2 Generals Horrified by Gays and Lesbians

The New York Times reports that Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of the staff, and Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, oppose the move to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. DADT is a statute that excludes known gays and lesbians from military service. President Obama has promised to seek repeal of DADT. Recently, Senator Joe Lieberman has said that he will introduce a bill to repeal the legislation.

Casey, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that "I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years. . . We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness." Schwartz testified before the House Armed Services Committee and stated that “[t]his is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation. . . ." Studies, however, show that the presence of out gays and lesbians would not disrupt military service.

The Defense Department advanced similar arguments to support discrimination against gays and lesbians during the Bush administration. Bush's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who also heads the department in the Obama administration, also advanced those claims. Gates, however, now supports lifting the ban.

My Take
I am always humored when military personnel argue that the mere presence of an openly gay or lesbian person could disrupt service or demoralize the troops. The nation expects members of the armed forces to abandon their families and loved ones, invade countries, slaughter opposing forces, and protect national security. But these same "warriors" are apparently so fragile that they will have a nervous breakdown if they have to serve alongside known gay or lesbian individuals. If this is the case, then perhaps they are not tough enough for military service in the first place.

Sen. Lieberman Will Introduce Bill to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Senator Lieberman (I-CT) will introduce a bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- a statute that prohibits known gays and lesbians from participating in the armed forces. James Kirchick, writing for the New York Daily News, suggests that Lieberman could "frustrate and perplex" liberals by introducing "the most significant piece of socially progressive legislation that Congress will deal with this year." But Lieberman's position on DADT should not erase his bad standing with liberals.

According to recent polling data, 75 percent of the public -- including former Vice President Dick Cheney -- supports lifting the ban. Accordingly, Lieberman is not out of step with public opinion.

Furthermore, while repealing DADT is important for social justice, this topic is not as controversial as it once was. President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chair of Staff Mullen all support the repeal of DADT -- as do many members of Congress. Although he probably opposes DADT, I suspect that Lieberman is also looking for some liberal credentials after losing points with the Left due to his moderate stance on healthcare reform and his support of John McCain during the 2008 presidential election.

The Dubious Benefits of Obama's Political Compromises

President Obama continues to "reach out" to conservatives and moderates. The benefits of this approach, however, are dubious at best.

Ben Nelson
Obama, for example, secured support for healthcare reform legislation from Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska by giving his state millions of dollars in Medicaid assistance. Although Nelson finally overcame his opposition to patients in insurance exchanges receiving abortion servies, Obama's outreach did not create a new partnership between the two. Instead, Nelson has announced that he will join Republicans to filibuster the nomination of Craig Becker to sit on the National Labor Relations Board.

Republicans oppose Becker's nomination solely because he is pro-labor. They have not, by contrast, opposed pro-business nominees. Instead, the opposition is purely ideological. Nelson's move will probably kill the nomination.

Joe Lieberman
After he was elected, President Obama tried to smooth things out with Senator Joe Lieberman. Many Democrats wanted to deprive Lieberman of his seniority because he endorsed and openly campaigned for John McCain during the 2008 presidential election. Despite the wishes of many Democrats, Obama stepped in to make peace and told Senate Democrats not to punish Lieberman.

Lieberman, however, recently opposed Obama's healthcare proposals. Consequently, President Obama, in a controversial move, ordered Harry Reid to drop the public plan and Medicare buy-in options from the pending legislation.

Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe
President Obama has also struggled to define pieces of his legislative agenda, including the stimulus package and healthcare reform, around the political leanings of Susan Colins and Olympia Snowe. Neither of the two Senators from Maine, however, support his healthcare agenda. Furthermore, the stimulus package would have passed without the support of Collins and Snowe, but Obama made unnecessary concessions to obtain their votes.

Republicans Generally
Most recently, Obama has tried to warm up to Republicans. He debated House Republicans at a recent retreat, and he has offered to meet with Republicans to discuss bipartisanship regarding healthcare reform -- which seems doomed after the election of Republican Scott Brown as a Senator from Massachusetts. Republicans, however, have either resisted the idea or accepted it with major caveats.

