To the "Democrats" supporting Kean

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Did you ever consider that we now have a realistic, although slim chance at retaking the Senate? And we pretty much need to hold every seat to do it. Are you going to be happy if we pick up 6 seats but lose NJ and thus don't retake the Senate then?

[7,052,770]

Yeah, this line of thinking swept be back to the light (a very dim light in this case) of supporting Menendez.

[Eraserhead]

Democrats who support Lieberman should be asked a similar question since he is already flirting with the idea of switching sides.

[7,052,770]

Democrats who support Lieberman should be asked a similar question since he is already flirting with the idea of switching sides.

no he's absolutely not

[Nym90]

Democrats who support Lieberman should be asked a similar question since he is already flirting with the idea of switching sides.

If he's considering switching, I'd be 100% for Lamont, and I think Lamont would then win as well, as Connecticut doesn't want a Republican Senator.

Has he actually announced he is considering a switch, or is this just a rumor?

[MAS117]

Democrats who support Lieberman should be asked a similar question since he is already flirting with the idea of switching sides.

If he's considering switching, I'd be 100% for Lamont, and I think Lamont would then win as well, as Connecticut doesn't want a Republican Senator.

Has he actually announced he is considering a switch, or is this just a rumor?

Leiberman is not switching. He is caucusing with the Democrats. Harry Reid already said he will keep his seniority.

[Eraserhead]

Democrats who support Lieberman should be asked a similar question since he is already flirting with the idea of switching sides.

If he's considering switching, I'd be 100% for Lamont, and I think Lamont would then win as well, as Connecticut doesn't want a Republican Senator.

Has he actually announced he is considering a switch, or is this just a rumor?

Leiberman is not switching. He is caucusing with the Democrats. Harry Reid already said he will keep his seniority.

The fact that he would switch if he couldn't is disgusting in itself.

[Eraserhead]

Democrats who support Lieberman should be asked a similar question since he is already flirting with the idea of switching sides.

If he's considering switching, I'd be 100% for Lamont, and I think Lamont would then win as well, as Connecticut doesn't want a Republican Senator.

Has he actually announced he is considering a switch, or is this just a rumor?

Yeah he actually said he would consider it if he couldn't keep his seniority.

[Nym90]

Democrats who support Lieberman should be asked a similar question since he is already flirting with the idea of switching sides.

If he's considering switching, I'd be 100% for Lamont, and I think Lamont would then win as well, as Connecticut doesn't want a Republican Senator.

Has he actually announced he is considering a switch, or is this just a rumor?

Yeah he actually said he would consider it if he couldn't keep his seniority.

In that case I wouldn't necessarily blame him for at least thinking about it, as stripping him of seniority would be a pretty big move for the Democrats to take. They'd essentially be kicking him out of the party.

Of course, I'd still oppose him strongly and be disgusted if he'd switch, though I'd also be upset at the Dems for considering stripping his seniority as well.

[GOP = Terrorists]

no he's absolutely not

He already has.  You are just blind.  Who is supporting Lieberman?  Oh yeah the vast majority of the GOP.

[memphis]

His whole tactic of running as an independant because he lost the primary is bull. Why even have primaries if people can pull this crap? Lieberman needs to accept his loss and move on with his life.

[GOP = Terrorists]

In that case I wouldn't necessarily blame him for at least thinking about it, as stripping him of seniority would be a pretty big move for the Democrats to take. They'd essentially be kicking him out of the party.

Of course, I'd still oppose him strongly and be disgusted if he'd switch, though I'd also be upset at the Dems for considering stripping his seniority as well.

It would not be a big step.  He is not a Democrat.  He is trying to defeat our Democratic Candidate.  Not only should he be stripped of his seniority but according to CT Law which is going unenforced he should actually be stripped of his Party Identification.  But then again Lieberman doesnt believe he needs to follow the law.  Him and Bush think exactly alike.  The mind of a dictator.

[Eraserhead]

His whole tactic of running as an independant because he lost the primary is bull. Why even have primaries if people can pull this crap? Lieberman needs to accept his loss and move on with his life.

Well said.

[adam]

Perhaps they care more about the issues, and the integrity of the senate rather than the balance of partisans?

[MODU]

Perhaps they care more about the issues, and the integrity of the senate rather than the balance of partisans?

Shhh . . . don't say such things. 

Anyway, to address Red's question, partisanship is no basis for electing someone to officer.  One must vote for the candidate that is qualified and will represent the states' interest in Congress, not a political party's interest.  As it is seen right now, Joe-mentum represents the states interest, not Lamont.  Kean represents the states interest, not Menendez.  The concept of voting for someone who does not support your views or will not act in the states best interest just so some political party can gain power is as anal retentive as it can get.

[poughies]

Here's the deal. If Lieberman switches, I will go down with anyone on this board and personally run up to him and throw chocolate milk at him. He won't switch.

[MODU]

Here's the deal. If Lieberman switches, I will go down with anyone on this board and personally run up to him and throw chocolate milk at him. He won't switch.

No, he's not switching.  Outside of the war and national security, he votes primarily down party line.  He has claimed himself to be running as an independent democrat, not as an independent. 

