Gotta do it just once

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Woo hoo!

Go Dems!

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> Woo hoo!
>
> Go Dems!

My fave was Pombo losing his seat in Northern California.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> My fave was Pombo losing his seat in Northern California.

Mine is Rummy packing it in. We couldn't get rid of Dubya or Cheney, but
Rummy is the next best thing.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Harry Lavo]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> MiNe 109 said:
>
>> My fave was Pombo losing his seat in Northern California.
>
> Mine is Rummy packing it in. We couldn't get rid of Dubya or Cheney, but
> Rummy is the next best thing.
>

Anybody notice that it is more of Daddy's friends who are now attempting to
pull W's chestnuts out of the fire?

Just as others got him nominated and elected in the first place.

Just as others got him in deep doo-doo in Iraq in the second place.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > MiNe 109 said:
> >
> >> My fave was Pombo losing his seat in Northern California.
> >
> > Mine is Rummy packing it in. We couldn't get rid of Dubya or Cheney, but
> > Rummy is the next best thing.
> >
>
> Anybody notice that it is more of Daddy's friends who are now attempting to
> pull W's chestnuts out of the fire?
>
> Just as others got him nominated and elected in the first place.
>
> Just as others got him in deep doo-doo in Iraq in the second place.

And the oil business...

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote
>> in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> > MiNe 109 said:
>> >
>> >> My fave was Pombo losing his seat in Northern California.
>> >
>> > Mine is Rummy packing it in. We couldn't get rid of Dubya or Cheney,
>> > but
>> > Rummy is the next best thing.
>> >
>>
>> Anybody notice that it is more of Daddy's friends who are now attempting
>> to
>> pull W's chestnuts out of the fire?
>>
>> Just as others got him nominated and elected in the first place.
>>
>> Just as others got him in deep doo-doo in Iraq in the second place.
>
> And the oil business...

And the Texas Rangers....

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

> And the Texas Rangers....

At least it wasn't FEMA....




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Woo hoo!
>
> Go Dems!

Higher taxes,
open borders,
and defeat, woopee!

But, if anyone cares,
gay marriage took a beating.

And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
up being the most sought after independent/dem
in recent memory.

ScottW

[John Atkinson]

ScottW wrote:
> And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
> Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
> up being the most sought after independent/dem
> in recent memory.

He won because of heavy support from Republican
voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
a Democratic majority in the Senate. However, he
only retains his committee seniority (and the
coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

John Atkinson wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
> > Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
> > up being the most sought after independent/dem
> > in recent memory.
>
> He won because of heavy support from Republican
> voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
> a Democratic majority in the Senate. However, he
> only retains his committee seniority (and the
> coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
> committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.

Which both Independent Senators have pledged to do.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Woo hoo!
> >
> > Go Dems!
>
> Higher taxes,
> open borders,
> and defeat,

All things the republicans were on track to fix, yes?

Poor, fearful little guy.

> woopee!

I think you mean, 'Whoopee!'

But if that's what you want...

> But, if anyone cares,
> gay marriage took a beating.

What, no 'woopee'?

> And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
> Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
> up being the most sought after independent/dem
> in recent memory.

Pull out whatever positives that you can. There can't be many for you.

Bhoo hoo!;-)

(Revenge for the 2004 republican 'National Day of Gloating.')

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Woo hoo!
> > >
> > > Go Dems!
> >
> > Higher taxes,
> > open borders,
> > and defeat,
>
> All things the republicans were on track to fix, yes?
>
> Poor, fearful little guy.
>
> > woopee!
>
> I think you mean, 'Whoopee!'
>
> But if that's what you want...
>
> > But, if anyone cares,
> > gay marriage took a beating.
>
> What, no 'woopee'?
>
> > And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
> > Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
> > up being the most sought after independent/dem
> > in recent memory.
>
> Pull out whatever positives that you can. There can't be many for you.

Pelosi talked a bit about tax laws to punish outsourcing.
Not sure that is necessary, but a stronger message to China to allow a
free market currency valuation is a plus IMO.

You're not looking forward to the new conservative democratic party?

ScottW

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
said:


>> My fave was Pombo losing his seat in Northern California.


>Mine is Rummy packing it in. We couldn't get rid of Dubya or Cheney, but
>Rummy is the next best thing.


