Folks over at the Democrat Underground are coming to terms with their loss in CT. However, their attitude to Smokin' Joe is similar the the hard core Republican attitude to Arlen Spector - "We wish we didn't need him".
SharonAnn tries to be practical:
Thu Nov-09-06 12:20 AM 1. And actually, he fought for the Homeland Security department andWell that is a practical suggestion.
get it set up to do right. I think he could be effective in that role and do a good job for the United States.
And, politics is the "art of the practical".
CarbonDate likes the mutual abuse theory. Who says Democrats don't like to have fun?
Thu Nov-09-06 12:21 AM Common interests.Zhade wants to know what was the point of winning:
I'm sure he has bad feelings about how he was "abused" by the Democrats, and we have bad feelings about how he's abused us, but he needs us to retain his seniority and we need him to obtain a majority in the Senate. I'd rather the true Democrat had won, but in the absence of that, Lieberman is welcome to his committee chairmanship.
Thu Nov-09-06 12:43 AMOK. If a majority doesn't make you happy you can always give it back to the Republicans. Primaries still count. The deal is you have to win in the general election. I'd also say that this election was an excellent referendum on the Iraq war. In a liberal state you have two liberals as the main candidates. On one side "cut and run", on the other "find a better way to win". Joe's election proves America still loves winners.
5. Fuck Reid. He caved in to extortion.
Well, primaries no longer matter, gang.
At least I was right on one thing - those who thought winning a majority would be THE solution were utterly, utterly wrong.
Somehow, I don't feel good about having been right.
Onlooker is worried about other "Republicans in disguise" in the Senate.
Thu Nov-09-06 01:02 AM Response to Reply #5Cheery thought that. For Republicans.
6. Who thought it was the solution?
It was just a step in the right direction. Lieberman is the least of our problems in the Senate. At least 7 Democrats are considered worse than him. I never understood the obsession with Lieberman, except that the media played up his views more than those of other conservative Democrats.
Zhade is back promoting his street creds with the "Lieberman is a Republican mole" theory. Which in this case might actually be true.
Thu Nov-09-06 05:02 AM Response to Reply #9You know I gotta wonder if it wasn't part of Bush's plan to make the Democrats responsible for the war and the economy for a couple of years so they either buy in or get blamed for failure.
12. I don't know why in the world you'd think I don't like a Democratic majority.
So, that can be summarily dismissed.
Now, as to "lieberman is on our side" - really? Are you sure? The man who took Republican money to run against the candidate picked by the party whose primary he lost? THAT guy is on our side?
Because I see whose side he's on - Joe's side. Whatever will benefit him and give him the power he seems to believe he deserves.
Mark my words, lieberman is NOT going to be quiet about this. He's in a position of influence, and you'd be mistaken to think he's not smart enough to know that. I know he is; I don't like the guy, but stupid he's not.
I do believe that given Iraq's current shape that a really good plan could get it settled down in two years. If not the Republicans get another try.