is Joe Lieberman prepared to kill a desperately needed reform bill because he's outraged by the idea of some eligible consumers choosing between a public and a private health care plan? No matter how many millions of Americans will suffer if the bill dies?

uh, yeah,
Sure!
You Betcha!

Sen Lieberman is sadly unable to transcend his personal hurt in losing the Democratic primary in Connecticut; and even though most of his colleagues sat on their hands in the ensuing general election, there was a limit to what they could do for him positively given the protocols of party politics.

I don't blame him for feeling hurt. He should get over it though.

It's also worth pointing out however that locutions (and attitudes) like Steve's "former Democrat" aren't going to help him do that. Lieberman calls himself an "Independent Democrat". I think it's a hallmark of respectful discourse that we call people what they call themselves to the extent possible. (Hence our perfectly reasonable belief that the Republicans aren't serious about being bipartisan as long as they can't even bring themselves to use the correct term "Democratic" as a modifier.)

At this point I assume that behind the scenes there are both positive and negative incentives being used to get Lieberman on board. I assume from his statements that the deal isn't closed yet. The negative incentives include of course throwing him out of the Democratic caucus, removing him from his committee leadership, and campaigning vigorously against him in the next election. The positive incentives include maintaining his status as well as, most likely, promising to campaign for him in either or both the next Democratic primary and general election in Connecticut.

And those are just the personal political commitments as it were. There are also other unrelated policy things Lieberman probably wants from the administration.

If Lieberman were more mature he'd just shut up and do his dickering in private. But he isn't, and we (and the administration) have to deal with that.

No matter how many millions of Americans will suffer if the bill dies?

If there's one thing Joe has proven time and again over the years, it's that human suffering should be a feature, not a bug, when it comes to his policy positions.

If health care fails, I will do my best to destroy the careers of every Democrat and Lieberman who stood in the way.

Sorry, Larry, but Senator Palpatine deserves all the scorn. It's payback; he betrayed his party and doesn't deserve its support. He's not a Democrat, he is the lone representative of the Conneticut for Lieberman Party (or is it the Lieberman for Conneticut Party?). I understand that Joe's colleagues have a vested interest in keeping things civil with Lieberman, but that doesn't hold for the rank and file, many of whom voted for the guy. He is a betrayer; his word is worthless, and everyone needs to understand it.

Um, Connecticut. Sorry, nutmeggers.

The country's debt did not matter to this man when billions were -- and still are -- being thrown down the rabbit hole on unnecessary & incompetently run wars.

Why is it perfectly okay to spend a trillion dollars on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (well, destroying the country of Iraq, but I fail to see that as a plus) but it's beyond the pale to spend money on the betterment of American citizens?

The argument that health-care reform will put us further in debt is specious at best anyway. Haven't most people seen the damage that buying health care for employees at a small business can do? It's a huge outlay of cash & many small businesses can't afford it. I thought these people were, if not pro-American citizens, at least pro-business. I guess their pro-business is only confined to big business. Screw the little guy. Every time.

THIS WEEK IN GOD
As has been the case for the past 10,000 years, god "put women in their place" yet again, utilizing the spineless Dimocratic party to effortlessly begin the destruction of hard-fought reproductive rights and rights of control over their own bodies in the UNited States, and then had them Dims dancin' and a'prancin' claiming to have "made history."

god paused from composing his latest plagues, disasters, and atrocities, and looked up from reading his future corporate profit spread sheet, to giggle in his best Randy Newman imitation, "That's why I love mankind."

PLEASE change "another words" to "in other words."

There is, another words, a heavy historical weight for Lieberman to consider.

this is just plain old not seeing LIEberman for who he is. Its projecting rational thought onto an egomaniac. Historical nothing will be in LIEbermans calculus unless it suits his egocentric purposes.

Progressives projecting progressive ideals and thought onto political skanks that have no capacity for any thought other than that which serves their selfish purpose has been very damaging to progressives making progress. It should stop.

I think there's an argument to be made that Lieberman should have been thrown out of the Democratic caucus for backing McCain in the election. He wasn't. Partly it's that he has some kind of man-crush on the guy; partly I think he viewed it as justified payback. I have a feeling that some of his fellow Senators in the Democratic caucus viewed it that way as well, which is why they let it go.

