Scarborough falsely suggests Lieberman is in line with public opinion on health reform
On MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough stated, "Yes, Joe Lieberman's holding up a piece of legislation, but Joe Lieberman is not standing in the way of a piece of legislation that America wants. I've yet to see a poll over the last two or three months that show Americans want health care reform in any form." However, Lieberman has indicated that he will support the Senate health care reform bill after demanding that it exclude both a public health insurance option and an expansion of Medicare to uninsured Americans aged 55-64 -- two policies that are broadly popular among the American public according to recent polls.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Scarborough suggests Lieberman is blocking an unpopular bill, rather than individual policies
From the December 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): According to new polling, just 44 percent approve of the way the president is handling the issue. Fifty-three percent disapprove. Meanwhile, Senator Joe Lieberman apparently getting --
SCARBOROUGH: By the way -- I'm sorry.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: Let's show that poll again.
BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Because you can't overstate this too much. Yes, Joe Lieberman's holding up a piece of legislation, but Joe Lieberman is not standing in the way of a piece of legislation that America wants. I've yet to see a poll over the last two or three months that show Americans want health care reform in any form. It has been an ugly process over the past three, four, five months, and Americans have turned.
Lieberman: "You've got to take out the Medicare buy-in. You've got to forget about the public option." The New York Times reported on December 13 that "Lieberman told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to scrap the idea of expanding Medicare and abandon any new government insurance plan or lose his vote." Indeed, during an appearance on Face the Nation, Lieberman stated of the Medicare buy-in compromise proposal, "I don't know exactly what's in it, from what I hear I certainly would have a hard time voting for it because it has some of the same infirmities that the public option did." Lieberman later added, "You got to take out the Medicare buy-in. You got to forget about the public option."
Lieberman reportedly supports health care reform bill without public option or Medicare buy-in. During the December 13 edition of Face the Nation, Lieberman responded to host Bob Schieffer's question on "things that have to be taken out to pass" the Senate bill by stating, "From my point of view, no public option, no Medicare buy-in, CLASS Act which will add to our debt in the future. Don't take much more than that, and you got a great bill left." Lieberman suggested that such a bill could pass "this week with more than sixty votes and it would be bipartisan." During a December 15 press availability, Lieberman stated: "[I]f, as appears to be happening, the -- the so-called public option, government-run insurance program is out and the Medicare buy-in ... is out, and there's no other attempts to bring things like that in, then I'm going to be in a position where I can say ... that I'm ready to vote for health care reform."
Recent polling indicates majority supports policies Lieberman pushed out of Senate bill
CBS News/New York Times poll: 59 percent favor "the government offering some people who are uninsured the choice of a government administered health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in a December 4-8 CBS News/New York Times poll if they would "favor or oppose the government offering some people who are uninsured the choice of a government administered health insurance plan - also known as a 'public option' - that would compete with private health insurance plans," 59 percent said they would favor such a plan.
CNN/Opinion Research poll: 53 percent support "creating a public health insurance option." When respondents were asked in a December 2-3 CNN/Opinion Research poll if they would "favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies," 53 percent said they favored the plan.
Quinnipiac University poll: 56 percent support "giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in a December 1-6 Quinnipiac poll if they "support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 56 percent said they support the plan.
Wash. Post/ABC poll: 63 percent support "expand[ing] Medicare to cover people between the ages of 55 and 64 who do not have health insurance." When respondents were asked in a December 10-13 Washington Post/ABC News poll if they "think the government should or should not expand Medicare to cover people between the ages of 55 and 64 who do not have health insurance," 63 percent said the government should adopt such a proposal.
Kaiser Family Foundation: Polling shows "consistent support for expanding Medicare." In a December issue brief, the Kaiser Family Foundation stated, "Polling over the past decade has shown consistent support for expanding Medicare to adults ages 55 to 64 without health insurance. A Medicare expansion for this population is one of many health reform options that are popular with the public." A September 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Health poll found that 74 percent of respondents supported such a proposal.
Public support is eroding from the left/progressives because Reid keeps caving in to the likes of Lieberman, Nelson and the other conservitive democrats.
