Dodd and Lieberman are both from Connecticut, so I really wouldn't try to analyze this too much. Dodd's just trying to refrain from appearing to stab his fellow nutmegger in the back.

Actually, Nate over at FiveThirtyEight puts a bit of a dent in the meme that "Republicans are better at disciplining" here:http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/price-of-party-unity.html

They're better at threatening discipline, better at vote-counting and whipping, but not necessarily better at actually punishing dissenters.

The biggest issue is that none of his colleagues are willing to call him out. That would probably do more for party discipline than anything else.

First the Dims shuddah whacked Joey in CN when Ned Lamont beat him like a drum. But Ned wasn't a "made" Dim and so Joey was spared.

Then the Dims shuddah whacked Joey when he backstabbed Obama ceaselessly ass-kissing President John McCain through out the long presidential campaign. But the Senate make-up (esp with Franken hanging in the wind) made it propitious for the Dims to keep him around for awhile.

Now, Joey is shootin' his mouth off about taking down the Dims' big action and supportin' the Repugnants to kill the biggest things the Dims have ever done in over 50 years...

if somebody don't whack Joey this time, aint no Dim no way gonna get no respect no how.

Fuck Joey. Fuck him now. Fuck him bad...

You know, I am happy to let Lieberman vote his conscience (such as it is) on the final vote.

But to allow the other party, whose main raison d'être is to trash anything we try to do, keep the bill from even coming to the floor is outrageous.

He cannot be allowed to help republicans block our agenda. The end.

Dodd is a fool.

"...The Senate Democratic caucus, by contrast, is organized like a fun country club trying to recruit members. Join Team Democrat and Vote However You Want Without Consequence! But it's no way to get things done."

LBJ must be rolling in his grave.

I'm a little sick of Lieberman, Bayh and the whole lot of them.

What a bunch of assholes.

They'll probably be all for it once they tack on some self serving amendments. It is not time to panick. It will still be over a month until the final bill is ready to be voted on. All of the senators that are saying this stuff will vote to let it proceed.

This is so freaking obvious why do you or Ygelsias have to spend 10 seconds writing it up?

My answer: because Democrats don't really care. most of them are wealthy and comfortable. this is all a theoretical debate for them.

What this guy said!
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/10/my-heartfelt-plea.html

Spin it how you like, but there is now clearly bipartisan support to kill obamacare.

Now would be a good time for Obama to call Lieberman into his office and say, "Joe, remember back after the election when a lot of people wanted to kick you out of the caucus and strip you of your committee chairmanships? And I told them, 'No, let's not do that'? Remember?? Dude, you owe me, and I'm calling you on it."

You assume they want to get things done. The purpose of the Senate is to protect monied intersts from the rabble. Party affiliation is secondary to the overall purpose.

I think the Obama adninistration has cut a deal with the insurance industry and Lieberman, Snowe, 60 votes, etc. are just fig leaves for them.

The while notion of a fillibuster is a fig leaf really. Nowhere in the constitution is it mentioned. It is an arbitrary rule that is inherently anti-democratic and only serves the statu-quo. But then again, so is the Senate so what do you expect?

The Senate should go away. That's one of the reasons I support a constitutional convention.

AK Liberal, how right you are. LBJ would've had them all hanging by their ears right now! This vote is one of the most historic of our times and these idiots are squandering it...losers.

So, the party with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate needs to be more like the party that barely 1 in 5 Americans now identify with?

Mike

I usually agree with neill, but at the moment "burning your bridges" comes to mind.

Wait until AFTER Lieberman crosses the GOP Memorial Fillibuster Bridge, and then burn the fuckin' thing behind him. . .

I'm with Patrick: this is all an interim step in the sausage-making process. Dodd knows there's an excellent Lieberman's vote could be there in the end, and neither he (nor any other adult Democrat) is willing to throw that away for the emotional satisfaction of calling Joe Lieberman a poopy-head. (Not that I don't have the impulse myself, often)

An awful lot of people on the Internet have zero idea how legislation is arrived at, and having been declaring this process hoeless for months. Wake me when there's a final score.