So this "betrayal" language is completely inappropriate at this point. The President and the leaders and a majority of the Democratic Senators in the caucus have accepted him.

I understand that there's a point of view under which Lieberman is now simply showing his true stripes and this demonstrates why the anti-Lieberman/pro-Lamont forces and voters in the Democratic party in Connecticut were right to do what they did. There's also a point of view that says they screwed the pooch big-time in pretty much the same way as the tea-baggers did in NY-23. And I think there's plenty of evidence for that point of view.

The depths of Lieberman's propensity for betrayal will soon face a unique test.

it would be completely foolish to count on Lieberman not picking betrayal. He gets quite a charge out of the howling that erupts every time he betrays Democrats, it emboldens him to be more outrageous next time. Lieberman has devolved into nothing more than seeing how much outrage he can stir up.

Maybe it's "anothers word"?

I think it is helpful at times like this to remember Lieberman should never have been in the Democratic Party to start with.. He was the Bill Buckley candidate, chosen to beat the Liberal Republican Lowell Wieker. Lieberman has been a one man republican sleeper cell since the beginning.

This is a lot of angst over a bill that is practically useless, and certainly an embarassment to the progressive movement in America.

Toss him out of the caucus, strip him of his chairmanship. The repugs can have him.

60 votes my ass, give 'em Bayh too ferchrissake.

While I agree with everything you've listed here, the "Lieberman opposed the filibuster fifteen years ago, therefor he's a hypocrite" argument is kind of dumb. I think the senate should get rid of the filibuster, but the fact that (a) someone disagrees with me, and (b) they came to change their mind over the course of fifteen years does not seem particularly outrageous to me.
Even if it happens to be the opinion of someone with the low mental-wattage and moral character of Joe Lieberman.

Steve nails it again. Great post.

Are you loathing Lieberman too? Join the new Facebook group "Loathing Lieberman":

http://LoathingLieberman.com

Honestly, can't we just carve Joe's face onto Mt. Rushmore and call it a day?

I keep hearing this meme that Joe is "hurt" and "disappointed" that the Democratic Party "abandoned" him. When, exactly, did this happen? Was it when we ran him -- and kept running him -- as our senatorial candidate from Connecticut? Or was it when we ran him as our candidate for vice-president? Fact is, Joe got dumped by his own constituents who, in a Democratic primary, chose Ned Lamont as their preferred candidate. They did this for the good and sufficient reason that Joe's only political asset was a powerful hind-end suck with the Bush Administration. Having lost the trust of his constituents, Joe further betrayed that trust by asking for, and accepting, money and staff aid from the Republican Party. He then endorsed and campaigned for John McCain. Since then, calling himself an Independent, he has done nothing but promote a conservative Republican agenda. The Senate Democrats seem to have been lost enough to reward this cynical opportunism with a committee chairmanship, presumably in the hope that he will eventually play nice with them. They have learned, to their sorrow, that trusting Lieberman and reaching out to him is rather like petting a rabid dog -- unwise. And yet we still get posts like Birnbaum's "more in sorrow than in anger" piece professing sympathy for this supreme narcissist. My sympathy is more limited. It's reserved for his constituents. And for Senate Democrats, who must endure Lieberman's alarming tendency to confuse public statements with public masturbation. And I especially reserve my sympathy for the thousands of Americans whose health and welfare are being jeopardized by this man's overweening arrogance, vanity and self-love. Put more succinctly, fuck Joe Lieberman.

Stick a public option reconciliation up Lieberman’s butt and then kick it out of the caucus

As annoying as all the lies are, it's the invocation of high principle--'as a matter of conscience' says Holy Joe--that was the kicker for me. The smug, unctuous self-righteousness--he belongs in a Dickens novel--with which Lieberman cloaks every self-serving narcissistic pronouncement is enough to make one retch.

Ah yes, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore's choice for Vice President -- one o many reasons why I am far from sure Gore would have made a bearable President, though he was better than Bush turned out to be.

The person PFAW backede away from criticizing over support for censorship regulations (joined in by Tipper Gore) and other 'family values' positions that they would have, rightfully crucified a Republican for supporting -- a decision made against substantial internal protest I was told when I called. That's why it has taken until this year for me to read anything from them.

The person who campaigned against the candidate of our party -- even attaching himself to the worst smears and praising the Baroness Munchhausen, Governor of Alaska -- and was still welcomed back into the caucus and allowe to retain his committee ... why exactly?

Well, at least we can say we have the 'Magic 60.'

Everybody hates the Senate rules of open-ended debate when their party has a majority, or when they think a bill they favor has majority support.

All he and a handful of center-right Dems have to do is let the Senate vote.

That has been spoken or written many, many times, but never for a bill that the speaker or writer opposes.

What would be really a good idea would be for the opposing Senators to read the entire bill out loud on the floor, 50 pages at a time or thereabouts, highlighting all of the conflicts, uncertainties, and dubious interpretations. For emphasis, they could then re-read the entire thing. For example, are a majority of Americans/Senators happy with the idea of (a) a 6 month waiting period after losing insurance before the public option is available, or (b) taxes on medical devices, or (c) required participation with penalty of fine or jail time or both? Is it really true that a majority of Americans/Senators is in favor of all 3?

Lieberman is going to showboat the Fort Hood killings from his DHS chairmanship.

What a reptile. People have been kissing his ass for too long, starting with Al Gore 1n 2000. The Democrats are just too weak to live.

It was entirely predictable that if Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primary he would probably run as an Independent; and it was also entirely predictable that he would probably win if he did so. Of course people were quite free to vote for Lamont anyway... as they were free to vote for Nader in 2000. Perhaps they felt it would have been a "betrayal" of personal principles to do otherwise. Good for them.

I'm sure we all remember when Lieberman, so profoundly concerned about the debt, filibustered the umpteen 'emergency' funding bills for Iraq, and how he personally led the fight to raise taxes to offset the cost of that fight, so that the Bush wars would NOT be the first time we'd gone to war without raising taxes.

Oh, wait. That never happened, did it?

Joe's not even really trying to make legitimate sounding excuses any more. He doesn't care. He's got power, he's going to use it, and screw everyone else.

he is the lone representative of the Conneticut for Lieberman Party

I'd like to point out that Mr. Lieberman did not himself actually legally register a Connecticut political party named "Connecticut for Lieberman". This aspect of his campaign was a self-serving fiction, which his supporters have subsequently sought to obscure.

An actual Democrat who noticed Lieberman's oversight (professor John Orman of Fairfield University) did register and organize The Connecticut for Lieberman Party The party's current web site is here

Lieberman himself is not a member.

Tar and feathers. (Very hot tar! This ain't no Droopy Dawg cartoon)

Joe LIEberman = Douchebag.

Anyone else notice that Lieberman always goes on Fox, although Rachel has invited him many times to come on her show, he is scared of anyone with a grain of intelligence.

Joe, one word: Reconcilliation.

Oh, and please go Cheney yourself.

Interviewed by Wallace??? This is the only place he can get away with saying such crap unchallenged. He won't say it in front of Weiner or anyone else who knows the HV bill...but Wallace...Lieberman is no good to anyone but Lieberman.

The term "public servant" and "in public service", used to describe people working in government, certainly does NOT apply to LIEberman. His ego must be the size of the Titanic. Watch out for icebergs, Joe.

What a disgusting little man.

How can anyone possibly expect Joe Lieberman to support a measure that will harm the insurance industry? I would expect him to protect it with his dying breath, since he depends on industry largesse. We must remember that insurance is to Connecticut what oil is to Texas; it's a mainstay of the economy.

Liberman's opposition makes a lot of sense from an 'all politics is local' perspective. It's simple and obvious that he would oppose anything with potential to seriously undermine the Connecticut economy. If Obama did not take this into account, his people are not as good as they're said to be. And they seem to be very, very sharp, so it's probably been figured into their plans.

While Lieberman is a repugnant politician for many reasons, it's pretty unfair to fault him here. It's a bread-and-butter issue to his constituents, even the Democratic ones. He's facing a lose-lose choice.
--
Daulnay

Um, Daulnay, Chris Dodd (D-CT) supports health care reform and he's up for election next year. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good defense of Holy Joe!

As for Larry Birnbaum: you can't be serious equating Ned Lamont with Hoffman in NY. I think you just outed yourself. Are you really Lanny Davis or Dan Gerstein?

