Whose side is Joe Lieberman on?

Joe Lieberman is at it again. The Connecticut Democrat turned Independent has come a long way since he served as Al Gore's running mate in 2000. The trouble is he's come a long way in the wrong direction, and his opposition to the latest Democratic health reform bill is just one example.

The New York Times today perfectly sums up the trouble with Joe: "Just the thought of Joseph I. Lieberman makes some Democrats want to spit nails these days. But Mr. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, is not the least troubled by his status as Capitol Hill's master infuriator."

After losing his primary election in Connecticut, Lieberman ran as an independent to hold onto his seat against Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, who strongly opposed the Iraq War that Lieberman supported. Once re-elected, Lieberman began to caucus with the Democrats, and some predicted he would be chastened by his primary defeat in his own state. But Lieberman had no intention of appealing to his lost base and instead moved closer and closer to the Republicans.

There's only one problem. Lieberman has not supported the Democratic agenda. Instead, the Senate leadership has allowed him to thwart the will of the party to keep his 60th vote to block GOP filibusters. But what's the point of having a 60th vote if the guy votes with the other side?

The latest incident took place on Monday, when Democratic senators indicated they would scrap the Medicare buy-in provision in the Senate's latest version of the health care bill, even though Lieberman once supported the same provision, because he now has a problem with it.

If the Democrats can't deliver on health care reform with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, then they have no chance of moving a progressive agenda on other issues with less broad-based support. But with each passing day, real reform looks less and less possible as timid members of Congress return to business as usual instead of taking a risk to make bold change.

For progressives looking for real health care reform, we've moved down from single payer to a "robust" pubic option to a "level playing field" public option to an "opt-out" to an "opt-in" to a "trigger" to a "partial Medicare buy-in" to nothing. What's the point of controlling Congress if the Democrats won't use their majority to achieve their top domestic priority?

Health care reform has been the signature issue of the Democratic Party for almost 70 years. It's the one issue that unites almost all factions of the party. Any Democratic caucus member who threatens to filibuster even the consideration of a Democratic health care bill should leave the party altogether. They don't have to support the bill, but they have no right to put their egos in the way of health care for 45 million Americans in need.

I've heard the arguments from political insiders who worry that Blue Dog Democrats might be weakened if they support health care reform, and I am unpersuaded that this alone is a reason to filibuster. 

To Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it's time to stand up to the compromisers in the party and push for real health care reform, even if it means using reconciliation to pass the bill with 50 votes or eliminating the undemocratic filibuster rule altogether.

To those Democrats on the fence, I don't care if it makes you vulnerable to a Republican candidate in 2010 or 2012. Your re-election is meaningless if you won't use your vote to make a difference. Our lives are more important than your careers. This is the defining issue of the party, and if you won't even allow a vote on health care reform, then get out of the party.

And to Joe Lieberman, who elected you the president anyway?