One hopes this is just Kabuki theater for Joe's Hartford clients.

Oh , I get it a vanity suicide . I wish he would just run away from home and teach me a lesson from the obscurity of his merits .

SB: "Don't worry," we're told, "Lieberman is totally insincere."

yes, but Lieberman IS TOTALLY insincere. i think that's been proven almost conclusively by now.

I never bet on mentally ill people.

Oh sweet jesus on a stick, joe lieberman has stabbing the Dims in the back over and over and over and over and over... and now Harry Reid's "got a deal" with Joe Lieberman?

God dammit! Joe Lieberman is a vile traitorous asshole and Harry Reid and the Dims are either stoopid or jiving us ceaselessly... ...well, okay, both.

Go dammit! The US Senate Clown Car is a horror and a disgrace.

From the same article:

Lieberman’s spokesman said Monday that nothing has changed from last week, when the senator said he would support calling up the bill but would block a final vote.

“Sen. Lieberman has made it clear that he will vote for the motion to proceed to the healthcare bill but will oppose cloture on a final bill if it contains a public option because he believes that it would worsen our national debt problem,” said Lieberman aide Marshall Wittman

The article also says Reid trusts Leiberman.

Reid needs his head examined.

Indeed, it's an odd defense -- "Don't worry," we're told, "Lieberman is totally insincere."

Not that I trust that jackass Lieberman, but as others have pointed out, it's far from implausible that Lieberman is totally insincere.

I say vote for cloture already damn it. If all the blow hard blue dogs and Lieberman fall into line and support cloture, good. If one or two or more do not, so be it. At least we know who they are. And their names should be prominently thrown around on why we can't even get a discussion on HCR. That would be the perfect time for the Dem "leadership" to cast their eyes and attention to the GOP "alternative". And there WILL be an alternative, right Bonner? And it WILL fix all the perceived shortcomings of the bill too awful to discuss, right Bonner? After a week or two of focus on the GOP "alternative", perhaps the Dem's HCR bill will get a tad more respect and cloture can be tried again?

If that was the deal, why would Reid let it out? The liar will renege for sure, citing Reid's betrayal.

One word: reconciliation.

A vanity excercise indeed - just as I suspected. Harry Reid may not be a strong majority leader, but, in his own words, he "knows how to count votes".

He's got his 60 votes and he's going forward. The only kabuki theatre was the Cynthia Snowe debacle, in an effort to get some sort of bipartisan agreement.

But perhaps most important is the fact that Joe Lieberman enjoys vanity exercises.

I'd be happier if I knew that Harry Reid had some compromising photos of Joe to smack him over the head with. But I guess your theory is more likely

"If one or two or more do not [vote for cloture], so be it." - Chopin

As I understand it, the senate procedural process gets one chance to vote for cloture. If it fails, then the entire process for healthcare reform fails. And it will not be brought up again any time soon. A lot is riding on this.

So, yes, Lieberman's vote is very important. Just think where we'd be if Al Franken hadn't won the recount in Minnesota.

Ah, Lieberman. The North Korea of Senators.

Well, obviously he's insincere. That's objectively true because he's telling one thing to the public and another thing to Reid. The question is to whom he's lying, and why anyone would trust a private comment more than a public comment.

I'm hoping Lieberman carries out his threat. This is a weak HCR bill, and the Democrats are still beholden to an ideology of "including the right" that goes far beyond what's sane or rational. The only way the Democrats are going to learn that this is ideological suicide is to bet everything on an inclusive bill that gets thrown out by the far right anyway.

And Obama needs to look to LBJ for inspiration on how to pass a real, useful, health care reform package next year.

I dunno - Harry may be smarter than we give him credit for. If Holy Joe votes against cloture now, he looks like even more of a two-timer than he already does. If he votes for cloture. all is forgiven, but Reid gets the credit. In chess, this is known as a fork, and there are few people I'd rather see forked than Joe.

Harkin dropped the hint about Joe losing his chairmanship.
Reid taunted the Rethugnicans into sending a bill to CBO.
If Lieberman insists that Republican bill be debated, will Snow, Collins and Voinovich vote for the Rethugnican dung heap? Joe might.
Joe gets a fudge in the time table in favor of Hartford and some other buddies and votes for cloture based on "I have improved the bill" and against HCR "because it is too rushed".
Insincere all the way, to everyone, that's Joe.

