Hey Harry Reid...aren't you glad you let Lieberman keep his committee charmanships?

I wonder what Joe Lieberman has to do in order for Harry Reid to realize that Holy Joe is not with the Democrats. Lieberman supported the Republican candidate for president, he ran against his own party's nominee in 2006 to win re-election, and he's been a thorn in Reid's side ever since.

I don't know what Lieberman wants. He clearly isn't interested in switching parties, because he's just an egotistical little man, not a batshit crazy lunatic, so he's unlikely to be accepted in today's Republican party. And he's clearly no Democrat. Lieberman is increasingly the Senator for the State of Being a Dick For the Sake of Being a Dick. I'm sure this makes him feel very powerful, but Harry Reid's decision to continue to regard Joe Lieberman as an ally, to the point of turning the health care reform bill into nothing but a mandate to buy the kind of crappy, overpriced, no-coverage-when-it-counts insurance that's on the market now in a vain effort to placate Lieberman, is going to be very costly for Reid's party, and the nation, in 2012.

Because whatever the health reform bill is, Lieberman is against it:

In a surprise setback for Democratic leaders, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said on Sunday that he would vote against the health care legislation in its current form.

The bill’s supporters had said earlier that they thought they had secured Mr. Lieberman’s agreement to go along with a compromise they worked out to overcome an impasse within the Democratic Party.

But on Sunday, Mr. Lieberman told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to scrap the idea of expanding Medicare and abandon any new government insurance plan or lose his vote.

Joe Lieberman has received almost half a million dollars from the insurance industry for his 2010 re-election campaign. THAT's his constituency, not the voters of Connecticut.

None of this would be necessary if Reid has the balls to go nuclear and kill the filibuster. There is absolutely nothing codified in the Constitution which states that the minority party has the right to kill any and all legislation with a filibuster. The filibuster is supposed to be a rarely-used tactic, not a staple of government. The argument against killing the filibuster is supposed to be to retain it in case you need it later on, but when the Democrats were the minority party, they curled up in a fetal position in the corner, letting themselves be rolled by George W. Bush for eight years. So if you aren't going to use it when you are in the minority, why allow the other party to use it? Enough with the sixty votes already.

And listen to John already.