait, we should wait as Americans to get it right.

Now Bernie Sanders, the Senate's other Independent member, is suggesting that he might filibuster the health care reform bill if it doesn't include a public option. He's showing the left isn't afraid to play hardball either. Senator Sanders joins us tonight from Capital Hill. Senator, good to have you with us."

Sen. Sanders: "Good to be with you"

Ed Shultz: "Are you drawing a line in the sand? Are you saying that this has to have a public option?"

Sen. Sanders: "What I'm saying is that if the bill ends up being nothing more than hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for the insurance companies and the drug companies, if it's not affordable for the middle class, if we don't have the public option widely diverse so that people all over this country can enjoy it, uh, then I think it's not worth proceeding, and I'm going to fight very hard, I think, to make sure that we have that we have those, uh, those aspects of the bill in there."

Ed Shultz: "Okay, fight hard to get those things. I commend you for that, and so do a lot of Progressives around the country, a lot of Americans who need health care across the political spectrum. But if you don't get it, you're willing to say 'I'm not going to go there.', and, and, and you're now really taking the position of a Joe Lieberman in a different way of doing it. What do you think?"

Sen. Sanders: "Well, let me just say this, I'm a member of the HELP committee, and I voted for, worked on and supported what came out of that committee. If I were on, had been on the finance committee I would have voted against that bill."

Ed Shultz: "Yup."

Sen. Sanders: "Now, the bottom line is there is not a bill yet, but what the American people want among many other things is a public option all over this country, widely dispersed, so that they can choose between a private insurance company or a public plan, and that's important not only from the individuals point of view, if we're serious about cost containment. How are you going to keep private insurance rates down if there is not strong competition?"

Ed Shultz: "Well, you're not going to, and that's the fallacy in all of this, the House bill doesn't go far enough in my opinion. Six million people to the public option? Could you embrace that?"

Sen. Sanders: "We have got to expand that very substantially. Most Americans today are of the impression that they will be given that public option, that they will have the choice between a . . . "

Ed Shultz: "I know it. Yeah."

Sen. Sanders: "And they are gonna be in for a big shock when it's just a small minority, so we are going to fight hard very hard to expand that as well."

Ed Shultz: "And are you for this mandate, if a mandate comes out of the Senate, will you go along with that?"

Sen. Sanders: "If, in fact, we had a strong, affordable plan that provided people with a public option, yes. If not, no."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/...on-for-everyone

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

[Susita 175]

politicians... ugh

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

Or maybe he believed Lamont would be a threat to this nation.

[Pooky 3,929]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

He'd still be a Democrat if his party hadn't done a NY-23 and selected a candidate lacking popular support within the party.

And Lieberman will not vote for cloture.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

Wrong again. He doesn't care about it anymore. He even said he will campaign for some republicans in 2010. If that doesn't lose him the chairmanship I don't know what will.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

Or maybe he believed Lamont would be a threat to this nation.

lol

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

He'd still be a Democrat if his party hadn't done a NY-23 and selected a candidate lacking popular support within the party.

[Pooky 3,929]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

He'd still be a Democrat if his party hadn't done a NY-23 and selected a candidate lacking popular support within the party.

I'll see your and raise you a

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

He'd still be a Democrat if his party hadn't done a NY-23 and selected a candidate lacking popular support within the party.

I'll see your and raise you a

My 19 month old does the same thing. All I have to do is start laughing and goes along. It must be liberating to laugh with the naivete of a toddler.

[Pooky 3,929]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

He'd still be a Democrat if his party hadn't done a NY-23 and selected a candidate lacking popular support within the party.

I'll see your and raise you a

My 19 month old does the same thing. All I have to do is start laughing and goes along. It must be liberating to laugh with the naivete of a toddler.

You laugh with all the naivete you want, I'll chuckle because I'm right

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

He'd still be a Democrat if his party hadn't done a NY-23 and selected a candidate lacking popular support within the party.

I'll see your and raise you a

My 19 month old does the same thing. All I have to do is start laughing and goes along. It must be liberating to laugh with the naivete of a toddler.

You laugh with all the naivete you want, I'll chuckle because I'm right

You're pretty naive about incumbency. Had Joe been a Republican who lost in the primary and then ran as an independent, he would have won as well. After nearly 20 years in the Senate, it's pretty difficult for any party to vote someone like that out of office. He circumvented the political process by denying the Democrats their vote in the Primary. IMO, a politician shouldn't be allowed to change party's after running in the Primary. But go ahead with your glibness. He'll vote for cloture because his actions have shown what matters most to Joe Lieberman is Joe Lieberman.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[Pooky 3,929]

Lieberman will vote for cloture. His chairmanship depends on it.

He will do what (he thinks) is right for the country. His chairmanship pales in comparison.

His record says differently. Opportunist first and foremost. Otherwise, he'd still be a Democrat.

He'd still be a Democrat if his party hadn't done a NY-23 and selected a candidate lacking popular support within the party.

I'll see your and raise you a

My 19 month old does the same thing. All I have to do is start laughing and goes along. It must be liberating to laugh with the naivete of a toddler.

You laugh with all the naivete you want, I'll chuckle because I'm right

You're pretty naive about incumbency. Had Joe been a Republican who lost in the primary and then ran as an independent, he would have won as well. After nearly 20 years in the Senate, it's pretty difficult for any party to vote someone like that out of office. He circumvented the political process by denying the Democrats their vote in the Primary. IMO, a politician shouldn't be allowed to change party's after running in the Primary. But go ahead with your glibness. He'll vote for cloture because his actions have shown what matters most to Joe Lieberman is Joe Lieberman.

Quit being such a patronizing jerk. Saying "He'll vote for cloture because his actions have shown what matters most to Joe Lieberman is Joe Lieberman" is perhaps one of the dumbest lines of reasoning I can think of. There is no argument in there, it's just a trite non-justification, because you can find nothing to argue with.

Senator Lieberman had made his views quite clear on a cloture vote, but you're disagreeing with his stated position because you know him better than the million-and-one political analysts out there? Cite one source, just one, with a name, who can categorically state that his position is all smoke and mirrors and back it up with proof.

I want this Bill to fail, because if it passes, real healthcare reform, done the right way, will not be seen for a generation or more. Because if the Bill passes and is even a moderate success, politicans are going to say that they fixed the system and nothing more needs to be done and if it passes and is a failure, they'll say healthcare reform is a waste of time and money and we can't afford to do anything else. Either way, we lose.

Just because you write something doesn't make someone who disagrees with you naive, or, worse still, a RWN. It just means they disagree with you. I had a go at Big Dog for pigeonholing people who disagree in a polar opposites absolutism, and you're no better. Seeing things in just black and white is why this country is currently so ideologically divided. Branch out into grayscale for a change and, in time, you might just reach the realms of colour. Perhaps if the Dimocrats and Republican'ts could buy into that line of reasoning, too, we might have political discourse in this country.

Now that's what I call hope.