Could it be that the Washington Post has actually acknowledged that Joe Lieberman is basing his opposition to the public option isn't based on any facts -- and that his ego is a factor? Could it be that the D.C.-based media, which venerates Lieberman, is actually cluing in that he's not the saint they believe? One article doesn't mean much, but this is the harshest piece I've seen on Lieberman in the traditional media:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has once again inserted himself into the middle of an inflamed partisan debate, raising questions about his motives, his ego and his fickle allegiance to the Democratic Party, which forgave him after he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president.The "no one" in question includes most reporters and pundits.
Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent who caucuses with his former party, says he is feeling "relevant" as he threatens to withhold his vote -- potentially the decisive 60th -- on health-care reform legislation if it includes a government-run insurance plan. And it is hard to dispute that as Capitol Hill moves farther from the "public option," to the consternation of liberals.
"There is no question he's taken pleasure in this role," said Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale political scientist who helped craft the initial proposal for the public option.
Lieberman has assumed such a central role despite what health-policy experts say have been serial misstatements about reform proposals. But, Hacker laments, "No one's called him on anything."