"Der Mohr hat seine Schultigheit getan, jetzt kann er gehen."


IOW the people *really* in control don't care who's taking care of
(their) business, as long as it is being done.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > > Woo hoo!
> > > >
> > > > Go Dems!
> > >
> > > Higher taxes,
> > > open borders,
> > > and defeat,
> >
> > All things the republicans were on track to fix, yes?
> >
> > Poor, fearful little guy.
> >
> > > woopee!
> >
> > I think you mean, 'Whoopee!'
> >
> > But if that's what you want...
> >
> > > But, if anyone cares,
> > > gay marriage took a beating.
> >
> > What, no 'woopee'?
> >
> > > And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
> > > Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
> > > up being the most sought after independent/dem
> > > in recent memory.
> >
> > Pull out whatever positives that you can. There can't be many for you.
>
> Pelosi talked a bit about tax laws to punish outsourcing.
> Not sure that is necessary, but a stronger message to China to allow a
> free market currency valuation is a plus IMO.
>
> You're not looking forward to the new conservative democratic party?

I indeed am very much looking forward to Dems haing a majority in
Congress. On Monday I was hoping for the House. Appreantly getting the
Senate (while being hopeful in the back of my mind) did not seem
realistic.

I'm looking forward to what I think (and hope) is a return to the
middle. I think that most Americans inhabit the middle with me. I'm
hoping that the divisive political games played by the republicans for
the past few years are over. It seems that unchecked far-right politics
was resoundingly rejected.

cheney, et al, are too far right for most Americans. Some Democrats are
too far left for most Americans. The Dems successfully exploited that
excluded middle this cycle.

Rather than energizing the far-left liberal base a la rovian politics,
I think one reason that the Dems handed the republicans their asses on
Tuesday was that they moved from left to the center. Perhaps if the
republicans move from the far-right to the center, they will do better
in the future. It doesn't appear that going to the far-right will be
successful at this point.

I also think the American population reinstated something that had been
missing recently: a check and balance of power. The republicans showed
no interest in bipartisan problem-solving. They ran roughshod over any
opposition. They have to now (as do the Dems) if they want to get
anything done. That's as it should be IMO. That's a very good thing.
When that is the case, you shave both extremes off and get legislation
more toward the center. Politics is, and should be (IMO) about rational
compromise.

It will be interesting to see how the Dems do (for example) with
earmarks (up 7x since 1998), spending (up by a very large amount since
2001), and so on. It may well be that they do a better job than you
would think. They certainly can't **** it up any more than the
republicans have in the past 6-8 years. Perhaps we are even seeing a
shift in what the parties stand for. It wouldn't be the first time. The
republicans of today seem to have little in common with the republican
moderates of days gone by.

I think that most people in the US fall into two categories (no
scientific basis, just IMO): fiscally conservative and socially
liberal, or fiscally conservative and socially conservative. I am
definitely in the former.

The republicans (and don't forget that I was one until 2002) have no
doubt been socially conservative. Nobody that's paid attention could
possibly say that they've been fiscally conservative under King George.

Pelosi has promised bipartisanship. bushie is suddenly a lot less
cocky-sounding. We'll see what happens from there.

Oh, and I'm guessing that we'll be hearing a lot fewer calls for an 'up
or down' vote from the republicans...;-)

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> IOW the people *really* in control don't care who's taking care of
> (their) business, as long as it is being done.

Sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths, and hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi civilians, is likely to trigger a state called "out of control".





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> cheney, et al, are too far right for most Americans. Some Democrats are
> too far left for most Americans. The Dems successfully exploited that
> excluded middle this cycle.

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpnan/



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
said:


>> IOW the people *really* in control don't care who's taking care of
>> (their) business, as long as it is being done.


>Sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths, and hundreds of thousands
>of Iraqi civilians, is likely to trigger a state called "out of control".


The damage has already been done.
The USA has made an eternal enemy of most of the Islamic world.
Weapons will continue to be sold, laws still will pass that will
further restrict freedom of individuals, both in and outside the US.
All because of fear (justified or not).

Withdrawal from Iraq won't change all that.

A new world order is being created, the forces behind that won't be
stopped by a change in Congress.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Gene Lyle]

I like this one better.

