To the "Democrats" supporting Kean

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[MODU]

I can't get that some of you are so blindly partisan that you actually think Democratic primary voters rather than the electorate as a whole should decide who gets a senate seat. It's complete bull and nonsense. If Lieberman actually wins (which right now seems very likely) he obviously wouldn't be a "sore loser". He would be the winner, with popular support. He is trying to represent the entire state, and not just the Democratic state party. There is nothing wrong with that.

You've made my day.