Joe Lieberman's Pathetic Hail Mary Pass on Iraq

Actually I am optimistic about Steele's chances in November. I was referring to a "big picture" type of prediction. I predict a net loss for Republicans in '06, although a win in MD, as well as NJ would be surprising and invigorating.

As far as bassmaner's predictions, I would say #1 doesn't stand a chance, as Bush is not some weakling that will sign a bill so obviously damaging as the Fairness Doctrine. Just as the "ban on gay marriage amendment" has no chance, really, of passing and becoming an amendment, such an obviously leftist law as the Fairness Doctrine has no chance of passing, much less being signed. It's only introduced so that Pelosi can look good for her constituency.

The other two points are possible, I suppose, but not without much resistance on the part of Congressional Republicans. Most likely, the 2 years between '06 and '08 will be full of stalemates and filibusters, with not much damage done, at least not much permanent damage. After all, while the Dems will have a good year this year, it's not like they are going to have a super majority in either the House or Senate. It will essentially be a hollow victory, especially with Bush still in office. Many (rightly I think) criticized him for not using the veto pen much, but I would say with a Democratic Congress in opposition, that pen will get more use in the next two years.

And besides, the elections still may be a surprise. Maybe we won't have a net loss at all.

I agree with your reasons that a Lamont victory would not be good, BUT...

Fortunately, even if the Dems were to win the House and Senate, we could use the cloture rule in the Senate, and we would have GWB to veto any totally onrous garbage from a Dem House/Senate.

Personally, I do not think Dems are going to make gains in November, but just in case....

As usual, Huffington's comments are at odds with the subject material she is covering.

Talking points? More like a recipe for disaster. Read John Zogby's terrific post on what Democratic voters are looking for. A hint: it ain't the muddled mush Lieberman was dishing out Sunday night.

Liberman was being anything but muddled and mushy. He wasn't being waffle boy. He stood by what he believes in and remained consistent.

She call his responses muddled mush, and then follows it by criticizing him for standing by his convictions and not bending to those who blindly oppose whatever the administration does.

Liberman has been one of the more consistent and principled Senators. I disagree with many of his principles, but I do admire that he sticks by them much more consistently than most.

He refuses to insult voters by making hollow statements saying that he has changed his mind like many politicians do. He won't change his stance on things to oppose Republicans for the sake of political expediency.

Huffington either doesn't grasp this, or she rejects and attacks it because she is an amoral political creature. The issues and principles don't matter to her, only the political power plays.

Lieberman picked up the theme, saying: "Joseph had faith that God will take care of the haters, and I have a certain faith that this Tuesday God will take care of the voters."

Huh? I love the story of Joseph, but I have no idea what Lieberman was talking about.

He was talking about people like Huffington, though she's apparently too stupid to realize it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.