Joe Lieberman's opposition to the public plan and Medicare buy-in options led to the removal of these provisions from pending healthcare reform measures. Several news sources have reported that the White House instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to delete the measures in order to appease Lieberman. Facing criticism and questions from liberals regarding President Obama's stance toward Lieberman, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the president has demanded that Lieberman make compromises as well:
Asked if Obama is as demanding of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn), whose opposition to a public option and Medicare buy-in provision led to their removal, as he has been of progressives like Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), both staunch supporters of a public plan, Gibbs affirmatively replied: "Yes."
"The president was clear with members of the democratic caucus, including independents who caucus with the Democrats," he said.
Several commentators, myself included, view this statement with skepticism. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, for example, argues that:
[Gibbs'] depiction of the legislative process would likely come as a surprise to liberals both in and outside of office, many of whom point to the various, watered-down versions of reform to which they agreed in hopes of winning Lieberman's vote. One of those liberals, former DNC Chair Howard Dean, said on Tuesday that the leadership had acquiesced too much to win moderate votes and called on the party to "kill the bill."
MY TAKE: Unless Lieberman wanted to privatize Medicare and Medicaid and begin a new war in the Middle East, it is unclear what legislative compromises he has recently made.
Glenn Greenwald and I agree on political issues more often than not. His latest article does not change this.
Greenwald's most recent column seeks to debunk a narrative that portrays President Obama as the liberal "victim" of "centrist" Democrats in Congress who refuse to endorse more progressive healthcare reform measures, like the public plan. Greenwald argues that the proposed "compromise" legislation actually reflects the position the White House has always held on the subject of reform:
As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.
Apparently, Russ Feingold agrees with Greenwald's assessment of the White House position. And as I argued yesterday, I agree that liberals must hold the White House accountable on this issue:
Perhaps the chickens are indeed roosting -- at least according to several stories that appeared yesterday on many leading political blogs, including TPM, Huffington Post and Politico. According to these reports, Emanuel personally visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and demanded that he give Senator Joe Lieberman exactly what he wants regarding healthcare reform. Lieberman opposes a public plan and a buy-in option for Medicare. Lieberman has repeatedly vowed to filibuster any proposed healthcare reform legislation that contains either of these proposals. The recent reports which claim that Emanuel has told Reid to cater to Lieberman -- a claim the White House denies -- confirms the July statements of Maxine Waters.
Some careful readers will also remember that the White House intervened and allowed Lieberman to maintain his leadership positions on Senate committees, despite the fact that he ran as an Independent in 2006 and endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 during a speech he delivered at the Republican National Convention. Lieberman has threatened to kill the most important legislation that Congress has proposed in decades, and the White House continues to protect him politically and to cater to his interests.
Nate Silver, host of the popular political blog FiveThirtyEight, has written an essay that describes progressives who oppose the watered-down healthcare legislation pending in the Senate as "batshit crazy." Silver argues that the proposed legislation would substantially reduce healthcare costs for most American families.
Fortunately, Silver's readers have turned the table on him. Most of the reader comments that accompany the article offer scathing criticism of Silver's analysis. One striking defect in Silver's analysis lies in the fact that he fails to take into consideration the removal of the public plan (and now the Medicare buy-in) from the proposed legislation. Despite the fact that President Obama touted the public plan as a cost-cutting measure, Silver argues that the failure to implement the plan "shouldn't change [his] numbers much." Many of the readers, however, view Silver merely as a "cheerleader" for the White House position that "something" (however flawed) must get passed.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean, a medical doctor and respected progressive voice on healthcare reform (whom President Obama skipped over as a pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services) has blasted the Senate measure and encourages Democrats to "kill" the bill and start the reconciliation process in the House of Representatives. I suspect that some Democrats will agree with Dean -- even if the bill passes in its current form.
I am beginning to see the inevitable healthcare "compromise" as the product of a political song and dance conducted by Democrats and Republicans solely to appease various constituencies within their parties -- and nothing else. Remarkably, The Onion accurately assessed the situation several months ago with the satirical essay "Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care." The Onion "quotes" Nancy Pelosi in a very smart passage:
"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."
Substantial Reform Was Possible Although I am proudly more cynical than most commentators, many early signs pointed to the possibility of substantial healthcare reform. Even though I predicted in October 2008 that the public would not likely tolerate the introduction of major spending programs during a weakened economy, opinion poll data told another story.
During the 2008 campaigns, voters clearly supported healthcare reform. Every credible candidate in both major parties advocated healthcare reform. Also, the Democrat candidates won convincingly, and they generally proposed broad reforms, including the formation of some type of "public plan" option that would extend government-sponsored healthcare to most uninsured individuals. Insured individuals could also opt for the public plan under certain circumstances. When healthcare debates began in Congress, most opinion polls showed strong support among voters for a public plan option.
Theatrics Over Debate Although voters held and continue to hold favorable opinions regarding healthcare reform, the mainstream news media has generally portrayed the public plan in very ominous terms. Also, conservatives have shamelessly distorted the terms of healthcare reform in order to scare voters -- particularly seniors.