Obama should also go after all those earmarks as a way to "influence" the legislators.
MMFA has done a ton on this already. In addition to the front page piece today, there THIS which shows why pursuing this plan would be even stupider than your suggestion that it's even the plan!
And the original mainstream press (Goldfarb) who put it out there, elevating it from meaningless blog to almost "news" has since retracted it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
But THANK YOU for showing how a lie can get half way around the world before the truth can get it's pants on. You've shown full well why MMFA is such an important resource.
The truth is, there are two basic groups in the Senate: those for Big Money, and those for the Little Guy (that'd be us average Americans). It seems, based strictly on how the health reform bill has been treated, that Big Money has a wide majority in the Senate, and in Congress in general. Lieberman is out there every day, fearlessly championing corporate profits over American lives. He needs to be called on it, and publicly.
Harry Reid needs to take his fight to the American people. Polls consistently show that a strong public option has strong public support. Mr. Reid needs to start appearing more on television, or find someone who is on the side of the public option to do it for him, to get this majority on its feet, phoning it's representatives, and demanding the public option. As for Lieberman, if I lived in Connecticut, I would be working statewide on a recall. He should be out of office for failing to represent those that elected him rather than those that paid for his campaign.
Of course, this would only work if the Press did its job and showed the Troglodytes holding up the people's business.
He is trying to kill the bill that many of us want, but the insurance companies do not!
Your first sentence stated an obvious fact with no political spin what so ever. And nothing in your second sentence is untrue or partisan in any way.
Of course that's a bullcrap way to behave, but when personal attacks are all one has, because the facts have a liberal bias, it's what some people resort to!
WE ARE BROKE. WE DON'T MAKE ANYTHING TO EXPORT TO TURN THE TRADE DEFICIT AROUND. ARE ECONOMY HAS LOST IS MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTING BASE.
Don't come back with this BS will save money, just look at SSI and Medicare/Medicade projections.
See Joe, sometimes you gotta think about the wording of the poll, or maybe just look at polls on the Public Option, or just use that pretty little brain of yours.
This is another one of those meaningless poll stats that I can't stand when I heat them cited. If "54% disapprove," I think: "WHY?" is kind of an important follow up question, no?!
The con's always assume that 53% disapproval of "the way the president is handling the issue" means that we're a majority RW country or something. How many of that 53% are LIBERALS who DISAPPROVE of Obama's constant pandering and concession making to the RIGHT?!
What percent (10, maybe more?) are people who are disappointed in Obama, but FURIOUS at the Republican obstructors?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wonder why we never get THAT info on that "liberal-leaning" MSNBC, huh?
Hey, I'm sure there were rather a lot of them! (Scary how many there may have been!) But I concede the point fully: As convenient as that 26% number was for us to use for painting Bush as an abjuect failure, Knowing how many conservtaives were disapprvoing of Bush for not being concervative enough would have been very telling. I may not have brought it up myself, but I don't think I ever attacked a conservtaive who did. (Assuming anyone ever DID, but I don't really recall seeing any - not in respsone to POLL numbers anyway!)
Still... at 26%, there's really no way to sell it as success that no matter how you slice it. If he was in the 40's, then the 10-15% (whatever) would mean that he was pandering to a minority. However... DEMOCRATS took back the congress by the end of it all, winning BIG in the last midterm and in the year he went out. And Obama won. And Palin/McCain lost. So... somehow I don't think a full 24% (or more) of this country disapproved of Bush becasue he wasn't far enough to the Right. But then, you're right: I DON'T KNOW! And, sure: I'd be just as curious as anyone as to what that number was.
But consider this: Pubs/Dems or Cons/Libs are split roughly 50/50 right now. The exact number varies, of course, but it's close enough for what I'm about to offer. And it was something like 90% of Dems/Libs that disapproved of Bush (maybe more.) So right there, based on 26%, you'd have about:
5% being Dems/Libs who approve,
21% being Cons/Pubs who approve,
45% being Dems/Libs who disapprove and
29% being Cons/Pubs who disapprove.