That of course should have been "hopeless". "hoeless" is something else entirely.

By definition a "big tent" party needs to be flexible (think blue dog democrats). However, Lieberman is different. He bolted the party and campaigned for Republicans for god's sake (pun intended).

There comes a time for political consequences and Lieberman as earned a well deserved f#$%ing - to put it bluntly.

If Reid can't muster the courage, give it to Dodd or a tough guy like Webb(VA). Either way Lieberman needs to know that his ONLY value is in his vote and if he can't be counted upon to deliver it (and he can't) there'll be Old Testament style political retribution.

Am I wrong here?

Bob

It isn't really about "principles" anyway. I can accept a given Democrat voting against *the bill* they truly cannot support. But to vote against breaking cloture *is* disloyal, since that prevents your Party from at least trying to get its way in an "up or down" majority vote. (As noted by other commenters here and elsewhere.) Someone needs to explain this distinction to Sen. Dodd, and many others too.

I don't know what all the hand wringing is about. It was a pretty sure bet that this screwed up mess wasn't gonna happen with a public option. So, Reid, quit with the head feints and ass covering and give these moderates a chance to show their real colors. If, without the PO, they still side with the Republicans then it is time for some blood letting.

Yes, it is ridiculous to punish Lieberman. You need ever vote in the Senate you can get. The idea that the Democrats can punish Lieberman and come out ahead is wishful thinking.

You need ever vote in the Senate you can get. -Ed Whitson

So your advocating for not punishing Lieberman for not voting with the caucus because they need his vote? Sounds like the Democrats already don't have his vote, so what's to lose? I'm honestly not sure I get your argument.

Lieberman should be welded into a 55-gallon drum full of rabid ferrets and catapulted into the Marianas Trench, if we can find any rabid ferrets willing to share a drum with the guy.

Democratic leadership has said that they keep Lieberman in the caucus because he usually votes on the Democratic side. This was important when the Senate was near 50-50, but now he is not needed for a majority. If he doesn't side with Democrats on cloture votes there is no reason to keep him.

I'm with nameless bob. Constitutional convention! Abolish the Senate! Bring back the rights of us rabble!

And I'm not worried about Holy Joe. If Reid and Obama want the public option, they'll deal with him.

Yes, it is ridiculous to punish Lieberman. You need ever vote in the Senate you can get. The idea that the Democrats can punish Lieberman and come out ahead is wishful thinking.
Posted by: Ed Whitson

if you can't count on lieberman on the cloture vote, when can you count on him? it's nice to have those 60 votes, but what does that number mean if lieberman goes republican on the most important vote the senate will make since the days after 9/11? the dems gave him privileges of seniority even though he ran against the party's standard bearer. even though he campaigned against obama. even though he spoke at the republican convention. obama welcomed him back into the fold, yet all lieberman is doing is stabbing him and the democratic party (and the nation) in the back. i agree that the party should have a big tent and accept a wide range of views. however, voting with the republicans to filibuster health care reform is beyond the pale. a line needs to be drawn and this is the place.

Um, what makes anyone think that Reid has even the slightest interest in punishing Lieberman for this? For that matter, why should anyone think that Lieberman's defection over this particular issue rankles the White House? They've made it pretty clear over the last few days that they would prefer the stupid fig leaf of Olympia Snowe & her triggers over a potentially much better purely Democratic bill with an opt out provision. Gibbs certainly wasn't leaning very hard when the worst consequence he could come up with was that, well, Joe might lose his next election. Newsflash -- Obama might, too. Especially if he can't convince his own party -- and those who caucus with them -- to pass the friggin' bill. He said he wanted a bill with a public option, and now he's got it. He needs to start acting like he meant it.

What is it about total victory the White House doesn't like? With the opt-out concept, it's been handed to them on a silver platter, and yet it seems to be signaling reluctance to support it. With the possibility of the state acting to reflect the wishes of the majority of its citizens and choose not to make the public plan available in a state -- perhaps with a state or regional public option in its stead -- what possible objection could there be? How can there be any legitimacy to preventing Americans who are being forced by law to cover themselves with health insurance from having the choice of a Federally-chartered non-profit plan operating solely on premiums and investments as for-profit companies do -- and instead commanding that they buy insurance from a for-profit private enterprise?