Comprising With Moderates and Conservatives, Criticizing Liberals
Although Obama continues to reach out to and to make compromises with moderates, members of his administration have harshly criticized liberals. For example, responding to progressive criticism regarding healthcare reform, senior members of Obama's staff called liberals "irrational" and "insane." Rahm Emanuel has also stated that liberal critics of moderate and conservative Democrats are "fucking retards." The White House has clearly decided to isolate its liberal critics.

Final Take
While the Obama administration criticizes its base of support, it continues to chase down the approval of moderates and conservatives. If the latter approach paid off politically, then perhaps it would make sense. But to date, the benefits of this approach are dubious at best.

While White House Condemns Liberals, Congressional Moderates Remain Inflexible

Now that the House and Senate have passed heathcare bills, the process of merging the disparate proposals must take place. The White House has branded liberals who oppose the more conservative Senate bill as inflexible and impractical. But moderates, whom Obama has eagerly sought to appease during the legislative process, have repeatedly drawn firm and rigid lines in the sand.

Joe Lieberman, for example, issued multiple filibuster threats until Obama instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to drop the public plan option from the Senate bill. Ben Nelson won concessions on abortion funding after he threatened to derail the bill. And Mary Landrieu secured millions of dollars in federal funding for Louisiana after she vowed to vote against the measure.

According to The Hill, Senate moderates have promised to maintain their inflexible stance during the upcoming negotiations:

Democratic centrists have informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they will accept few changes in the final healthcare bill negotiated between the House and Senate.

Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have made clear there is little room to deviate from the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.

They are the most vocal of nearly two-dozen senators who have indicated they see little wiggle room in the conference talks. . . .

Lawmakers in the House will have to accept the Senate legislation with little change if a final bill is to muster 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles and make it to President Barack Obama’s desk, the centrists say.

“There’s very little room for this bill to change,” said Landrieu. “The framework really has to stay basically in place.

Although centrists have continually dug their heels in the sand and threatened to kill the reform process unless their demands were met, the White House has not described their muscularity as "insane" or "irrational." Instead, these labels seemingly apply only to liberals who demand a tough posture during negotiations.

Question for readers: What do you think explains the disparate treatment of liberals and moderates by the White House?

See also:

NYT's Adam Nagourney Peddles New White House Attacks on Progressives

Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform

White House Shows Its True Colors on Healthcare Reform

Irrational Robert Gibbs Says Howard Dean Is Irrational

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman

Why Is Obama Still Protecting Lieberman?

House Democrat Louise M. Slaughter: Scrap Senate Healthcare Bill

Obama Falsely Claims that the Senate Healthcare Bill Matches His Campaign Promises

Ezra Klein's "Pink=Blue=Colors" Logic Regarding Healthcare Reform

Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform

The New York Times has now covered an issue that many liberal bloggers have discussed for several days -- the White House's anger directed toward progressives who oppose the Senate healthcare bill. Several liberals have criticized the bill because it does not include a public plan option or a Medicare buy-in.

Many Democrats -- including President Obama -- previously argued that such measures, particularly the public plan, could provide competition for insurers and reduce the cost of insurance premiums. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments in support of a universal mandate -- which the bill contains -- is that the public plan would reduce costs and make insurance affordable for the uninsured.

Under orders from the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid deleted the public plan and Medicare buy-in from the healthcare bill. This move has angered liberals, who rightfully point out that Obama is betraying promises from his own very recent presidential campaign. Howard Dean, a medical doctor and former head of the DNC, has advocated that Senators "kill" the bill and craft a new measure that offers "real reform." Furthermore, Senator Bernie Sanders, who actually prefers a single-payer system, announced yesterday that he was not committed to voting for the legislation in its present format.

As Dissenting Justice has already reported, White House officials have moved to attack and discredit liberals who oppose the Senate bill. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, for example, said that Dean was acting irrationally. Also, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod said that liberal opponents of the Senate bill are "insane." The White House response has only enhanced anger among liberals.

