The 7 Lies of Lieberman

Steve Benen has been cataloguing all the lies Joementum has given to explain his opposition to the public option. Here are the first six…

Believe it or not, we’re up to seven arguments over seven months, none of which makes sense.

In June, Lieberman said, “I don’t favor a public option because I think there’s plenty of competition in the private insurance market.” That didn’t make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.

In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because “the public is going to end up paying for it.” No one could figure out exactly what that meant, and the senator moved on to other arguments.

In August, he said we’d have to wait “until the economy’s out of recession,” which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn’t kick in for quite a while.

In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because “the public doesn’t support it.” A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.

In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean “trouble … for the national debt,” by creating “a whole new government entitlement program.” Soon after, Jon Chait explained that this “literally makes no sense whatsoever.”

In November, Lieberman said creating a public plan along the lines of Medicare is antithetical to “the way we’ve responded to the market in America in the past.” This, too, was quickly debunked.

Click through to see Lieberman’s latest lie.

12 replies
  1. bobschacht says:

    Joe has to write to his corporate sponsors to ask them to send him better material. He’s too lame to think of good reasons all by himself.

    Oh, wait. Trash talk was the last thread.

    Bob in AZ

  2. knowbuddhau says:

    There’s no question that Joementum is a liar. His ignoble lies are getting lamer all the time. The question remains, what type of liar is he?

    The noble lie (Wikipedia)

    In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony, particularly the social position of that elite. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in The Republic. However, the concept has far greater scope and has been used by many commentators to talk about much more modern issues in politics (see Modern views, below). A noble lie, although it may benefit all parties, is different from a white lie since a white lie does not cause discord if uncovered whereas noble lies are usually of a nature such that they would do so.

    [As used by Leo Strauss]

    Are myths needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche’s language, those “deadly truths,” flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato’s Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state’s land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth. Seymour Hersh observes that Strauss endorsed noble lies: myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society.

    [As used by Irving Kristol]

    “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”[6][8]

    It has been suggested that Kristol’s and other neoconservatives’ support of the war in Iraq is an example of that in action. [citation needed]

    Lying liar? Noble liar? Nasty lying bastard? All of the above?

  3. cwolf says:

    Joe’s jive shit #7:
    “It was always about how do we make the system more efficient and less costly, and how do we expand coverage to people who can’t afford it, and how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companies . . .
    So where did this public option come from?”

    And the answer is: (bells ringing)

    …In response to your compound question,
    “how do we expand coverage to people who can’t afford it, and how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companieshow do we expand coverage to people who can’t afford it, and how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companies”

    Are U paying attention Joe???

    • cwolf says:

      Perhaps, but if Lott were in charge of the democrats, he’d have rammed this thing through last May… & it would be Single Payer, not some milked down version called the PO or the trigger.
      WTF is a trigger anyway,,, Roy Rogers horse?

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    1. Individual insurance markets are highly concentrated. Combined with the industry’s local dominance of Republican state legislatures and state insurance regulatory agencies, that results in little competition. It does yield low-quality, high-cost and high-profit insurance products. What’s not to like? Nothing, unless you want to buy health insurance for your family that will pay off when you need it.

    2. The “public” is paying heavily for the current state of the health insurance industry. Where does Holy Joe think his industry’s record profits come from?

    3. Joe hasn’t read the legisltion. As written, it won’t kick in for five years. A hundred million Americans may not be out of a recession by then, but Kneepads won’t care. He’s a multi-millionaire landlord and has full dollar, fully paid government health insurance, not that with his checkbook he needs it. For every dollar of free government health care his family accepts, including the services of that Naval hospital facility in the basement at work, he should donate ten dollars to a free clinic in New Haven.

    4. The public doesn’t support Joe Lieberman. It overwhelmingly supports a credible public health insurance option and better, cheaper health care than the current, corrupt, for-profit system can provide.

    5. Adequate health care is a civic right, not an “entitlement program” like freedom from income or inheritance tax. Credible reform would lower insurance and health care costs, as Joe knows. He also knows it would lower profits for his insurance patrons in Hartford, which is why he’s against it.

    6. “The way we’ve responded to the market in America” is why we have 45 million uninsured and a similar number of under-insured Americans. It’s why we have the most expensive health care and pharmaceutical drugs in the world. Mr. Lieberman argues that because his patrons make money the way things are, his constituents should just lay back, accept and enjoy it, without a prophylactic.

    The shame is not that Mr. Lieberman is shameless. It’s that anyone, let alone the president, pays him any attention at all.

    • alabama says:

      It’s hard to ignore someone as vile as Lieberman. I’ve been failing to ignore him since 1980, when I made the mistake of taking up residence in Connecticut for a while.

      Roll Tide!

  5. laurastrand says:

    The truth of the matter is that Joe got his sorry ass handed to him by dirty fucking hippies and Jane, and he’s still steamed. If I were a betting woman, my money’s on the DFH’s & Jane for the long game.

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Joe Lieberputz’s latest lie:

    The Public Option is the “agenda of a narrow economic interest group”.

    About 60% of Americans think a public option is a necessary component of credible health care reform. Holy Joe keeps throwing lying rhetoric at the wall to see what sticks. He should try that with a figurative tongue and a flagpole on a cold day in Hartford. That might stick.

Comments are closed.