The profit concept is dicey in the health insurance field in the first place, because it introduces a potential conflict-of-interest in life-or-death situations. However, this is the U.S., where the profit motive is a religion. Perhaps it can work acceptably with a different business model that religiously separates claims adjusting from finance, with predictability of relatively modest profits displacing continuous growth as the attraction for the investor. But people should be entitled not to trust that and choose insurance that is not subject to conflict with profit objectives. Denying that choice of the most affordable possible plan (subject to requiring that plan to compete without benefit of general tax revenues in order to preserve as much competition as possible) is simply indefensible.

The White House should be bending heaven and earth over Lieberman and Snowe (and the one other supposedly rational Republican, Collins). Maybe they are, and just don't want to show their hand for now. I would certainly hope people in Maine and Connecticut, including news organizations, would be preparing to exert overwhelming pressure on these two to step back from the brink of historic opprobrium as the people who killed healthcare reform.

Denying even a majority vote on a public option that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is a choice they should have ought to be an irreversible political death sentence for anyone claiming to be a Democrat or a moderate. With the eminently reasonable opt-out possibility, there will be hell to pay until it is passed. Why does the White House seem so passive or even borderline hostile about this promising development?

The United States Senate is the single biggest obstacle to progressive change in this country. It's a good ol' boy club, where collegiality is valued above all else.

Mudwall, so you kick out Lieberman and lose his vote. So how have Democratic prospects in the Senate been improved?

The whole thing is just a fucking comedy. The conservadem assholes give the party cover to keep servicing its paymasters while shrugging its shoulders and telling voters, "sorry, there's nothing we can do about it."

What a sorry excuse for a party. What a sorry excuse for a political system.

The media, even NPR, is complicit in this by not calling out filibusters for what they are. Mark my words, when the filibuster cloture vote falls short by 2 votes, the headlines and talking points will be Health Care Bill Defeated 58-42.

Mudwall, so you kick out Lieberman and lose his vote. -Broken Record

There is no vote to lose, but don't let that stop you from repeating this ad museum.

The media, even NPR... -bushworstpresidentever

What do you mean even NPR? It's ran by a Bush appointee and stocked with FOX News contributors. Of course NPR. They've been a pile of fresh, steamy soft serve for years.

Urban legend, you are raising the appropriate questions. In the end, whatever happens lies at the door of the White House. They should pay but they won't because the Greedy Oily Party is disintegrating.

This is a poor excuse for a political system. I should don't feel like I have any role in it (after 50 years of believing I did--the irony of Obama's "yes, we can.")

Haha. Way to go spellchecker.

Ad museum. I'm a moran.

Is it really so "ridiculous" to think Lieberman might face some consequences from his party in response to his conduct?

I'm sure that the leadership of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party is hard at work determine the best way to punish him....

How many times do you have to be reminded that Lieberman is not a Dem?

This issue absolutely is not how the Democrats might punish Lieberman. That is a side issue.

The issue is how we are going to punish the Democrats.

The leaders of the Democratic Party should take notice that if they won't discipline the caucus, the voters will.

Doubtful, don't be so hard on yourselves. Most people who are really, really good spellcheckers don't go on to become great men. They go on to become the editors of great men, if they are lucky.

Please, dear God, let there be some winning strategy behind all this that we cannot yet see.

Like a good detective story, let there be an "AHA! moment" where the good guys win.

-and Lieberman and his barrel of ferrets wind up in the Marianas Trench. . .

An Obama LOVES it.

God!!!!!!
DAMN!!!
IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't business as usual, and I truly hope that the national Dem leadership understands it. They can, and probably should, hold their fire on talks about retribution at this time, but the Democratic leadership had better pay attention to the dynamics in play here.