Axelrod conducted a conference call with liberal bloggers on Wednesday, and he faced numerous questions regarding the White House response to progressive opponents of the Senate bill. One blogger asked Axelrod whether the White House would respond with similar anger to Ben Nelson, the moderate Democrat who also announced his opposition to the Senate bill because he wants tougher provisions related the delivery of abortion services. According to The Nation, during the conference call, Axelrod tried to back away from the harshness of his previous comments regarding liberals:

"I'm not professionally qualified to judge insanity and maybe I should have used a different word," Axelrod said, and he noted that "everybody's a little on edge at this point" in the long legislative battle. He also stressed his respect for allies in the "progressive community," but reiterated his view that it would be "wrongheaded" to squash all of health care reform at this point, which is "infinitely better" than the status quo.

My Take: I suspect that liberals will remain disappointed. The White House did not describe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu or Bill Nelson as "insane" or "irrational" when they threatened to vote against or filibuster the proposed legislation. Instead, the White House moved to appease them.

Liberal activists, many of whom worked to elect Obama, feel betrayed by the White House's angry response to their legitimate complaints. Furthermore, this is not the first time liberals have felt let down by the White House. On issues as diverse as gay rights and the Afghanistan War, liberals believe that President Obama has not taken their interests into account or that he has moved away from his campaign promises. These types of feelings do not vanish easily.

See also: Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Michael Moore to Connecticut Voters: Recall Lieberman or Face Boycott (LOL)

Michael Moore has issued an ultimatum for Connecticut voters: Recall Senator Joe Lieberman or face a boycott of the Nutmeg State. Interesting.

Moore is upset with Lieberman because he is, in part, responsible for the watered-down version of healthcare reform currently pending in the Senate. Moore blames Connecticut voters for empowering Lieberman, and he wants them to rectify the situation:

People of Connecticut: What have u done 2 this country? We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2day or we'll boycott your state.

Two things strike me as problematic with Moore's position. FIRST, the Constitution does not provide for the "recall" of members of Congress. Accordingly, the substance of his demand is illegal. SECOND, boycotting Connecticut does not seem like an awesome economic threat. Aside from October leaf-touring season, Connecticut is not a major tourist destination. And in December, most of the trees in Connecticut are completely naked. Moore needs to go back to the drawing board!

Really? Gibbs Says Obama Demanded Lieberman Make Compromises Too

Joe Lieberman's opposition to the public plan and Medicare buy-in options led to the removal of these provisions from pending healthcare reform measures. Several news sources have reported that the White House instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to delete the measures in order to appease Lieberman. Facing criticism and questions from liberals regarding President Obama's stance toward Lieberman, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the president has demanded that Lieberman make compromises as well:

Asked if Obama is as demanding of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn), whose opposition to a public option and Medicare buy-in provision led to their removal, as he has been of progressives like Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), both staunch supporters of a public plan, Gibbs affirmatively replied: "Yes."

"The president was clear with members of the democratic caucus, including independents who caucus with the Democrats," he said.

Several commentators, myself included, view this statement with skepticism. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, for example, argues that:

[Gibbs'] depiction of the legislative process would likely come as a surprise to liberals both in and outside of office, many of whom point to the various, watered-down versions of reform to which they agreed in hopes of winning Lieberman's vote. One of those liberals, former DNC Chair Howard Dean, said on Tuesday that the leadership had acquiesced too much to win moderate votes and called on the party to "kill the bill."

MY TAKE: Unless Lieberman wanted to privatize Medicare and Medicaid and begin a new war in the Middle East, it is unclear what legislative compromises he has recently made.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman

Glenn Greenwald and I agree on political issues more often than not. His latest article does not change this.

Greenwald's most recent column seeks to debunk a narrative that portrays President Obama as the liberal "victim" of "centrist" Democrats in Congress who refuse to endorse more progressive healthcare reform measures, like the public plan. Greenwald argues that the proposed "compromise" legislation actually reflects the position the White House has always held on the subject of reform:

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

Apparently, Russ Feingold agrees with Greenwald's assessment of the White House position. And as I argued yesterday, I agree that liberals must hold the White House accountable on this issue:

Perhaps the chickens are indeed roosting -- at least according to several stories that appeared yesterday on many leading political blogs, including TPM, Huffington Post and Politico. According to these reports, Emanuel personally visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and demanded that he give Senator Joe Lieberman exactly what he wants regarding healthcare reform. Lieberman opposes a public plan and a buy-in option for Medicare. Lieberman has repeatedly vowed to filibuster any proposed healthcare reform legislation that contains either of these proposals. The recent reports which claim that Emanuel has told Reid to cater to Lieberman -- a claim the White House denies -- confirms the July statements of Maxine Waters.

