I haven't been a big Joe Lieberman fan for a long time now, certainly not since he campaigned for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden in 2008. At that time, I argued that Democrats should kick Lieberman - an independent - out of the Democratic Senate caucus, but the counterargument was that Lieberman would "be there" for Majority Leader Reid whenever his vote was really needed. In particular, I recall hearing the argument that Joe might be pain in the tuchus, but we "needed" him if we were to have a "60-vote, filibuster-proof majority" in the Senate on important issues ranging from climate change to health care reform. Well, here we are, after months of debate on the latter issue, and what are we getting from Holy Joe? Ezra Klein nails it in his column, "Joe Lieberman: Let's not make a deal!" In short, Lieberman has now discovered yet another excuse for him to oppose health care reform legislation, this time over the issue of expanding Medicare. Why is Lieberman doing this, even before the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues a final "score" on health care reform legislation? Ezra Klein nails it:
To put this in context, Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.In the end, Lieberman "will destroy any compromise the left likes," which for practical purposes means that, as long as Joe Lieberman is part of the equation, it simply doesn't add up to health care reform legislation being passed. As Josh Marshall writes, this has "happened too many times" to be a "misunderstanding." Instead, "Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith," a situation in which he "keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either." Marshall concludes that "It's coming to a breaking point," and I agree, except I'd use the present tense, "It's come to a breaking point." So now what?
BooMan nails it.
If Joe Lieberman won't vote for a reasonable health care bill, it really makes more sense to just use the budget reconciliation process, even though that will mean that we can't move on to other things like jobs and climate legislation. You can only appease so much before you look ridiculous. And passing Lieberman's version of health care reform would be impossible to sell to the Democratic base. So, don't worry about it and just change the strategy. Pass a package of insurance reforms, and then do the rest under reconciliation rules. Make sure to blame Lieberman. And take away his chairs and kick him out of the caucus after next year's elections. He's a Republican now.The bottom line is that if we use reconciliation, there's a majority for strong, aka "real," health care reform. Without it, we're talking about a watered-down piece of garbage that only Joe Lieberman and his insurance industry pals could love (e.g., mandating that people purchase crappy private insurance, allowing loopholes to severely weaken constraints on preexisting condition denials of coverage and annual coverage limits, etc.). We've already wasted months with this charade, as Harry Reid and the White House continue their hopes of "bipartisanship," "reaching across the aisle, etc., even as all the evidence points to Republicans being a unified "party of no" on pretty much everything. It would be one thing if we were talking about "the good" as opposed to "the perfect," but in this case we're talking about Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) opposing everything - the good, the bad, the indifferent - out of pure political calculation.
So why do Democrats keep playing the Republicans (and Lieberman's) sadistic/nihilistic little game? Are they the worst poker players (or chess, or any other game analogy you care to draw) in human history? Are they terminally incompetent politically? Cowards? Politically suicidal? Look, Harry Reid et al, let's be very blunt here: if you don't get health care reform done you're toast next November, and if you do: get health care reform done, but it's complete crap, you're toast anyway. You're not going to win over Republicans no matter what, so stop trying. Get the policy right, and let the politics fall where they may. If not, you deserve what you're going to get next November. Unfortunately, the country doesn't deserve it - but you most certainly will, unless you bite the bullet now, suck it up, boot Lieberman and go to reconciliation. It's your choice, there are no excuses. Do it or die.
UPDATE: Chris Bowers argues, "What we need to start doing is taking action against the Democrats who enable Lieberman and his ilk. If other Senate Democrats are not going to do anything about Lieberman taking control of the entire caucus, then really, what is the difference between those other Senators and Joe Lieberman?"
UPDATE: Draft Wesley Clark founder John Hlinko is collecting pledges that "If Joe Lieberman filibusters health care, I will donate to his opponent." I encourage everyone to give generously.