Thanks, Marko. Understanding senate rules is not my forte.

When can Lieberman be unelected?

Joe's just trying to be relevant. Being the GOPs Useful Idiot has to get tiring sometimes.

The failure of a cloture vote doesn't necessarily end the process on a topic as important as this one. The leader can bring the matter up over and over again, but Harry has only done that once. Instead he has allowed the minority to rule.

In this case, Lieberman has a lot at stake when it comes to voting against cloture. As a chairman he is a member of leadership. I suspect his chairmanship(s) would be in serious jeopardy if he has promised Harry he will vote for cloture but actually votes against it. Since no one is predicting the Republicans will recapture the Senate in 2010 that means the big feeling Lieberman will be a hopeless backbencher the rest of his term. I doubt there is any way he will allow that to happen.

Olympia Snowe is nothing like Joe Lieberman. She didn't ask to be the only decent Republican left in the US Senate. The voters have cast her in that role. Lieberman cast himself as the Iago/Willie from Alf role in American politics. The people of Connecticut got played but the people of Maine are getting pretty much what they want from Olympia Snowe, caution.

"For the record, I'm not at all convinced that Lieberman is going through the motions and will do the right thing in the end. Indeed, it's an odd defense -- "Don't worry," we're told, "Lieberman is totally insincere.""

Actually betting on the insincerity of Joe Lieberman is probably the best bet.

"Don't worry," we're told, "Lieberman is totally insincere."
But if Lieberman is saying one thing in front of the cameras, and something else to Reid behind the scenes, then there's reason for at least some optimism about how this will play out.
-------------------------------

People say believe half of what you see. Oh, and none of what you hear. This is Reid (who apparently evolved from the branch of Chordata that never developed actual spines) and Lieberman, who probably needs a polygraph operator standing by when he says he'll go out for ice-cream to make sure he doesn't actually head out for pizza or start a ten-day fast instead.

I'm from Missouri on these guys. Show me.

Since I, and many others, have spent the last 18 months or so blasting Reid, et al, for how they've handled Lieberman, I think it's fair to wonder if we should give him credit in retrospect. It's possible that he was throwing carrots at Joe and holding back the stick the whole time, because he knew that in the end he wanted Joe's vote for cloture.

Perhaps the deal with Lieberman was: "you can be as crazy and anti-Democratic as you want, and we'll keep placating you and even let you keep your chairmanship. But if you vote for a Republican-backed filibuster, you're going to spend the remainder of your term as a powerless, party-less back-bencher."

If that's the case, then frankly, Harry Reid deserves a lot of credit for thinking ahead.

Hang on, before I read and comment on this article, I'm gonna kick this football.

Joe Lieberman: Another Profile in Courage.

Can't blame Joe. He doesn't want to threaten Hadassah's gravy train.

"A whole lot is riding on an expectation that Joe Lieberman will not choose betrayal over progress."

That, alone, is cause to worry. If the point of the exercise, as far as smirking Joe thinks, is to draw attention, surely he's doing the calculus of "What will draw more attention? I could go along with the dems, and be just another vote among 60...or I could be the man who killed health care reform." Joe Lieberman will always choose what he thinks is best for Joe Lieberman (where best is defined as what brings him the most attention). Gore should never have picked him for VP in 2000. It gave him a hit on the crack pipe of national media attention, and he's been a junkie, willing to do whatever it takes for another hit, ever since. And we should feel optimistic about that?

A whole lot is riding on an expectation that Joe Lieberman will not choose betrayal over progress.

Given that the entire career of Kapo Joe - going back to when he first entered politics - has been one of betrayal, I for one am not holding my breath on this.

One hopes that the scumball Senate Democrats - including my senator Barbara Boxer, who was supposed to be a principled liberal - who campaigned against their own party's nominee in 2006 in order to keep this slimy little putz in the Senate so he could do what he did in 2008 and what he's doing now, will finally grow a pair and at least throw him out and cut off his chairmanship when he proves once again that his nickname of Traitor Joe is accurate.

Thanks again, whoever coined the word, "Lieberectomy."

Lieberectomy Now!