No, I'm not equating Lamont with Hoffman. I'm equating Lamont's supporters with Hoffman's supporters. And to be completely clear this time, I'm not equating them in terms of "how far out of the mainstream" they are. I'm equating them in their lack of political realism and their insistence on the best (as they see it) in preference to the better. If anything the wingnuts in NY-23 were more realistic as their guy had a better chance.

"The depths of Lieberman's propensity for betrayal will soon face a unique test."

Not betrayal, payback. And it's not concern about a secret conspiracy, it's about the reform advocates ("people") themselves -- his DFH liberal enemies. Lieberman will be damned if he's going to be the deciding vote that gives his enemies a big win...

Money talks, bullshit walks...

"The depths of Lieberman's propensity for betrayal will soon face a unique test."

It would be one thing if Liberman's were a principled opposition to the PO, but it ain't -- viz., this very post in which Steve Benen just debunked every bogus reason that he's offered to justify his contemplated betrayal. So, what is driving this man? Vanity? A definite possibility but it has got to be more than that as even he knows that the price that he'd pay just for an ego trip (instant political death) would be too high if HCR fails because he sided with the opposition to prevent an up or down vote. The most likely motivation for Lieberman to be willing to put it all on the line politically is something bigger: Money, lots of it. After all, this is Senator Joe (I. CT) where "I" stands for Insurance companies. Lieberman is determined to maintain the status quo for his insurance company buddies, who would reward him handsomely should he succeed in blocking HCR. With the profit from his Judas Iscariot money, he'll be able to retire and live comfortably for the rest of his sorry natural life. That sort of calculation would be consistent with everything that we have come to know about this shameless man.

Money talks, indeed...

Lieberman says that some of the folks pushing the public option really want a single-payer plan, therefore he'll veto the bill.

While it's true that many Democrats would prefer a single-payer plan, that's NOT what this bill provides. If this bill is enacted into law, and some politicians want to expand it to a single payer plan, that would require another bill to pass sometime in the future, which would require 60 votes to pass. Lieberman could filibuster THAT bill if he wanted to. Why would he filibuster THIS bill doesn't make sense at all. (Unless one believes that Lieberman is as much of a skunk as most progressives believe him to be, which is - alas - probably true.)

"Judas Iscariot money." In case for some reason you didn't realize it -- although how could you not -- that is just an incredibly offensive comment when aimed at a Jew.

If Lieberman wants us to balance the budget, he knows that the best place to start is with getting the hell out of two wars.

"Judas Iscariot money." In case for some reason you didn't realize it -- although how could you not -- that is just an incredibly offensive comment when aimed at a Jew. -- larry birnbaum, @22:27

Why? I mean, why is it more offensive when aimed at a Jew, than when aimed at some other race? Jews come in all flavours, just like everyone else. Some are compassionate idealists -- like Jesus, some are pontificating pricks -- like Peter, and some are treacherous whores -- like Judas. All of them, at that table, were Jews and each displayed a different *human*, not particularly Jewish, characteristic.

A traitor is a traitor is a traitor. And a traitor who sells his buddies for money (rather than ideology) is the worst whore there is; Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist or Shinto, or...

If the House bill actually lowers the budget deficit over time (about $100 million), how can Liberman mention concerns about the deficit? Very dishonest of him.

"Judas Iscariot money." In case for some reason you didn't realize it -- although how could you not -- that is just an incredibly offensive comment when aimed at a Jew.

I did realize that it would be offensive and had meant for it to be, not because of Lieberman's Jewish heritage, but because the man's propensity for betrayal has itself now gone beyond offensive. He makes my skin crawl...

Joe Lieberman is so independently off base , the only CT vote he will get is if he goes for election in 2012, is his own.He has sold his soul to the right wing billionaires for the military base in Israel. He owes those devil billionaires lots and is paying them homage big time.

One way or another, this bil will pass the Senate. I actually think Traitor Joe is just posturing and he will come around when it comes down to it. If not, we will use reconciliation rules. We can't lose now. It will pass, I promise.

First, Lieberman sees a conspiracy theory among policymakers -- reform advocates say they want public-private competition that promotes consumer choice and lower costs, but they really want is socialized medicine.

Well, to be fair, we do.
But right now that's not what's on offer. What we're talking about is a watered-down compromise of a watered-down compromise. At this point we're basically just asking that it be a nominal compromise, rather than "... and then liberals can go jump in a lake."

A compromise IS supposed to go both ways, after all.