[Deano963]

His whole tactic of running as an independant because he lost the primary is bull. Why even have primaries if people can pull this crap? Lieberman needs to accept his loss and move on with his life.

Exactly. He legitimately lost a a primary election. It's that simple. There should be a law that if you lose a primary you are out of the race. CT needs a Sore Loser law.

[Virginian87]

I've been very quiet about the New Jersey race.  Odd, since I'm living right across the Hudson right now.  I can honestly say I'm undecided.  I think Kean's dad did a fantastic job as governor, but that's no real reason to vote for him.  I also think Menendez is an idiot, the archetype of the corrupt urban Democrat.  I was saying this a year ago: If Corzine had appointed someone like Rob Andrews, Rush Holt, or Dick Codey, we wouldn't have had to worry about this race.  It's kind of a shame really, since by all accounts we should be winning this race hands down.

Basically, I don't like either candidate, but I'm very close to supporting Kean.  The ONLY thing that would make me support Menendez is because it could allow us to take control of the Senate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Perhaps they care more about the issues, and the integrity of the senate rather than the balance of partisans?

Perhaps they care more about the issues, and the integrity of the senate rather than the balance of partisans?

Shhh . . . don't say such things. 

Anyway, to address Red's question, partisanship is no basis for electing someone to officer.  One must vote for the candidate that is qualified and will represent the states' interest in Congress, not a political party's interest.  As it is seen right now, Joe-mentum represents the states interest, not Lamont.  Kean represents the states interest, not Menendez.  The concept of voting for someone who does not support your views or will not act in the states best interest just so some political party can gain power is as anal retentive as it can get.

No, because that affects who majority leader is, and thus the agenda and who chairs all the committees. The partisan makeup affects the Senate drastically. This argument is crap. (Note neither of you are Democrats)

There's also the fact that Kean is as stupid as dogsh!t, but that's not really the point.

[memphis]

Perhaps they care more about the issues, and the integrity of the senate rather than the balance of partisans?

Perhaps they care more about the issues, and the integrity of the senate rather than the balance of partisans?

Shhh . . . don't say such things. 

Anyway, to address Red's question, partisanship is no basis for electing someone to officer.  One must vote for the candidate that is qualified and will represent the states' interest in Congress, not a political party's interest.  As it is seen right now, Joe-mentum represents the states interest, not Lamont.  Kean represents the states interest, not Menendez.  The concept of voting for someone who does not support your views or will not act in the states best interest just so some political party can gain power is as anal retentive as it can get.

No, because that affects who majority leader is, and thus the agenda and who chairs all the committees. The partisan makeup affects the Senate drastically.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[MODU]

No, because that affects who majority leader is, and thus the agenda and who chairs all the committees. The partisan makeup affects the Senate drastically. This argument is crap. (Note neither of you are Democrats)

I would say the same thing if the partisan hats were reversed.  Minority parties, dispite the sub-par of the democrats over the past few years, still carry a lot of weight within the Congress and can get their legislation passed . . . IF . . . they work with others and find the common ground.  The problem with modern partisanship is that there are very few people elected who are willing to cross the aisle on a regular basis for realistic policy development outside of "Hey, if you support my pork, I'll support yours."  This is amplified by people voting based on partisanship lines and not on qualifications and the needs of the state.  The minority leaders (both Reid and Pelosi) have failed in inspiring bipartisanship just as much as the majority leaders (both Frist and Boehner - though he is relatively new to the position).  Once people start voting outside of partisan lines and choosing the best candidates instead, then you might see progress in Congress.  However, too many people (like yourself) worry more about a single party gaining control rather than what is best for your state.  Sometimes the best candidate will be in your party.  Sometimes they won't.  If you vote for the lesser candidate because of some little letter attached to his title, then you are just adding to the failure of Congress, making yourself just as responsible as the politician him/herself.

[Nym90]

The problem in the House is that no legislation can even be brought up for a vote now unless it has a majority support of the majority party. That pretty much kills any chance for bipartisan cooperation on most legislation. And it's a rule, I might add, that's been added under Republican leadership. When Democrats had the majority, legislation was proposed and passed despite being opposed by a majority of the Democrats.

So saying that both sides are equally to blame for a failure to be bipartisan is completely false, at least in the House. The minority truly is nearly powerless under the current rules.

[MODU]

The problem in the House is that no legislation can even be brought up for a vote now unless it has a majority support of the majority party. That pretty much kills any chance for bipartisan cooperation on most legislation. And it's a rule, I might add, that's been added under Republican leadership. When Democrats had the majority, legislation was proposed and passed despite being opposed by a majority of the Democrats.

So saying that both sides are equally to blame for a failure to be bipartisan is completely false, at least in the House. The minority truly is nearly powerless under the current rules.

Which is why they should be proposing co-sponsored, realistic legislation.  I could put together a piece of legislation and get it approved by the majority if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable legislation if all it did was add pork to their states and/or greases their wheels.  There are a lot more moderates on both sides of the aisle than one thinks.  You structure your legislation around that moderate axis, and you'll get your majority support.

[MasterJedi]

Anyway, to address Red's question, partisanship is no basis for electing someone to officer.  One must vote for the candidate that is qualified and will represent the states' interest in Congress, not a political party's interest. 

Correct which is the reason why I'm supporting Kohl for Senate.