In this case, Lieberman has a lot at stake when it comes to voting against cloture. As a chairman he is a member of leadership. I suspect his chairmanship(s) would be in serious jeopardy if he has promised Harry he will vote for cloture but actually votes against it. Since no one is predicting the Republicans will recapture the Senate in 2010 that means the big feeling Lieberman will be a hopeless backbencher the rest of his term. I doubt there is any way he will allow that to happen.

The only way I could see it not working out that way would be if the Republicans have promised to let him keep his seniority if he caucuses with them instead, but even then it would mean he loses his pet chairmanships.

I think we can always count on Joe Lieberman doing what's good for Joe Lieberman, and being kicked out of the Democratic caucus and losing his chairmanships is pretty much the definition of "not good for him." I think that, once again, self-interest will win out over any stated "principles." Frankly, I would be astounded if Lieberman actually takes the risk of being booted from the caucus and losing his positions.

The problem with non crazy, non racist conservatives is that they legislate like tea baggers. Maybe partisan Democrats for partisan's sake want to welcome sensible conservative Democrats into a majority coalition, but liberals need Lieberman like a hole in the head.

"... but liberals need Lieberman like a hole in the head." - Aatos

That 60th vote is very, very critical. Joe knows it, Reid knows it, everybody knows it. That is why Obama didn't have him kicked to the curb after the election. Remember the big "embrace" after his state of the union? Everybody was calling for Lieberman's scalp, but Obama knew better - good for him!

I get here late, so this is probably a worked out thread, but: Lieberman will vote with Dems if and only if Reid threatens to take away L's committee chairmanship. The only question that is relevant: does Reid have the gumption and determination? And we don't know: Reid has disappointed so often.

The bill would get through reconciliation pretty easily, and be much more liberal. Lieberman's filibuster wouldn't kill reform, it would make it more liberal.

So he'd be throwing away his chairmanship and any hope of reelection, for the sake of damaging health insurers.

Make my day, Joe!

SF: I don't think Reid has the power/authority or even the inclination to take Lieberman's gavel. However, the senate democrats can vote to kick him out of the caucus, which would have the same effect. This is not done very often, but since Lieberman is an Independent, and (and this is the critical part), over 30 senate democrats have their names on the HCR bill, we can all do the math.

As I said earlier, Reid knows how to count votes, and he knows where the trail leads if Lieberman filibusters with the Republicans.

Miles: What is done through reconciliation can be easily un-done through reconciliation. But if a bill passes through senate cloture rules, it will become more permanent.

Also, jamming a big bill like this through reconcilaition is a bit controversial. I wouldn't want the Republicans to be making the same kind of sweeping changes when they get 50+1 votes again.

That 60th vote is very, very critical. Joe knows it

But Joe isn't that 60th vote.

The Democrats might as well have offered Mitch McConnell a seat in their caucus and Lieberman's chairmanship instead.

But Joe isn't that 60th vote.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I am inclined to follow Harry Reid's lead. He's betting the ranch on Lieberman. Not only would HCR fail, Reid would probably lose his next re-election campaign. Although Reid is the most cautious majority leader I've ever seen, he's acting like he's got pocket aces in a poker game.

Marko: In the event of filibuster, what are the prospects of the Democrats winning out by going nuclear on the issue like Gingrich did in the 1995 budget standoff with Clinton? Suppose the Dems force the Rethugs to keep on filibustering indefinitely, and effectively shut down all other Senate business--meanwhile organizing an unprecedentedly negative publicity campaign against those voting against cloture, shutting down their office phone lines and email systems, etc.?

Filibustering doesn't quite work like that. Even though the Republicans would be "filibustering", it would be up to the Democrats to keep the issue open on the floor. Therefore, it would be the Dems reading from the phone books for days, while the Rs can just go on holiday if they want. It would cost a lot of political capital for the Dems to keep slogging along, with no guarantee that the Rs would ever give in (hint: they wouldn't).

Going nuclear isn't a good idea, either. In that scenario, the Dems would pass the issue with less than 60 votes for cloture. If/when the Republicans ever a 50+1 majority, they can then do the same: pass whatever measure they want without worrying about a democratic filibuster. They would have political cover by claiming that the Dems did it first. They would be right, but they would use it mercilessly on everything.

The senate was specifically designed by the framers to prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the minority. The filibuster is the mechanism.

Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house, not senate majority leader. In the house, it is "majority rules", so there is no filibuster.