I'm usually a mild-mannered, moderate sort. I will gladly join liberal bomb-throwers if health care reform goes down due to Bayh, Lieberman, Landrieu, Conrad or Lincoln failing to support cloture. The national Dems needs to understand the tsunami of disapproval that will sweep their majority away within an election cyle (two, at tops) if they don't get this done while they worship at the altar of senatorial civility. I don't care about the customs of the senate, I care about the lives of Americans. This vote is the bottom line; there is no tomorrow.

"The media, even NPR... -bushworstpresidentever

What do you mean even NPR? It's ran by a Bush appointee and stocked with FOX News contributors. Of course NPR. They've been a pile of fresh, steamy soft serve for years. -- doubtful"

Let me clarify, for I agree somewhat with you, because I never want to hear Juan Williams, Cokie Roberts, or Mara Liasson again. What I was referring to was something read during the straight news summary at the top of the hour on Morning Edition yesterday (which is usually pretty straight forward and unslanted).

NO WAY TO RUN A POLITICAL PARTY

I'm going to run that out as an 8 x 40 foot banner and send it to Reid's office.

Jerusalem Joe only cares about Jerusalem Joe. No matter what he does the dems will cater to him claiming they need him for the 60th vote...but when he was a dem he ended 2 dem filibusters by siding with repubs

...he's all but joined the repubs by trying to get McCain elected (only because he thought he'd get a higher position if he did) and the dems gave him a chairmanship (over a committee that did nothing for 8yrs to reign in the Bush corruption but already has tried to smear Obama with his "czars" nonsense).

The point is historically for the past 12yrs the dems (thanks in part to Joe) have not sustained a filibuster whereas the repubs have abused the filibuter with its constant use. Since the filibuster does dems no good whether in or out of power they would be smart to get rid of it while they have a majority.

The filibuster has only worked for repubs and they have abused it to the point that nothing is getting done...so since it does the dems no good...GET RID OF IT instead of thinking falsely that you will one day be able to use it...you won't because you will always have corporate dems but a liberal republican does not exist.

If anyone knows of a time in modern US history (or any time in the nation's history) when either major party in Congress did enforce "party discipline," I'd like to hear about it.

There have always been maverick Republicans and Democrats and there are now. If Lieberman owes something to his Senate Democratic colleagues -- not one of whom backed him in 2006 after he had spent his entire adult life as a Democrat -- then they surely owe him at least as much for continuing to caucus with them after 2006, giving Harry Reid the Majority Leader's job.

The whole notion that United States Senators owe some sort of blind devotion to their party's caucus is frankly bizarre. Never has happened -- and never will.

If anyone knows of a time in modern US history (or any time in the nation's history) when either major party in Congress did enforce "party discipline," I'd like to hear about it.

There have always been maverick Republicans and Democrats and there are now. If Lieberman owes something to his Senate Democratic colleagues -- not one of whom backed him in 2006 after he had spent his entire adult life as a Democrat -- then they surely owe him at least as much for continuing to caucus with them after 2006, giving Harry Reid the Majority Leader's job.

The whole notion that United States Senators owe some sort of blind devotion to their party's caucus is frankly bizarre. Never has happened -- and never will.

If anyone knows of a time in modern US history (or any time in the nation's history) when either major party in Congress did enforce "party discipline," I'd like to hear about it.

There have always been maverick Republicans and Democrats and there are now. If Lieberman owes something to his Senate Democratic colleagues -- not one of whom backed him in 2006 after he had spent his entire adult life as a Democrat -- then they surely owe him at least as much for continuing to caucus with them after 2006, giving Harry Reid the Majority Leader's job.

The whole notion that United States Senators owe some sort of blind devotion to their party's caucus is frankly bizarre. Never has happened -- and never will.

It isn't that he deserves to be punished for betraying the party. He needs to be put to sleep for betraying his trust to his constituents by being so incredibly selfish as to put insurance company contributions ahead of the constituents' needs.

So what you're saying, Steve, is that the Dems should just shut up and march in lockstep to the beat of the party drum. Yeah, that worked so well for the Repubs. Oh wait ... no it didn't and we call them on it EVERY FUCKING DAY. I guess maybe they just aren't doing it right and the Dems will be so much better at it. Steve Benen, thy name is hypocrisy.