G.L.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Shhhh! said:
>
>> cheney, et al, are too far right for most Americans. Some Democrats are
>> too far left for most Americans. The Dems successfully exploited that
>> excluded middle this cycle.
>
> http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpnan/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Walt]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
>>>And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
>>>Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
>>>up being the most sought after independent/dem
>>>in recent memory.
>>
>>He won because of heavy support from Republican
>>voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
>>a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Agreed. But don't forget the heavy support from Republican donors. THis
is America. Money doesn't talk, it screams.

>However, he
>>only retains his committee seniority (and the
>>coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
>>committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.

Or if he swings a deal with the GOP to switch parties and keep his
seniority. Everything's negotiable.


> Which both Independent Senators have pledged to do.

And if you believe everything politicians promise to do, you'll get
exactly what you deserve.

Sanders will caucus with the Democrats; I can't see him doing otherwise.
Joe is in a position to sell himself to the highest bidder. He's
already beholden to the GOP money machine, when and how is he going to
repay them?

//Walt

[Gene Lyle]

Sorry. This is the one. If it's not up, look for sack 11-09.2006.
http://www.startribune.com/sack

"Gene Lyle" > wrote in message
...
>I like this one better.
>
> G.L.
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Shhhh! said:
>>
>>> cheney, et al, are too far right for most Americans. Some Democrats are
>>> too far left for most Americans. The Dems successfully exploited that
>>> excluded middle this cycle.
>>
>> http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpnan/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
>
>

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Gene Lyle wrote:
> Sorry. This is the one. If it's not up, look for sack 11-09.2006.
> http://www.startribune.com/sack
>
> "Gene Lyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I like this one better.
> >
> > G.L.
> >
> > "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Shhhh! said:
> >>
> >>> cheney, et al, are too far right for most Americans. Some Democrats are
> >>> too far left for most Americans. The Dems successfully exploited that
> >>> excluded middle this cycle.

Sack is a great cartoonist, one of the best IMO.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > cheney, et al, are too far right for most Americans. Some Democrats are
> > too far left for most Americans. The Dems successfully exploited that
> > excluded middle this cycle.
>
> http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpnan/

And yes, there was some of that too, of course.:-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Walt" > wrote in message
...
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>>And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
>>>>Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
>>>>up being the most sought after independent/dem
>>>>in recent memory.
>>>
>>>He won because of heavy support from Republican
>>>voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
>>>a Democratic majority in the Senate.
>
> Agreed. But don't forget the heavy support from Republican donors. THis
> is America. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
>
>>However, he
>>>only retains his committee seniority (and the
>>>coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
>>>committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.
>
> Or if he swings a deal with the GOP to switch parties and keep his
> seniority. Everything's negotiable.
>
>
>> Which both Independent Senators have pledged to do.
>
> And if you believe everything politicians promise to do, you'll get
> exactly what you deserve.
>
> Sanders will caucus with the Democrats; I can't see him doing otherwise.
> Joe is in a position to sell himself to the highest bidder. He's already
> beholden to the GOP money machine, when and how is he going to repay them?

Actually, Walt, I've thought of this for the last few days, as the prospect
of a Senate take-over became reality. It is my worst nightmare.....Joe
could wreak vengance and Cheney would tie-break. At least we would have the
house, but it takes two to tango (or at least make legislation).

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Walt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>>ScottW wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
> >>>>Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
> >>>>up being the most sought after independent/dem
> >>>>in recent memory.
> >>>
> >>>He won because of heavy support from Republican
> >>>voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
> >>>a Democratic majority in the Senate.
> >
> > Agreed. But don't forget the heavy support from Republican donors. THis
> > is America. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
> >
> >>However, he
> >>>only retains his committee seniority (and the
> >>>coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
> >>>committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.
> >
> > Or if he swings a deal with the GOP to switch parties and keep his
> > seniority. Everything's negotiable.
> >
> >
> >> Which both Independent Senators have pledged to do.
> >
> > And if you believe everything politicians promise to do, you'll get
> > exactly what you deserve.
> >
> > Sanders will caucus with the Democrats; I can't see him doing otherwise.
> > Joe is in a position to sell himself to the highest bidder. He's already
> > beholden to the GOP money machine, when and how is he going to repay them?
>
> Actually, Walt, I've thought of this for the last few days, as the prospect
> of a Senate take-over became reality. It is my worst nightmare.....Joe
> could wreak vengance and Cheney would tie-break. At least we would have the
> house, but it takes two to tango (or at least make legislation).

I find it doubtful that he would do so. Lieberman knows the game better
than that. Do you think that a guy who won as an Independent would
suddenly switch to the GOP, or start voting with them more, given the
'thumpin' that the GOP got? It ain't gonna happen, not in the near-term
anyway. Any republican money was to keep out a 'worse' choice in
Lamont. They knew their guy didn't have a prayer.

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "Walt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> >> John Atkinson wrote:
>> >>>ScottW wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
>> >>>>Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
>> >>>>up being the most sought after independent/dem
>> >>>>in recent memory.
>> >>>
>> >>>He won because of heavy support from Republican
>> >>>voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
>> >>>a Democratic majority in the Senate.
>> >
>> > Agreed. But don't forget the heavy support from Republican donors.
>> > THis
>> > is America. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
>> >
>> >>However, he
>> >>>only retains his committee seniority (and the
>> >>>coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
>> >>>committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.
>> >
>> > Or if he swings a deal with the GOP to switch parties and keep his
>> > seniority. Everything's negotiable.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Which both Independent Senators have pledged to do.
>> >
>> > And if you believe everything politicians promise to do, you'll get
>> > exactly what you deserve.
>> >
>> > Sanders will caucus with the Democrats; I can't see him doing
>> > otherwise.
>> > Joe is in a position to sell himself to the highest bidder. He's
>> > already
>> > beholden to the GOP money machine, when and how is he going to repay
>> > them?
>>
>> Actually, Walt, I've thought of this for the last few days, as the
>> prospect
>> of a Senate take-over became reality. It is my worst nightmare.....Joe
>> could wreak vengance and Cheney would tie-break. At least we would have
>> the
>> house, but it takes two to tango (or at least make legislation).
>
> I find it doubtful that he would do so. Lieberman knows the game better
> than that. Do you think that a guy who won as an Independent would
> suddenly switch to the GOP, or start voting with them more, given the
> 'thumpin' that the GOP got? It ain't gonna happen, not in the near-term
> anyway. Any republican money was to keep out a 'worse' choice in
> Lamont. They knew their guy didn't have a prayer.

Well, I agree with you up to the point that the outcome was decided. But
now it has been. And there are many in the Democratic ranks who think
Lieberman was not a "good Democrat" in his decision to go independent (and
they are probably right as Lamont certainly would have won in CT without him
in the race). There are those who think there has to be some kind of
disciplining by witholding favors, particularly since he will probably not
be with the party on the war. It is certainly to the Repubs advantage to
woo him away if they can and neutralize Dem control of the Senate, so if any
of that kind of thing goes on either Lieberman or the Repubs could decide it
made more sense to "switch".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> "Walt" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >> >>>ScottW wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
> >> >>>>Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
> >> >>>>up being the most sought after independent/dem
> >> >>>>in recent memory.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>He won because of heavy support from Republican
> >> >>>voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
> >> >>>a Democratic majority in the Senate.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed. But don't forget the heavy support from Republican donors.
> >> > THis
> >> > is America. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
> >> >
> >> >>However, he
> >> >>>only retains his committee seniority (and the
> >> >>>coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
> >> >>>committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.
> >> >
> >> > Or if he swings a deal with the GOP to switch parties and keep his
> >> > seniority. Everything's negotiable.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Which both Independent Senators have pledged to do.
> >> >
> >> > And if you believe everything politicians promise to do, you'll get
> >> > exactly what you deserve.
> >> >
> >> > Sanders will caucus with the Democrats; I can't see him doing
> >> > otherwise.
> >> > Joe is in a position to sell himself to the highest bidder. He's
> >> > already
> >> > beholden to the GOP money machine, when and how is he going to repay
> >> > them?
> >>
> >> Actually, Walt, I've thought of this for the last few days, as the
> >> prospect
> >> of a Senate take-over became reality. It is my worst nightmare.....Joe
> >> could wreak vengance and Cheney would tie-break. At least we would have
> >> the
> >> house, but it takes two to tango (or at least make legislation).
> >
> > I find it doubtful that he would do so. Lieberman knows the game better
> > than that. Do you think that a guy who won as an Independent would
> > suddenly switch to the GOP, or start voting with them more, given the
> > 'thumpin' that the GOP got? It ain't gonna happen, not in the near-term
> > anyway. Any republican money was to keep out a 'worse' choice in
> > Lamont. They knew their guy didn't have a prayer.
>
> Well, I agree with you up to the point that the outcome was decided. But
> now it has been. And there are many in the Democratic ranks who think
> Lieberman was not a "good Democrat" in his decision to go independent (and
> they are probably right as Lamont certainly would have won in CT without him
> in the race). There are those who think there has to be some kind of
> disciplining by witholding favors, particularly since he will probably not
> be with the party on the war. It is certainly to the Repubs advantage to
> woo him away if they can and neutralize Dem control of the Senate, so if any
> of that kind of thing goes on either Lieberman or the Repubs could decide it
> made more sense to "switch".

