Health-care reform is now something tangible and real with the House of Representatives voting to pass the bill in the lower chamber of Congress.

Though passed by a narrow margin (the dissenting Democrats, as it should be noted, were primarily Blue Dogs or facing a tough re-election campaign next year), the only thing stopping reform from passing is the Senate. Although there was a lengthy debate in the house, it could be even longer in the Senate because of the filibuster. Although there are 60 senators caucusing with the Democrats (enough for a cloture motion that would break a GOP filibuster), there is one man standing in the way: Joe Lieberman.

I firmly believe that, if Lieberman joins the Republican filibuster of the reform bill, he should be stripped of his seniority and booted from the Democratic caucus. Let me explain, as the casual observer might presume that I say this merely out of spite, though there is much more to my reasoning.

Lieberman has always been moderate in his views, and has always been seen as conservative in his foreign policy positions. However, from 1988 to 2004, Lieberman was unquestionably a Democrat, best evidenced by Al Gore’s decision to bring him onto his 2000 presidential ticket. After 2004, however, following his defeat as both a presidential and vice-presidential candidate, Lieberman’s true colors have begun to shine through.

In 2005, even after almost all Democrats expressed their disapproval of the Iraq War, Lieberman continued to defend his 2002 vote for it, and even suggested that Democrats should not question President Bush in his position as commander in chief. This, and a few others of his views, led to his defeat by Ned Lamont on the Democratic ballot in 2006, however Lieberman ran for re-election on a third party ticket and emerged victorious in the end.

Lieberman’s most staggering betrayal to the Democratic Party, however, came in his endorsement of the Republican McCain/Palin ticket and speech at the Republican National Convention. At this point, you might ask why Lieberman did not take the opportunity to begin caucusing with the GOP, or why the Democrats did not give him the old heave-ho. Lieberman dared not leave the Democratic caucus because, if he did, he would lose his extremely powerful post as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, more likely than not for good.

Furthermore, in his home state of Connecticut, running as a Republican would severely hamper his chances of re-election in 2012. And the Democrats wouldn’t kick him out because, evidently, the Senate caucus was extraordinarily naïve in thinking that allowing Lieberman to retain his chairmanship would encourage him to vote with the Democrats on important votes.

Fast forward to the situation today. In the most important vote that can be had, a cloture vote, Lieberman has pledged to join the Republican filibuster. Now I can understand (though disagree) with a decision to vote against the bill as a whole. However a filibuster will severely delay or even kill a bill without a majority vote. My issue is not with the use of the filibuster itself; Democrats and Republicans alike have and will continue to use it. However, holding a chairmanship is a privilege, not a given.

If Lieberman chooses to act like a Republican, then that’s perfectly fine with me, just as long as he is treated like one. He can still be the ranking member of the committee, sure. But giving him a chairmanship?

Give me a break.

Steve Golden is a College senior from Brookeville, Md. He is the vice president of College Democrats of Georgia.