Explaining liberal "apoplexy" over Lieberman

A couple of days ago Joe Lieberman said that he would join a filibuster to oppose any bill containing a public option. As any reasonable observer might expect, liberals were upset by this development, as Lieberman's "bold stand" could scuttle the entire effort at health-insurance reform. Lieberman, though an independent, caucuses with the Democrats and has generally been reliable as the Democrats' 60th vote in the Senate on domestic matters, which is important because 60 votes are required to break a filibuster. By putting his vote in play on this issue, Lieberman is basically holding the bill hostage to his own personal desires and concerns.

Some have championed Lieberman's independence on this as a sign of his personal fortitude and integrity, a commitment to principles of some kind - even though these principles are unstated and unknown. Lieberman said yesterday that he doesn't think that the a "government-run health insurance plan that puts the taxpayer on the line" is not something he can support "at this point in our nation's history."  Does he have a problem with any government insurance plan?  Just with plans that "put the taxpayer on the line"?  On the line - through subsidies of any kind, higher taxes, or premiums?  If his concern is not with those issues, is it just not the right "time in our nation's history?"  One is only left to wonder.

Liberals are fired up about this for several key reasons:

1) Lieberman has frequently stated his support for large-scale health insurance reform.

2) If Lieberman is just a half-smart legislator, he will realize that the opportunity to pass major health insurance reform comes along rarely.  So, "coming back to the public option 3-4 years from now," will be difficult if not impossible.  If he helps the Republicans filibuster the bill, who knows when the next opportunity to do something about this issue will present itself.

3) Lieberman is just wrong about a lot of the elements of the public option.

4) Lieberman used to oppose the filibuster, in principle.

5) Lieberman, like some other public officials, seems to be doing the bidding of the private insurance industry.

6) Even though he lost the Democratic primary in 2006, Lieberman caucuses with the Democratic party and was allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.  Some expected Lieberman to repay graciousness with graciousness, and the filibuster threat is not very gracious.

If you prefer video, the following segment from Rachel Maddow hits on a lot of these points.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy