Liberal Democrats love to hate Joe Lieberman. I was on the White House lawn on Inauguration day as all our legislators assumed their seats. One by one and two by two, they walked from the building out onto the platform, each "announced" to the hundreds of thousands of spectators by the cameras, which projected their images onto hundreds of 30-foot screens all along the Mall. When the Republican leaders appeared, there were scattered boos and general grumbling but there was a palpable spirit of respect that day and virtually every negative utterance was met immediately with a forceful round of "Shhhh" from the crowd. That is, until Mr. Lieberman appeared. He was booed lustily -- far more than any Republican. It was amazing to see a man go from the party's Vice-Presidential candidate to grand villain in such a short time.

What had he done to deserve such derision? Had he cheated on his wife? Had he accepted bribes? No, he had -- God forbid -- sided with the Republicans on some important issues. He'd had independent thoughts. And these days, you see, it's all partisan, all the time, as Paul Krugman says. There's no room, apparently, for independent thought.

Now, let me be clear here: I didn't agree with Joe Lieberman's positions on the Iraq war. We didn't see eye-to-eye on many other issues. But the man was elected not to parrot party idealogy, but to consider the information before him and to make moral decisions on important issues. That's what he did, and that's why he was booed.

So, here's my simple question: is there a Republican with Joe Lieberman's courage?

Round after round of legislation is being passed through committees and on the floors of the Senate and House without a single Republican vote. Is it possible, really, that no significant piece of legislation is good enough to gain even a single vote from the minority party? Yes, Senator Snowe voted for a version of the healthcare bill in committee -- and was widely praised and pilloried for doing so, depending on whether you listen to Fox or another news source -- but she has made it clear she will not vote for the version now on the floor of the Senate. Correct me here: didn't we elect these folks to discuss and debate and to come to some agreement about the most important issues of the day? Further, in the Senate, didn't we give these folks 6-year terms so they would not constantly face re-election pressures... allowing them to do what's right instead of what's expedient?

Both 2008 Presidential candidates agreed that this country's healthcare delivery system needs reform. In fact, both 2004 candidates did, too. We all agree we need to control both utilization and expense, we agree that everyone should have adequate access to care, we all agree we can't break the bank to accomplish these things... and there's a bill on the table that addresses a wide range of problems and moves us forward. In my view, it's a pretty moderate bill. That's why the Democrats are having trouble with those of us who prefer not only a robust public option but, frankly, a single payer system. The "Blue Dog" Democrats are pretty happy with the compromise bill -- even though they continue to complain about the public option. Moderate Republicans should be pretty happy, too. It's progress, it's reasonable, it's deficit neutral, it insures an additional 36 million people and it represents good thinking by smart people over many months and years.

It's a bill that should get 60 votes: 40 Blue and 20 Red.

Is there a Republican out there who has Joe Lieberman's courage?