Some careful readers will also remember that the White House intervened and allowed Lieberman to maintain his leadership positions on Senate committees, despite the fact that he ran as an Independent in 2006 and endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 during a speech he delivered at the Republican National Convention. Lieberman has threatened to kill the most important legislation that Congress has proposed in decades, and the White House continues to protect him politically and to cater to his interests.

What do you think?

Why Is Obama Still Protecting Lieberman?

I am beginning to see the inevitable healthcare "compromise" as the product of a political song and dance conducted by Democrats and Republicans solely to appease various constituencies within their parties -- and nothing else. Remarkably, The Onion accurately assessed the situation several months ago with the satirical essay "Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care." The Onion "quotes" Nancy Pelosi in a very smart passage:

"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."

Substantial Reform Was Possible
Although I am proudly more cynical than most commentators, many early signs pointed to the possibility of substantial healthcare reform. Even though I predicted in October 2008 that the public would not likely tolerate the introduction of major spending programs during a weakened economy, opinion poll data told another story.

During the 2008 campaigns, voters clearly supported healthcare reform. Every credible candidate in both major parties advocated healthcare reform. Also, the Democrat candidates won convincingly, and they generally proposed broad reforms, including the formation of some type of "public plan" option that would extend government-sponsored healthcare to most uninsured individuals. Insured individuals could also opt for the public plan under certain circumstances. When healthcare debates began in Congress, most opinion polls showed strong support among voters for a public plan option.

Theatrics Over Debate
Although voters held and continue to hold favorable opinions regarding healthcare reform, the mainstream news media has generally portrayed the public plan in very ominous terms. Also, conservatives have shamelessly distorted the terms of healthcare reform in order to scare voters -- particularly seniors.

Earlier this year, tense debates and even violence broke out at "town hall" meetings held to discuss healthcare reform. Moderate Democrats vowed to derail measures that included a public option. Liberals vowed to kill measures that did not include a public plan option. And it has become increasingly clear that Republicans will not vote for anything that the Democrats propose -- other than bills to augment war spending. More often than not, mainstream media outlets have examined the political "drama" surrounding healthcare reform instead of providing facts that would allow voters to assess the merits of the various proposals.

In the middle of this theatrical performance, the Obama Administration went into hibernation. During the month of August, the president -- who campaigned with an almost unprecedented level of high energy -- virtually disappeared from the radar screen while the media and conservatives distorted Democratic healthcare reform proposals. Obama, however, returned from his vacation to Martha's Vineyard and delivered a speech, during which he lauded and embraced a public plan option. Since that speech, however, Obama has not forcefully advocated the creation of a public plan.

Early Warning Signs Missed?
Perhaps liberals missed the warning signs, which indicated that the moderate and conservative positions on healthcare would certainly prevail. In July 2008, for example, Maxine Waters told MSNBC that the White House was not going to punish moderate and conservative Democrats who did not suppport a robust public plan option. Waters said that Rahm Emanuel gave Blue Dog Democrats political cover because he recruited many of them to run for Congress:

[Pushing Blue Dogs] may be difficult for Rahm Emanuel, because don’t forget — he recruited most of them. As when he was over in the Congress, in the leadership, Rahm Emanuel recruited more conservative members and based on some of the information I’m getting, they told them that they could vote the way they wanted to vote, that they would not interfere with what was considered their philosophy about some of these things. So, now the chickens have come home to roost.

Perhaps the chickens are indeed roosting -- at least according to several stories that appeared yesterday on many leading political blogs, including TPM, Huffington Post and Politico. According to these reports, Emanuel personally visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and demanded that he give Senator Joe Lieberman exactly what he wants regarding healthcare reform. Lieberman opposes a public plan and a buy-in option for Medicare. Lieberman has repeatedly vowed to filibuster any proposed healthcare reform legislation that contains either of these proposals. The recent reports which claim that Emanuel has told Reid to cater to Lieberman -- a claim the White House denies -- confirms the July statements of Maxine Waters.

Some careful readers will also remember that the White House intervened and allowed Lieberman to maintain his leadership positions on Senate committees, despite the fact that he ran as an Independent in 2006 and endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 during a speech he delivered at the Republican National Convention. Lieberman has threatened to kill the most important legislation that Congress has proposed in decades, and the White House continues to protect him politically and to cater to his interests.

To liberals who still believe that criticizing the Obama Administration is treasonous, I ask the following question: What must the White House do to receive legitimate criticism from the Left?

See also: Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Update: An organization called "The Progressive Change Campaign Committee" has launched an advertisement that criticizes Rahm Emanuel's willingness to discard the public plan option. The ad is posted below:

Hey, Democrats: Joe Lieberman Came With a Warning Label!

Only a few months ago, President Obama helped Joe Lieberman keep his Democratic Caucus leadership positions -- despite the fact that Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention and endorsed John McCain for president. Some Democrats were upset by the decision, but the majority accepted it.

Now, Lieberman has upset Democrats again, by vowing to vote against healthcare reform -- even in the watered-down compromise format that is currently pending in the Senate. Lieberman, however, came with a warning label.

Lieberman has embraced conservative positions in the past. Even though he advocated universal healthcare during the 2004 presidential campaign, employees of insurance companies have lined his pockets with campaign donations. Lieberman is not a faithful Democrat, and his decision to derail the most important legislation the Democrats have supported in decades proves this point. But at least he warned people ahead of time not to trust him.

Why Aren't Self-Proclaimed Fiscal Conservatives Questioning Afghanistan Troop Surge?

Self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties approach healthcare reform with a high degree of skepticism. Senator Joe Lieberman, who has received $1 million from the insurance industry over the course of his Senate career, has vowed to oppose any reform package that contains a public plan option. Lieberman explains that he is voting his "conscience" and that he cannot endorse an expansion in government during an economic downturn.

Senator Mary Landrieu has expressed a similar view. Some media outlets report, however, that in exchange for her vote allowing debate on the latest Senate healthcare reform bill, the White House promised to secure an additional $100 million in Medicaid assistance for Louisiana (the state Landrieu represents).

Across the aisle, Republicans are behaving like "born-again budget conservatives." They suddenly embraced fiscal restraint following the election of President Obama, but they recklessly agreed to cut taxes and increase spending during the Bush administration. Their newly found fiscal salvation leads them to oppose healthcare reform and basically any other element of government spending unrelated to wars and cops.

Fighting Wars versus Healing the Sick
After weeks of deliberation regarding a military-endorsed troop surge in Afghanistan, President Obama, according to emerging reports, has agreed to send an additional 34,000 troops to fight the Taliban. The troop surge would take place over the next 9 months. The estimated cost for the war over the next decade approaches $1 trillion -- more than the cost of each healthcare reform package pending in Congress.

Two Democrats in Congress -- Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Representative David Obey of Wisconsin -- have called for a surtax on upper-income earners to finance the troop surge. Self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives, however, have remained virtually silent regarding the expense and deficit-impact of the war in Afghanistan. Most of these individuals strongly endorse the troop surge and voted for the war in Iraq.

Bombing foreign nations and leading young Americans to their deaths in the name of national security (however skeptical the claim) is worth the expense. Funding healthcare for almost all Americans is reprehensible and socialist. Someone please explain this logic.

When Did Joe Lieberman Grow a Conscience?

Senator Joe Lieberman says that he will filibuster any health reform bill that contains a public plan option:

If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

A "matter of conscience"? When did Joe Lieberman grow a conscience?

This is the same man who voted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in order to send "our children and grandchildren" to their deaths, hunting for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Today, when the country has the opportunity to spend money to heal the sick and to save lives, he is suddenly worried about the deficit.

This is also the same man who, during a 2004 presidential debate, supported the creation of a national public health plan:

I'm proposing to create a national health insurance pool from which — like the one that members of Congress get our insurance from. And we would say this: If you don't have insurance now, you'll be able to get it, probably free, if you're among the low-income working poor. If you're a child, you will be covered by insurance at birth. If you are fired from your work or lose your job, you will not lose your health insurance.

MediKids is part of my program. Every child born in America will become a member of MediKids, and it will cover them from birth through 25. . . .

Finally, this is the same man who in 1994 tried to kill the filibuster altogether. Lieberman described the filibuster as a procedural "dinosaur" and as a "symbol of a lot that ails Washington. . . ." Today, when Democrats are attempting to pass comprehensive health care reform, Lieberman threatens to use the filibuster to kill the legislation.

Lieberman says that he is acting to satisfy his conscience -- not the insurance industry, which has given him more than $1 million dollars in donations over the course of his career in the Senate and which has a powerful presence in Connecticut, the state Lieberman represents. Sorry, Joe, but in order to vote your conscience, you must first have a conscience.

Demented Senators? Voting to Kill, But Not to Heal

Hearing Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman and other moderates express discontent with a public plan option is too much to bear. These centrists say they oppose a public plan for various reasons, including expense. If they had exhibited such caution before they voted to authorize military force in Iraq, the country could possibly have avoided the unnecessary expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars and the loss of thousands of lives fighting a senseless war.

Several moderate Senate Democrats (Lieberman is now an "Independent") voted to authorize military force in Iraq, but they now oppose the public plan. These Senators include Evan Bayh, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Ben Nelson. In 2002, every Senate Republican voted to authorize military force in Iraq. Today, every Senate Republican opposes the public plan.

These Senators voted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to kill Iraqis and to lead young Americans to their deaths, but they refuse to finance life-saving medical care for Americans. Apparently, this is how "pragmatism" looks.

Senator Lieberman Would Vote to Block Legislation With Public Plan

Senator Joe Lieberman says he will vote with Republicans to filibuster legislation with a public plan option. Remarkably, some of the reporting on this issue fails to mention that Liberman has received over $1 million in donations from the insurance industry over the course of his political career.

Update on Lieberman: Judas Remains a Disciple

Senate Democrats have voted to allow Joe Lieberman to remain in the party's caucus and effectively retain his leadership positions. The decision will not surprise most Congressional observers, particularly because Obama himself urged senators to give Lieberman a break.

Source: CBSNews.Com.

Obama to Joe: No Need to Go! Turn-Coat Lieberman Will Likely Retain His Powerful Senate Chair

It is a great time for political dissenters. While my liberal buddies are running around proclaiming that our party has slain the awful Bush-Cheney-Rove-GOP-Rightwing-Socially Conservative-Multi-Headed dragon, it appears that the Democrats are too timid to dispose of their own Judas Iscariot. Although Joe Lieberman delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention urging voters to pick John McCain (affectionately known as Bush III and McSame among Democrats), he will likely remain Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security. Lieberman will, however, lose control over a less powerful and more obscure Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works ("who"?).

A story on CNN.Com confirms earlier rumors that President-Elect Obama stopped efforts to remove Lieberman from his Senate leadership positions. After Lieberman betrayed the party and campaigned for McCain, it seemed certain that the party would remove him from his leadership positions. The media ominously reported a meeting between Lieberman and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But things changed when insiders revealed that Obama wanted Lieberman to stay on board. According to CNN: "Several lawmakers involved in the discussions over Lieberman's fate credited President-elect Barack Obama's desire to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and let bygones be bygones as being a key reason Democratic leaders have agreed to support allowing Lieberman to keep his committee chair." I imagine that if Senate Democrats actually want to oust Lieberman, only Obama could stop this from happening. So, perhaps the article is on to something.

Other than proving that campaigning and governing involve a lot of political song and dance, perhaps a bright spot can emerge from this situation. If Obama is willing to keep Lieberman in a leadership role despite his ultimate betrayal of the party, perhaps Democrats can learn to accept constructive dissent from people who are not acting as de facto Republicans (as Lieberman did). A lot of people, myself included, began blogging because they believed that other liberals and progressives lacked the ability to support Obama passionately but offer constructive and critical insights at the same time. If Obama can accept Lieberman despite his very public betrayal (not just dissent), then perhaps Democrats can embrace constructive dialogue as an enduring principle. I could appreciate that kind of change.