I wouldn't be preoccupied with the sixtieth vote, or insist that the Dems cast ethics and respect aside and try to bypass normal procedure. The House has re-composed itself and has moved forward on its legislation (see the Web page below, with links to the bill itself and much more), and now it's the Senate's turn; the Senate leadership has already conceded on inclusion of some kind of public option, so the real battle appears probably won already, plus there are lib Dems in the Senate to pull Baucus's bill leftward, which probably is what will happen.

(House legislation information, the bill, and related links are found below.)

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordabl…

We are not disagreeing, just talking apples & oranges. I have no great love for Lieberman and am not trying to defend him. If I lived in CT, he would not get my vote. As I see it, you are talking about policy, and one that is close to your heart, in health care. I'm talking about Washington inside politics.

If I were in your position I'd want Lieberman out. If I were in Harry Reid's position I'd try to keep Lieberman on my side of the aisle, hold my nose & get as much out of him as I could (which is about 60-65% consistent with Democratic leadership).

I do, in fact, recall that Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary. Out of two hundred and eighty thousand or so votes, Lamont won by about ten thousand. So what? Lieberman ran in the general and trounced Lamont by a hundred and fourteen thousand votes. It takes a very twisted mind to say that Lieberman won by 'refusing to accept the will of his constituents.” Please remember that a Senator's constituents include everyone in the state – not just those who vote for him or her in the primary.

As to the point about support for the public option, I challenge you to find a single person in Congress who gets 100% support from a majority of people in his or her state on every single issue.

The Democrats problem with Lieberman is the veiled threat that he will switch to Republican or begin caucusing with Republicans if they pull his chairmanship.

Yes, that was the calculation when Harry Reid let him keep his chairmanship after the election. And I don't see that it's made any difference at all in Lieberman's behavior. If he's not supporting the Democrats' health care legislation, what on earth is the difference if he did officially switch to Republican?

Lieberman doesn't keep agreements, tidbits. He says or does what he needs to in the moment to get what he wants, then once he has it, turns around and pulls the football away again. I wish he would switch parties. He's a Republican now anyway in everything but name. Let him switch. I say it'd be good riddance to bad rubbish.

* * *

“Democrats do not used harsh discipline since they depend totally on seniority”

Part of that is related to the concept of perment presence (if not permanent power) and the incumbecy problem. AMERICANS WANT TERM LIMITS.

Typically it's only the farthest-fringe Left who seeks “P.R.” because they can't win elections and seats currently, but people are misleading themselves if they believe this is a concept limited only to the far Left.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

For single-person offices, the solution is the approval vote (with all qualifying individuals being on the ballot). If a majority cannot agree on a first choice, but nearly everyone agrees on the same second choice (and obviously would compromise with this choice), then we know who should be elected in such a situation, don't we?

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot…

The flip side of that is that Lieberman was a sitting Democratic senator when Lamont put up a primary challenge from the left, much like Republican moderates face primary challenges from the right. Lieberman probably harbors some hostility and, combined with his Independent status, pushes back in ways that infuriate liberals. The Democrats problem with Lieberman is the veiled threat that he will switch to Republican or begin caucusing with Republicans if they pull his chairmanship.

He is as difficult a calculation for the Democrats, just as Olympia Snowe, or Arlen Specter before, has been for the Republicans. Where do you draw the line between power and policy? With most DC politicians power takes precedence, and if one understands that, one understands the Lieberman factor.

Obama was smart to realize that he would need Lieberman as an ally– and didn't burn his bridges.

Would we have been bogged down in Iraq if dissent and honest debate were tolerated? Would a man of conscience like Chuck Hagel be delegated to the sidelines if the GOP allowed a range of viewpoints?

Each elected official needs to follow their own conscience and consider the needs of their constituency over and above the mandates of the national party. Yes, its messy and may mean that much less is accomplished. But, it will also help to avoid an atmosphere of intimidation and suppression, which can't possibly result in good governance.

As the U.S. becomes a one party state, the rigid seniority system in the House and Senate will remain one of the most undemocratic institutions. States cannot afford to vote out incompetent incumbents since the seniority resets to zero and their states become prey for the most senior senators.

Whether or not Lieberman should hold onto his chairmanship is a different thing entirely. That is the result of a gentleman's agreement that he would supply the final vote to break the cloture mark (or so I understand). If he fails to live up to his end of the bargain; then Harry Reid would be well-advised to keep his end – and relieve Lieberman of his chair.