Flame-retardent clothing firmly in place, I am going to point out something which should seem obvious. Lieberman's efforts to kill meaningful health care reform is simply providing cover for the MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY and not simply the ludicrously labeled "centrists" like Nelson and Lincoln.
Chris Bowers points out the obvious:
"If Democratic Senators wanted to punish Lieberman for his consistent transgressions against the party, they could. If Democrats wanted to use reconciliation, and just circumvent him altogether, they could do that, too. But they are not going to do either."
The obvious question, hardly ever asked by liberals on this and other sites is this: Why not? Why wouldn't the Democratic leadership punish Joe Lieberman? What logical reason could one come up with? He's actively and often viciously fought against virtually every Democratic initiative since they became the majority. He is single-handedly promising to destroy any health care bill which accomplishes even minor liberal goals.
I've often read that the answer is simply a lack of will by leadership to confront Lieberman, out of fear of losing the 60 vote majority. Does this make any sense to anyone with even two active brain cells to rub together? When has Lieberman NOT done all he can to undermine Democratic Party policies? What 60th vote are these people referring to, anyway? This "defense" falls apart with a modicum of reasoned analysis.
Another classic "defense" is simply that Reid and the leadership in general are simply cowards. But this generalization lacks subtext. What exactly are they afraid of? Losing the 60th vote makes no sense, so what other factors could possibly have them so quaking with fear, that the only answer is to kiss Lord Joe's ring? I simply can't come up with anything which passes the smell test. Can you?
Now, we certainly have a good idea as to what motivates oily Joe. We know his state is home to numerous Insurance companies. We also know that this petty, vindictive cretin has a bone to pick with the liberals who helped defeat him in the 2006 primaries. We get it. Joe's motives are as clear as day.
It's the motives of Reid and the Democratic leadership, not to mention Obama, who hasn't said a harsh word about Lieberman's obstructionism to date, which is currently the mystery yet to be solved.
What is the obvious answer to this perplexing question? What does the lack of punishment directed Joe's way accomplish? What HAS it accomplished so far? One needn't invoke the theory of Occam's Razor to see the answer. Joe's obstruction has succeeded in watering-down the health care bill, and promises to water it down even further, perhaps to the point of rendering it impotent in solving the massive cost-containment problem, which has reached epidemic proportions in this country.
Therefore, we see a very simple equation forming: Joe obstructs with impunity and the health care bill suffers. How, then, can we look at the lack of punishment directed at Lieberman as anything other than serving as political cover for the mainstream democratic party, including the Senate leadership? What other reasonable answer is there? Anyone?