Earlier this year, tense debates and even violence broke out at "town hall" meetings held to discuss healthcare reform. Moderate Democrats vowed to derail measures that included a public option. Liberals vowed to kill measures that did not include a public plan option. And it has become increasingly clear that Republicans will not vote for anything that the Democrats propose -- other than bills to augment war spending. More often than not, mainstream media outlets have examined the political "drama" surrounding healthcare reform instead of providing facts that would allow voters to assess the merits of the various proposals.
In the middle of this theatrical performance, the Obama Administration went into hibernation. During the month of August, the president -- who campaigned with an almost unprecedented level of high energy -- virtually disappeared from the radar screen while the media and conservatives distorted Democratic healthcare reform proposals. Obama, however, returned from his vacation to Martha's Vineyard and delivered a speech, during which he lauded and embraced a public plan option. Since that speech, however, Obama has not forcefully advocated the creation of a public plan.
Early Warning Signs Missed? Perhaps liberals missed the warning signs, which indicated that the moderate and conservative positions on healthcare would certainly prevail. In July 2008, for example, Maxine Waters told MSNBC that the White House was not going to punish moderate and conservative Democrats who did not suppport a robust public plan option. Waters said that Rahm Emanuel gave Blue Dog Democrats political cover because he recruited many of them to run for Congress:
[Pushing Blue Dogs] may be difficult for Rahm Emanuel, because don’t forget — he recruited most of them. As when he was over in the Congress, in the leadership, Rahm Emanuel recruited more conservative members and based on some of the information I’m getting, they told them that they could vote the way they wanted to vote, that they would not interfere with what was considered their philosophy about some of these things. So, now the chickens have come home to roost.
Perhaps the chickens are indeed roosting -- at least according to several stories that appeared yesterday on many leading political blogs, including TPM, Huffington Post and Politico. According to these reports, Emanuel personally visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and demanded that he give Senator Joe Lieberman exactly what he wants regarding healthcare reform. Lieberman opposes a public plan and a buy-in option for Medicare. Lieberman has repeatedly vowed to filibuster any proposed healthcare reform legislation that contains either of these proposals. The recent reports which claim that Emanuel has told Reid to cater to Lieberman -- a claim the White House denies -- confirms the July statements of Maxine Waters.
Some careful readers will also remember that the White House intervened and allowed Lieberman to maintain his leadership positions on Senate committees, despite the fact that he ran as an Independent in 2006 and endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 during a speech he delivered at the Republican National Convention. Lieberman has threatened to kill the most important legislation that Congress has proposed in decades, and the White House continues to protect him politically and to cater to his interests.
To liberals who still believe that criticizing the Obama Administration is treasonous, I ask the following question: What must the White House do to receive legitimate criticism from the Left?
Update: An organization called "The Progressive Change Campaign Committee" has launched an advertisement that criticizes Rahm Emanuel's willingness to discard the public plan option. The ad is posted below:
Only a few months ago, President Obama helped Joe Lieberman keep his Democratic Caucus leadership positions -- despite the fact that Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention and endorsed John McCain for president. Some Democrats were upset by the decision, but the majority accepted it.
Now, Lieberman has upset Democrats again, by vowing to vote against healthcare reform -- even in the watered-down compromise format that is currently pending in the Senate. Lieberman, however, came with a warning label.
Lieberman has embraced conservative positions in the past. Even though he advocated universal healthcare during the 2004 presidential campaign, employees of insurance companies have lined his pockets with campaign donations. Lieberman is not a faithful Democrat, and his decision to derail the most important legislation the Democrats have supported in decades proves this point. But at least he warned people ahead of time not to trust him.
Today, the New York State Senate voted against human dignity and equality when it rejected a bill that would have extended marital rights to same-sex couples. The vote was highly -- but not strictly -- partisan. Although every Republican opposed the measure, some Democrats voted against it as well.
A New York Times article contains a touching story regarding Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson's decision to support the bill. Hassell-Thompson, a black Democrat, represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County. During the floor debate, she passionately discussed the strife that homophobia, bigotry, and heterosexism cause:
[Hassell-Thompson] spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.
“He had disappeared from our lives. And my father worried, but he could not ask him to come home,” she said, fighting back tears. Ms. Hassell-Thompson said she searched for her brother and eventually found him and asked him to come home. But he told her he was hesitant because he felt his family did not want to see him. "I said, 'But your sister does.'"
Hassell-Thompson's intimate plea could not melt the icy bigotry that New York senators displayed. This decision is a vote against equality and human dignity. It is also a vote against the will of the public; a recent Marist poll shows that a majority of New York voters support same-sex marriage. Shame on the New York Senate.
I have heard of "coming out" being a late process for some people, but tv's Meredith Baxter pushes that concept to the extreme. 62-year-old Baxter revealed her sexual orientation today, after several media outlets published photos of her and her partner Nancy Locke.
Baxter starred in the 1980s hit series Family Ties. In recent years, she has frequently starred in various television films.
