In Defense of Senator Joe

I know that Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is currently under fire from many Democrats for his opposition to any health care reform bill that contains a public option. Some are calling for the Senate leadership to strip him of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship as well as ignoring his overall Senate seniority in determining his placing among the Democratic caucus, of which he is still a member. I for one am sorry that Senator Lieberman has chosen to oppose what I think is an important means to keep insurance prices down, especially if the proposed legislation makes not buying health insurance a matter of criminality for ordinary Americans. But let the man speak for himself.

Lieberman, I believe, is genuinely concerned, all protestations to the contrary from some of the proposed Senate bill's supporters, that having a government (and therefore taxpayer)-funded public option will eventually balloon into an enormous national debt burden. And we are already dependent on China, our competitor and ideological adversary, to fund our already gargantuan national debt. I've heard folks like Keith Olbermann point out that Senator Lieberman, being from the insurance-based state of Connecticut, receives much financial support from insurance companies there. But as I see it, that doesn't necessarily imply that Lieberman is under the sway of the insurance companies. As he has pointed out, he is strongly supporting the current push through congress to strip away the health insurance industry's ridiculous exemption from the Federal Anti-Trust Act. The charge of conflict of interest regarding his stance on the public option, to me, is unsubstantiated since practically everyone in elected office receives contributions from parties located in their home states and districts with vested interests in their votes and decisions. And the matter of the burgeoning national debt is truly an enormously urgent concern, not a trivial excuse as some on the left are implying.

Let us also not forget that in 2006, after Lieberman's own party, disaffected with his support for Bush's Iraq War, had essentially deserted him and supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senatorial Democratic primary (and defeated him), Lieberman, after receiving most of his support in the general election from Republican voters, still decided to caucus with the Democrats. Which gave them the crucial, razor-thin 51-49 majority to run the Senate for two years in opposition to President Bush, not an insignificant accomplishment. Where is the gratitude for that action, when his own party had abandoned him?

Sure, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president against Barack Obama in 2008. But he had a very strong friendship with the Arizona senator and strongly supported his tough stance on national defense and homeland security. Personally, though, I think he went too far in his campaigning for McCain when he criticized Obama. Despite this, Obama urged other Democrats to reconcile with him after the election. Lieberman is still much more Democratic than Republican in his Senate voting and has voted many times for cloture against GOP filibusters. That, however, does not preclude him from occasional dissenting votes of "conscience", as he likes to put it.

Yes, I wish that Senator Lieberman would have supported the public option. But his statement that he would vote for opening the debate on the proposed health care reform bill that contains a public option indicates to me that he is genuinely interested in working with his Democratic colleagues to create a final product that is more to his liking and, in his opinion, more in line with the national interests. Although Senator Joe irritates me to no end with his pompous, self-righteous oratorical tone, I do respect him for taking a stand that he truly believes is important for the country. Even when I disagree with that stand.