Reply With Quote
He is more loyal to his party than his party is to him.
He could hold himself up to the highest bidder, but won't. He'll take Homeland Security chairmanship.
So, just how much sway is this guy fixing to hold?
He is more loyal to his party than his party is to him.
He could hold himself up to the highest bidder, but won't. He'll take Homeland Security chairmanship.
he has a party? a party of one?
IMO, he will make his bed with the Dems on 90% of the issues, and capitulate on the issues his newfound friendship with the WH dictate.
All in all, pretty powerful guy.
If he runs it down the middle the next few years, lending partisan support to both sides of the aisle, I can see a strong third party run for the Presidency in 2008.
All in all, a strong play on his part. Being disowned by the democrats may have been the best thing for him concerning a run in 2008.
Lieberman in the WH?
That'll help in the mideast. He'll be a big hit is Saudi Arabia.
Think about it, he no longer has loyalty/ties to either of the main parties, has been inside the beltway long enough to know how things run and, if he can be seen to be partisan to both sides of the aisle on issues important to the majority of moderates could present himself as a candidate beholden to the American people instead of a particular party.
I'm not an anti-semite. Muslims in the mideast are decidedly so, however. That is all I'm saying.
Damnit, I had the sarcasm filter on and the whole mid-east comment went right past me without making a peep.
Your point is well taken.
Both of the "independent" senators elected yesterday have gone on record as saying they'll align with the demos, which is why you see CNN et al calling the Senate 50-49 Demo right now.
Lieberman said he'd align with the party that basically all over him? You have a source for that quote?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/con...s_re_election/
Lieberman reiterated his pledge to remain with the Democrats, saying a prime consideration was maintaining his 18 years of seniority on Capitol Hill in order to help Connecticut.
"When I give my word, I stick to it, and I'm definitely going to organize with the Senate Democratic caucus," Lieberman said.
Well that makes sense if he wants to keep his senority.
Why would anyone vote for a goddam dumb JEW
Fixed it.
I voted Lamont but I knew Lieberman would get enough Republican support and win.
The Ct Republicans thought he was the better choice over Lamont but there is not much difference, they still voted a Dem in.
Lieberman will vote with the Dems on most issues.
Lamont would have been a rookie senator with less influence than Lieberman.
Are you Borat?
I thought the Dems made some noise for Lamont, but didn't help him much with financing (and organizing?) his campaign. I heard Lamont went deep into his own pocket toward the end. Maybe rascal can give more info.
No real information; but I'm betting the Dems didn't want to piss Lieberaman, who was obviously going to win, off.
I don't know how much the Dems contributed but Lamont contributed millions of his own.
Chris Dodd the other Dem senator from Ct backed Lamont.
What I think hurt Lamont is when he won the primary, Jesse Jackson and Sharpton were right up front with him celebrating on local tv. That scared the moderate vote away from Lamont and especially the republicans who didn't want Lamont who they viewed as too far to the left.
The Repubs thought their candidate was too weak to win so they backed lieberman. But in the end it doesn't make much difference Lieberman is a Dem.
It was not a smart move for Lamont to have Jesse Jackson and Sharpton celebrating after the primary. When I saw that I knew Lamont was finished.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
