MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - 27 Oct. 2009: Rachel shows that health insurance stocks recovered from Reid announcement Monday after Lieberman announced intention join Republicans to filibuster to block public option vote. Disgusting.
Rachel says this is not a principled stand on Lieberman's part, looking at his record.
JANE HAMSHER: "It's never happened BEFORE that one party had technically in the caucus a filibuster-proof majority and one of the members joined over with the opposition party to filibuster them and break that.
And you have to ask yourself, and I know you have, Rachel, what were they thinking when they let Joe into the caucus and didn't get him to agree to join with them on procedural votes? Because that 60 votes without that is abjectly meaningless."
MADDOW: "There are a handful of conservative Democrats who have been unwilling to commit overtly one way or the nother on the issue of cloture, on the issue of procedural votes, filibusters. Is it possible that Lieberman's apparent defection here might open the floodgates, so it won't be just him, it will be even more than him who would promise to do this?"
HAMSHER: That's the danger there, is that - Senators don't tend to like to do these things in ones. You'll notice Joe, even himself, didn't say he would do it, he said he was leaning towards doing it, so he's obviously looking for company in that decision, and Ben Nelson could give (it to him).
On the other hand, Blanche Lincoln, I dare Blanche Lincoln, I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster. She'll draw primary opponents so fast it would make your head spin."
MADDOW: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters today 'Joe Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid's problems. There are a lot of Senators - Democrat and Republicans - who don't like (parts of this bill) ... Sen. Lieberman will let us get on the bill, and he'll be involved in the amendment process.' Does Sen. Reid's apparent lack of concern about this assuage any of your concerns about it?"
HAMSHER: "Well, it depends on what he's talking about? Technically, Joe did say that he would let the debate proceed on the floor and that they could add amendments and try and make the bill 'better.' So he's not going to join the initial filibuster. There are actually two cloture votes necessary - one is to proceed with debate and the other one is for the final bill. He's saying he would potentially join with the Republicans if the vote stayed in its current form.
But Harry Reid does have to worry about this, because he's the one back in 2008 - I was actually looking at an old video of yours today, Rachel, where you said 'Is this the best idea?' And Harry Reid is the one who said at the time 'I trust Joe,' when people said 'Is he going to join with the Republicans and filibuster?' because he's Joe, and Reid said 'I trust him.' Reid is the one who, as majority leader, did not get Lieberman to commit as the price of his gavel to join with the caucus on procedural votes. So if Joe wants to screw him over, that's fine. Joe may not pay a price in Connecticut, but Reid will pay a price in Nevada for it."
MADDOW: "In terms of that chairmanship, it sounds like Harry Reid would be surprised if Joe Lieberman filibustered. As you say, he clearly didn't get a commitment on procedural votes from Lieberman when Lieberman got to keep that chairmanship, but it's probably worth pointing out that since President Obama has been in office, the most high profile thing that Joe Lieberman has done with his Homeland Security chairmanship is hold a hearing on whether or not President Obama has too many czars, just like Fox News said that he did. What value is he to the Democrats that they would let him keep that seat?"
HAMSHER: "One has to wonder at Joe Lieberman holding these hearings on the czars and not say 'Blackwater?' which would also be under his jurisdiction as Homeland Security. It's meaningless. Sixty votes is meaningless if you don't have them. He's not a Democrat. He was elected, as you know, as the Connecticut For Lieberman Party. And his job is to, basically, be of more value to Republicans within the Democratic caucus then he would be on the outside of it. So I don't particularly see the value in keeping him, but, you know, if Harry Reid does, then I think that he and the President are going to have to lean on Joe this time. Otherwise, I think that there will be a price to pay for allowing him to dictate what the caucus does.
Thirty members of the Senate signed a letter saying that they supported a public option. Those 30 senators are a majority once you take Joe out of the equation out of the caucus, and they could vote to strip Lieberman of his gavel. So, there are conseqences on down the line for Joe's lack of loyalty.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
