Will the liberal media report that Lieberman will vote against Baucus bill? UPDATE: Vindication
UPDATE (10/15/2009):
Howard Kurtz noticed the double standard in the liberal press coverage of Republican ‘mavericks.’
I don’t want to be too snarky here. Snowe is a diligent senator, she’s not a grandstander, and she was clearly struggling to do what she sees as the right thing. But Republican defectors tend to get good press, especially, as in this case, if they’re helping salvage a Democratic president’s top domestic priority.
Imagine the coverage a Democratic senator would have gotten by breaking with his party to help George Bush pass his Social Security plan. No one hailed Joe Lieberman (yes, he’s an independent, but he caucuses with the Dems) for turning against Obama on the Baucus bill.
ORIGINAL POST:
Let’s conduct a little experiment. We all heard today, in breathless email alerts from CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) went all mavericky and bravely bucked her party to vote with the Democrats on the Finance Committee in support of the Baucus health care bill. Of course, mathematically speaking, this is a non-issue. The Democrats outnumber the Republicans on the Committee by 13-10. They didn’t need her and there was no danger that the bill would not pass.
But we will nevertheless hear the talking points tonight and tomorrow about how this provides a veneer of bipartisan cover for the president and his allies in Congress. It will be wall-to-wall Snowe on the morning shows.
But there was other news today. In fact it was reported in The Hill before Snowe’s bombshell, that Sen. Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, and who is most definitely part of the so-called filibuster-proof 60 vote Democrat bloc, will vote against the Baucus bill when (if?) it comes to the floor.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday he will not support the healthcare bill set for a vote today in the Senate Finance Committee.
Though Lieberman is not a member of the 23-member committee that is set to approve the preliminary legislation crafted by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the Connecticut independent is one of a handful of key Senate centrists who are shaping the fate of health reform this year.
“No, not the way it is now,” Lieberman said during an appearance on “Imus in the Morning” on the Fox Business Network this morning when asked if he could support the Baucus bill.
Lieberman echoed concerns that the Finance committee bill would hike taxes on insurance companies, which would then be passed along to consumers.
“I’m afraid that in the end the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country,” Lieberman said.
Lieberman is also on the record as opposing a health bill containing a public (or “government-run”) option, which serves as the centerpiece of the other Senate bill with which the Finance proposal will be merged.
So unless the ailing Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) is well enough to vote, Snowe can stay in the Democrat camp and the Republicans can filibuster the thing. Now that is a significant procedural setback for the Democrats, far more significant indeed than the benefit of Snowe’s vote in the Committee. But will we hear that case made in the liberal media tomorrow? Will we hear that there is bipartisan opposition to the Baucus bill along side the stories about the bipartisan support that Snowe provides? If Snowe provides cover for moderate Dems to vote for the bill, wouldn’t Lieberman’s support provide the same folks cover to vote against it?
Let’s see which story gets more ink.
More on True/Slant Right Now
-
-
Related streams
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Bill you do understand how the Senate works yes? The “Baucus bill” will never be voted on by the full senate. Let me explain to you how this works. Chris Dodd, Leader Reid, and Max Baucus will meet and merge the two bills that came out of committee. Then the full senate will vote on THAT bill.
I know you think you’re scoring some points with this post but for the life of me I don’t get what it is.
From the post:
The Baucus bill is the more conservative of the two and Lieberman opposes it. He will therefore oppose the merged bill. Hence my reference to the filibuster (which would necessarily only apply to the merged bill.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why is it news that Lieberman would go against anything the Dems want to accomplish? He’s about as “centrist” as Richard Nixon. Give him all the ink you want …
I think you’re setting up a pretty big straw man here of the ‘liberal media.’ A fantasy straw man at that.
First, this is still inside baseball, so it’s not a shock that The Hill is reporting on a story that us close Congress watchers enjoy. Senator Snowe went back and forth on a lot of details of the legislation publicly over the past three months. She still could vote against the product that reaches the floor (and it will reach the floor – Senator McConnell said the Baucus bill wouldn’t reach the floor – he didn’t say *A* bill would not reach the floor). When Lieberman is ready to deliver a big message to the Times and WaPo, one that really says something, trust me, they’ll be reporting it.
Second, just because Senator Lieberman says he won’t vote for the bill doesn’t mean he won’t vote for cloture. It’s not unimaginable that the final version of this bill could end up with a majority of somewhere in the territory of 54-57 votes in favor, but with Senators, including Snowe, Lieberman, and conservative-leaning Dems like Nelson of Nebraska and Lincoln of Ark. deciding that they’ll vote against the actual bill.
And, Lieberman loves the brinksmanship thing. He’ll make sure he has some voice on the finished product, perhaps brokering a deal with Reid to give himself a key amendment on the floor. He knows the reconciliation option is out there, and he’d rather engage in a little bit of gamesmanship that gives him a good position at the gate.
Finally, Lieberman knows the cost of his chairmanship, and standing in the way of the 60th cloture vote on health care will knock him into GOP backbencher territory more quickly than anything else he may have contemplated doing in the past 3 years, including his campaigning for Senator McCain.
Imagining Lieberman standing up for the GOP at the final moment is a nice fantasy, but it’s just a fantasy.
Now the more persuasive scenario is the one that you’ve identified in the past – the warring of the conservative and progressive camps of the Senate Democrats. Senators Wyden, Rockefeller, etc., could still provoke a fight against the Nelsons, Lincolns, etc., and produce a bill on the Senate floor that no one can agree to. If it comes to that, Senator Lieberman won’t need to stick his neck out as far as you’re imagining he’s going to.
