Calling Out Joe Lieberman

Where was Chris Wallace in this encounter? Is it too much to ask that he challenge such an easily disproved lie? Leiberman has been saying this all week and he has yet to be challenged in the moment? Why?

Wandrey, do you really need to be reminded where Chris Wallace works?

Lieberman's true motives are petty and selfish -- he is self-important and embittered -- so it is no surprise that his pretenses about fiscal concerns turn out to be bogus in more than the superficial sense of being a false cover story. We will have to hope that Harry Reid can take this blowhard down; perhaps Obama can help.

Good point wildboy. But Holy Joe has been preening all over the place, find him a camera and he's sticking his face in it spewing toxic lies (and now demagoguing the Fort Hood shooting, Joe really wants that Prick of the Year award doesn't he?).

Surely someone somewhere can do minimal follow up on his dangerous nonsense? (In all fairness, Jonathon just did - bless you!)

I hold out the hope that this is all a kabuki dance by Lieberman so he can extract whatever concessions he really wants. 15 years ago Lieberman came out strongly against the filibuster when it impacted what he wanted, strange how he never explained why he has changed his mind.

Wandrey, I believe the Junior Senator from Connecticut is officially Prick Emeritus in the US Senate category. Quite a feat, that.

I'd say you've nailed it wildboy.

Any chance Reid & co. threaten him with stripping him of all seniority and kicking him out of the caucus if he makes good on the threat? Show him two can play this game. I just do not understand why the keep a turncoat in their midst.

I know the answer; even if he does this, nothing will happen to Holy Joe.

I don't want to get in the way of the dumping on Lieberman, but at the risk of getting dumped on myself, I wouldn't totally dismiss his concerns about the deficit.

“Every analysis of the public option I've seen has concluded that it will reduce federal, and consumer, spending. Indeed, the stronger the public option is, the more it reduces the deficit

I may be off base here, so maybe somebody out there who is familiar with how the CBO does its analysis can shed some light, but I personally remain skeptical of any claim that a public option will reduce the deficit, guaranteed. Every financial analysis I have seen in the Corporate world (I admit I have seen none in the area of health care spending) contain numerous assumptions and variables. I’m sure in an area as complex as health care, there must be dozens of such variables. Clearly nobody can predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any specific variable, so any fair financial model will apply probability and risk factors, run several scenarios, and produce a range of outcomes with each outcome having a percentage probability. When somebody makes the point “every analysis of the public option I’ve seen has concluded it will reduce…..spending,” I suspect they are really saying that the outcomes being presented were above an acceptable probability of at least 50%. It may even be higher, say 70%. Hell, it may even be 90% making it an almost sure thing. Again, I don’t know how the CBO or anyone else involved in this runs their financial models or what probability factors they use, but my point is simply that probable is not the same as guaranteed. And when it comes to government financial promises, my natural inclination is to lower the probability in my own mind.

Nacnud1, I'd believe that Lieberman (or any other Republican) cared about deficit reduction if for the past 8 years he (they) had acted that way. He (they) never met a tax cut that they ever disliked nor found irresponsible. They all cared not one whit when in 2000 we had a balanced/surplus budget but turned into a colossal sea of red ink of historic proportions 8 years later. This is the same Holy Joe that voted for tax cuts while cheering the start of a useless war. He has zero moral standing on anything regarding deficit reduction.

His and their cries are all pure show with no care about deficit spending; this is pure politics to stick it to the Democrats and protect insurance companies who line their pockets.

tnmats....I don't disagree with anything you say, and I was not defending Lieberman or any other Republican. I was simply express my own opinion and my own skepticism about the claim that a public option will reduce the deficit.

nacnud1 said: "Again, I don’t know how the CBO or anyone else involved in this runs their financial models or what probability factors they use, but my point is simply that probable is not the same as guaranteed. And when it comes to government financial promises, my natural inclination is to lower the probability in my own mind."

I'm not sure this argument takes us where you wanted it to. You're of course correct that the CBO's projections are the result of a very inexact science, but inaccuracy in these matters is measured in terms of plus or minus error, not just minus. The savings, in other words, may be even more substantial than they estimate. When a substantial body of experts say Plan A (for example, health care reform without public option) is likely to be more costly than Plan B (with public option), the smart money goes with Plan B unless someone makes a convincing argument to the contrary.

Fishpeddler - you are correct, the error factor can be in the plus direction. In the end, I hope that will be the case, but it doesn't change my skepticism.