The silver linings

Steve Benen notes that there is a bright side to the "shellacking" Dems took in the House. It changes the dynamic in Washington making the Senate a much less important body than it was when Dems controlled the House and the Senate, with the latter absent a filibuster-proof majority. That means a few certain Senators may be a bit less welcome on the Sunday morning idiot shows.

There are still some responsibilities that are unique to the upper chamber -- judicial nominees, treaties, etc. -- but chances are, the political world will be obsessing less on a daily basis over what kind of mood Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and the Maine senators are in.

It harms the comedy of the Senate

Oh, the comity. I could watch this all day long.

Lieberman gets everything wrong

Lieberman opposed Medicare buy-in for adults aged 55-64 -- something he'd supported only three months ago -- because the "patriarch of the public option" had suggested that it was "a dream; better than the public option."

Turned out the "patriarch," Yale professor Jacob S. Hacker, claims he said no such thing.

In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Lieberman included Mr. Hacker in the camp of people who favored the Medicare expansion: “Jacob Hacker, who’s a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said: ‘This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.’ ”

Mr. Hacker contradicted that characterization, saying he had made only two public statements about the Medicare expansion. And he said his praise was muted in both cases, in part because he said he did not want to suggest that the proposal was a sufficient substitute for the public plan that he has long championed.

“I am saddened that Senator Lieberman would attribute to me words I never have spoken (or thought) and even more saddened that he would suggest that he made such a fundamental decision on the basis of what I didn’t say.”

In one of those statements, an interview broadcast Dec. 9 on “News Hour” on PBS, Mr. Hacker called the Medicaid-expansion proposal “an enormous positive development.” He added: “It’s actually the original idea, if you will, for the public option, simply letting people get into the Medicare program that provides broad, secure coverage at an affordable price.”

Venomous? That's unfair to snakes

In a curious intra-paper spat, Charles Lane calls the Whambulence for poor ol' Joe, whom Ezra Klein had earlier accused of killing thousands with his "principled" stand against any compromise on a health care bill. Lane doesn't dispute any of Klein's accusations, nor the study that ties lack of insurance to the deaths of thousand. As an argument against Klein's point, I'd say "Fail." To wit:

Joe Lieberman is an odd political duck, to put it mildly. I understand that he seems to bear a grudge against the Democratic liberals who tried to unseat him in 2006 because of his vote for the war in Iraq, and that he might be engaged in a little pay back right now. Perhaps he's shilling for his home state insurance interests, as if no other senator would ever do such a thing.

But his position on the Medicare buy-in is hardly beyond the pale. That's more than you can say for Ezra Klein's venomous post.

Actually, I come to the opposite conclusions. As evidence, I give you Joe Lieberman three months ago.

I wondered when Lieberman initially supported the compromise that included the Medicare buy-in provision. Lieberman had previously stated that he opposed the public option because...well, for a myriad of reasons...but in particular because it would "hurt providers." To many providers, Medicare buy-in is even more onorous than a public option (which would do little, if anything, to hurt providers and was, in fact supported by a majority of them).

But Lieberman was okay with it, before he realized late last week that liberals in the party were themselves actually okay with the compromise. Truth is, I'm pretty certain Lieberman doesn't even think through the provisions he opposes because his opposition is sensitively calculated only to the feelings of whom he perceives as his political opponents.

It's Ned Lamont's fault, clearly

The only explanation: Lieberman will kill any health care bill supported by liberals.

Feeling "relevant"

The Post's Lois Romano and Alec MacGillis do two things I wish the press covering Washington would do more of: raise questions about Lieberman's "motivation," which are promptly answered by Lieberman himself.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has once again inserted himself into the middle of an inflamed partisan debate, raising questions about his motives, his ego and his fickle allegiance to the Democratic Party, which forgave him after he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president.

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent who caucuses with his former party, says he is feeling "relevant" as he threatens to withhold his vote -- potentially the decisive 60th -- on health-care reform legislation if it includes a government-run insurance plan. And it is hard to dispute that as Capitol Hill moves farther from the "public option," to the consternation of liberals.