We'll see. I think that would be political suicide. I also don't think
that Lieberman wouldn't see that. He obviously wants to be in the game
for more than one term.

The smart move in my book would be for the Dems and Senator Lieberman
to kiss and make up.

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> "Walt" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> >> >> John Atkinson wrote:
>> >> >>>ScottW wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>And in a really ironic twist of fate for the
>> >> >>>>Koster anti-Lieberman crowd, old Joe ends
>> >> >>>>up being the most sought after independent/dem
>> >> >>>>in recent memory.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>He won because of heavy support from Republican
>> >> >>>voters, who see him as a means of interfering with
>> >> >>>a Democratic majority in the Senate.
>> >> >
>> >> > Agreed. But don't forget the heavy support from Republican donors.
>> >> > THis
>> >> > is America. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
>> >> >
>> >> >>However, he
>> >> >>>only retains his committee seniority (and the
>> >> >>>coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security
>> >> >>>committee) if he caucuses with the Democrats.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or if he swings a deal with the GOP to switch parties and keep his
>> >> > seniority. Everything's negotiable.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Which both Independent Senators have pledged to do.
>> >> >
>> >> > And if you believe everything politicians promise to do, you'll get
>> >> > exactly what you deserve.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sanders will caucus with the Democrats; I can't see him doing
>> >> > otherwise.
>> >> > Joe is in a position to sell himself to the highest bidder. He's
>> >> > already
>> >> > beholden to the GOP money machine, when and how is he going to repay
>> >> > them?
>> >>
>> >> Actually, Walt, I've thought of this for the last few days, as the
>> >> prospect
>> >> of a Senate take-over became reality. It is my worst
>> >> nightmare.....Joe
>> >> could wreak vengance and Cheney would tie-break. At least we would
>> >> have
>> >> the
>> >> house, but it takes two to tango (or at least make legislation).
>> >
>> > I find it doubtful that he would do so. Lieberman knows the game better
>> > than that. Do you think that a guy who won as an Independent would
>> > suddenly switch to the GOP, or start voting with them more, given the
>> > 'thumpin' that the GOP got? It ain't gonna happen, not in the near-term
>> > anyway. Any republican money was to keep out a 'worse' choice in
>> > Lamont. They knew their guy didn't have a prayer.
>>
>> Well, I agree with you up to the point that the outcome was decided. But
>> now it has been. And there are many in the Democratic ranks who think
>> Lieberman was not a "good Democrat" in his decision to go independent
>> (and
>> they are probably right as Lamont certainly would have won in CT without
>> him
>> in the race). There are those who think there has to be some kind of
>> disciplining by witholding favors, particularly since he will probably
>> not
>> be with the party on the war. It is certainly to the Repubs advantage to
>> woo him away if they can and neutralize Dem control of the Senate, so if
>> any
>> of that kind of thing goes on either Lieberman or the Repubs could decide
>> it
>> made more sense to "switch".
>
> We'll see. I think that would be political suicide. I also don't think
> that Lieberman wouldn't see that. He obviously wants to be in the game
> for more than one term.
>
> The smart move in my book would be for the Dems and Senator Lieberman
> to kiss and make up.

I agree, but the radical wing of the Dems are nearly as irrational as the
right wing of the Repubs when it comes to some things. I hope they can, but
I am not sure all will.... Remember, this is a party that has shown itself
to have a seemingly strong death wish at times.