So... if you add the 26 and the 29 then you're up to 55% approval. Not bad, but...
1)50/50 split generous to Cons/Pubs, considering how the VOTING went.
2) It assumes EVERY Con/Pub disapprover wanted Bush to go farther right, AND...
3) Assumes that the 26% wouldn't slip at all if he did. (And, of coure, you KNOW some of that 5% Dem/Lib support would go away!)
It also assumes I'm right on the 10% Dem/Lib approval. I think that may be generous though.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So, yeah, that it still the problem and exactly why I HATE this kind of B*llsh!t poll citing!
It's becoming apparent that congress cannot get the votes to move this bill forward without the public option and/or medicare expansion.
It's time to abandon this shameful partisan exercise and have Pres. Obama fulfill his campaign promise:
-- I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process. --
It's time to start over...with the original premises of lowering healthcare costs, providing portability of coverage, covering pre-existing conditions and helping those that cannot afford medical coverage.
We need to jettison this partisan monstrosity...a monstrosity that not even a good Philadelphia lawyer can understand or explain the unintended consequences.
Congress has utterly failed in their duty to the American people...enough is enough. It's time for Pres. Obama to show some leadership and re-institute his campaign promise of an open, honest, and non-partisan debate to solve this problem.
So bills of this magnitude get watered down and bogged down with so much stuff that nobody knows what's what. One day something is in, one day it is out, daily polls reveal public opinion up one day, down the next. When you have Congresspeople worrying about the next election and who donates to their campaign, and all the extraneous components - the public gets so confused they tend to show disapproval about any reform.
You are right though, it takes leadership. And a damn strong backbone and a willingness above else to do the right thing, lobbyists and special interest groups take a back seat for once.
This is one issue important enough for someone, or some party to do exactly that. Until that happens, it's business as usual.
I'm not putting the blame on Pres.Obama...but he is the one person who could be able to rally the public and force congress to do their job.
It's time for Pres.Obama to scoot that chair over by the fireplace...or...dig out one of Jimmy Carter's old sweaters...or even dust off a Reaganesque "Well, there you go again"...and do what is beneficial to the American public and screw the selfish whims of career politicians whose only goal is re-election and personal power.
The scary thing is that our manufacturing base was sold down the river years ago, and we're teetering on the edge of a total economic meltdown. Opinions differ as to whose fault it is; plenty of blame to go around, I'm sure. Unfortunately, I haven't heard anyone from either party propose a credible way to repair the damage.
It is vital for Obama to position them aside and take over. Show the leadership he was elected on and stop worrying about rustling Congressional feathers or bruising longtime politicians' egos. So what. They will get over it, and if they don't. Too bad.
Even with far-right shills like Scarborough, MSNBC is still seen as "liberal" by rightwing talking heads because 2 shows don't adhere to their far-right, screw-the-public, nutjob agenda.
BUT DOING IT VERY LOUD!!!
Along with interrupting whenever someone is making a valid point - Joe attempts to use all the oxygen in the room by taking one very simple sentence and turning it into a chorus-line.
Joe says,
the President....is tone deaf
the Senate.....is tone deaf
the whatever ....is tone deaf
the list goes on....is tone deaf
the add one more...is tone deaf
the man speaking ...is tone deaf
Slowly he seems to be rewriting history to make stint in Congress something of a heroic legend. It seems that all those Democrats who lost there Congressional seats for voting to raise taxes and balance the budget - had nothing to do with the budget surplus. Joe did it single-handed by shutting down the government! Wow. The boy can tell some whoppers.
He also is the best hindsight driver in the business. I can rewind the tape to a few months ago - when Joe was saying "the President needs to sell Health Care reform as deficit reduction" then another time, "Jobs bill" then another time "moral issue" or whatever the President isn't doing is in Joe's "professional" opinion what needs to be done. Joe's professional opinion and five bucks will get you a latte.
His treatment of women and minorities is like going back in time. He turns every woman into either his mommy or his girlfriend and he bullies and torments intellectuals. He's like never-ending rerun of Animal House complete with the same top forty 70's tunes over and over and over and over.....
Joe needs to sell appliances.