Feeling "relevant" is what motivates Lieberman; specifically, being on the speed-dial of every Sunday morning talk show producer. Being the uncertain 60th vote keeps him in the limelight which in turn gives him great power, not just in Washington, but back in Connecticut, too, particularly with voters who don't pay much attention to his lies.

And calling bullshit on his lies is the second and most important thing they do in the story.

Lieberman says the public option is a sop to supporters of full government-run health insurance. He argues that the proposal lacks public support, although polls show a majority favor the concept. He says the government has no place in providing health insurance, despite its role in overseeing Medicare and Medicaid.

Most of all, he insists that a public option would drive the country further into debt. But this argument muddles how the new system will function and is at odds with independent assessments.

Under the Senate and House bills, those without employer-provided coverage would get income-based government subsidies to help buy coverage in a new insurance marketplace. The case for the public option is to reduce the cost of those subsidies by forgoing profits and reimbursing providers at lower rates, and by private insurers' rates lower via competition. A strong public option would lower the bill's cost by tens of billions of dollars, the Congressional Budget Office found.

But Lieberman has maintained that the public option alone represents a cost to the government. "He keeps saying over and over that we can't afford the public option, but the question is whether we can afford the subsidies," said John Holahan of the Urban Institute.

Confronted with the cost-saving assessments of a strong public option, Lieberman concedes the point, but he says an aggressive government-run plan would put undue pressures on medical providers and force them to shift costs to private insurers. Put simply, he opposes the public option in any form, regardless of whether it reduces costs. "If they really wanted to do something to deal with my concerns, they would take it out altogether," he said.

"He's with us on everything except the war," vol. 842

Last night, not far from my home, something called the Interfaith Fellowship held a candle-light vigil at Stamford High School, Smokin' Joe's alma mater and across the street from Joementum's "Stamford home." I thought about going (about 500 people did, according to the fire marshal), but eventually decided that it would be a waste of time. Lieberman long ago stopped caring what progressive Dem voters thought since he blames us for his primary defeat in '06 and assumes that only Republicans would vote for him in '12. Opposing universal health care (and specifically, a public option), helps him with his insurance industry donors and the only voters in CT that still value him. It's a two-fer for him and no amount of prayer is going to change that.

Filibuster fever

Catch it.

And remember what happened last time?

Democrats, angered by the continued filibuster, forced Republicans to stay on the floor around the clock. As time continued, Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) used a little known provision to order the Senators to the floor at 12:30 in the morning. When Republicans refused to heed the order, Byrd used another provision to compel the hold-outs.

"Madame President, I move that the Seargent-at-Arms be instructed to arrest absent senators and bring them to floor," Byrd said.

Many Republicans fled from the Sergeant-at-Arms and at one point Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR) was bodily carried onto the floor of the Senate.

A report on the ensuing search was published in The Washington Post on February 25, 1988:

Shortly before midnight, [Sergeant-at-Arms Henry K.] Giugni and five armed Capitol Police plainsclothesmen began scouring senators' hideaways in the Capitol and their suites in nearby office buildings. They spotted Senator Steven Symms (R-ID), but he fled before they could apprehend him.

Giugni found Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr (R-CT) in his hideaway. Weicker, a man of formidable size and temper, refused to submit. Giugni, who was later praised by all sides for his poise under fire, decided to look elsewhere.

This brought his to Packwood, who -- having heard that the Giugni posse was on the prowl -- had locked the doors of his Russell Building office, barricading one of them with a chair. But Giugni had a passkey and entered the outer office. Packwood, hearing the intruders, jammed his shoulder against his door just as Giugni was coming through, reinjuring a finger that he had broken two weeks ago in Oregon.

Republicans denounced Senator Byrd's actions and expressed outrage at the arrest order and at Sen. Packwood's injury in particular.

"Senator's Packwood fingers will heal, but I don't know if the United States Senate will heal," said Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) on the floor the next day. "The scar tissue is going very deep at this time in the life of the Senate as a result of what happened yesterday."

Now that would make for some compelling C-Span.

And remember where the word "filibuster" comes from.