I just went to the NYT site and hit the Politics section. There were 3 stories and 2 photos covering Snowe. Nothing about Lieberman. If you dig, one of the bloggers did a piece on it. I had to dig for it.
In response to another comment. See in context »So if it’s not A1 above the fold, it’s evidence of media bias? This is inside baseball – in fact, it’s worse than that.
It’s Lieberman, who hasn’t been anywhere close to a leader on health care reform, trying to get a seat at the table, and establish his relevance. He took it to Imus, the Hill noted it, and you bit. Jumping to the conclusion that Lieberman is going to be the lynchpin in the health care debate is exactly what he wanted to happen. There’s no shred of truth to it, but you can exaggerate its import if you like.
Now I’ll defend Snowe’s vote as relevant because she’s been a leading voice on health care reform. So of course she’s more newsworthy than Senator “three-way tie for third” Lieberman, who is eager as ever to demonstrate his Joementum.
In response to another comment. See in context »The point of the post was more media bias than whether Snowe’s vote or Lieberman’s was more significant, though I stand by my point that Lieberman’s vote is more critical.
In response to another comment. See in context »haha, yeah right, who know there was a Lieberman flavor of kool-aid.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think the so-called ‘liberal media’ has done a fine job reporting on the significance of leaders in the health care debate – Nelson of Nebraska, Carper, Snowe, Grassley, Enzi, Baucus, Conrad, Rockefeller, Wyden – and their varying positions, and how they are all going to make Harry Reid’s life very difficult in the weeks (perhaps months as you rightly point out in your Hoyer post) ahead. You still haven’t explained why Senator “Three way tie for third” Lieberman, effectively a backbencher at this point in his career, will ultimately prove the lynchpin in the health care debate, and why this makes him as or more newsworthy than Senator Snowe.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian,
I find Bill’s posts at times infuriating, frustrating, outrageous and laugh out loud funny. The man loves to dangle big liberal bait for all us what he would call serious minded world changers, to chomp on and no doubt laughs his head off at our outrage.
But Bill has revealed himself recently and as a man who learned cons from the Rom and laughed each time when taken I think his number is up.
He writes well, finds the articles and stats that provoke and enjoys the debate that follows. He loves his arguments, notice that if you were to try to follow the tread only Bill’s retorts are in “called out”. Nice but one has to cull to find the tread of the discussion.
Now if one was to search within Bill’s posts you would find that he admits that the country will eventually go single payer, though he hates it, but as a sane citizen sees that the current system is unsustainable. Whoa, you can hear Bill’s brain struggling with that truth.
Bill reminds me of Denny Crain of Boston Legal. He will defend his conservative nature, even if it defies logic and needs the help of liberal Denny Shore to make some odd sense of it.
Here’s the thing, the big thing… Bill doesn’t really care about health care or taxes or the Wall Street crash or Main Street issue or government take overs or nonsense socialism issues. He knows his history, he knows the definition of socialism and fascism and how misused it is.
Bill is amusing himself, as an attorney he is trained to argue any position, he has chosen conservative movement, which, I guess suits his upbringing or his rebellion of of such. Com’on fess up Bill your parents were hippies, right.
Okay what does Bill really think, say about health care:
“They’ll get to single-payer. They just can’t get there in one shot. I am utterly opposed to it, but they slowly add to Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, throw in government-competition with private insurance and poof, there is your Socialized medicine. You just have to be patient, your side is winning (and harming us all, of course.”
Jesus Christ! Sorry, Cheese and Rice. We are winning. Why? Com’ on Bill those health care cost are nuts, you have a family…you know.
Then there is the process. This is how Bill sees it:
Examining political entrails is the thrill of the chase. We reset the game on Election Day and begin again. That’s the name of the game bro.
HEY EVERYONE IT IS A GAME! IT’S FUN AND IT DOESN’T AFFECT ME! IT’S A SUPERBOWL EVERYDAY.
What is clear…like many conservatives like Cheney who live in a world where if they want to hunt…the prey is provided by the thousands we are here for the amusement of the likes of Bill Duprey.
I too, am amused as you should be.
Lib this post is about nothing more than Bill getting all pissy about Snowe’s vote today (though of course he won’t admit it) and him thinking he’s scoring some points over the Dems by using that old war mongering fool from CT as some kind of mallet. If he wants to taunt Dems he needs to come up with better material than Lieberman!
In response to another comment. See in context »Good comment lib. What kind of bait do you like? I am heading off to Costco in the morning for a bulk purchase. Do you prefer the ‘Chamberlain steaks’ with a nice tall glass of ‘Kiss your health insurance goodbye?’ Maybe a ‘Double-dip recession’ for dessert?
As a conservative, I expect my very existence to bother liberals. Then when I articulate what I believe (and I do believe this stuff) I expect it makes the lefties grab the blood-pressure cuffs and start breathing into paper bags. If I can throw in a couple of snarky tweaks, I can usually bring on apoplexy.
But aside from the delivery, I try to back up my posts with facts and source materials. I always expect the other side to disagree with my conclusions, but that is because of our different world views. I believe in individual freedom and capitalism. Folks who think the government exists to redistribute wealth and favors at the expense of others will never agree with me on most issues. Take it for what it is worth.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yee hah!!!!!
[...] Read More: By BILL DUPRAY [...]
[...] health care bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on Monday. Color me surprised – I have in the past stated that Lieberman would do no such thing, and it looks like I underestimated the size of his ego: [...]
[...] a test, I suggested that we would see all kinds of press the next day about Snowe and none for Lieberman, even though Lieberman’s position was a whole lot more significant than Snowe’s. After [...]