[Designer]

"If you're not going read the whole post...SHUT UP!!!"

O.K., showing the entire post, FWIW:

Yeah, well you continue on your little path, and you'll get nowhere without the Specter and Snowes because, for right now, we need their bodies in the Senate in order to reach a majority (if we ever get there). Without a majority we can't control the Senate's agenda which keeps the impure from doing the damage they do.

You need to worry less about individuals (who will always disappoint) and worry more about regaining the majority.

Liberal states will always elect liberal Republicans.

I did read it. All of it. That is why I have a problem with your wanting to re-elect LIBERAL REPUBLICANS to the Senate.

Now supposing for a moment that we could once again have a majority of Republicans in the Senate, but that over half of them, as now, are liberals, just exactly what would be the agenda that they would push forward?

I'll shut up and let you try to answer.

[Deb]

Please concentrate. (sigh) The Agenda would be whatever the majority leader says it will be. You see, the majority leader of the majority party decides which bills will be brought to the floor for consideration and what amendments are allowed...that's called The Agenda. Then the majority leader of the majority party decides how much time will be alloted for debate.

That means, the party in the majority gets to decide which direction the Senate will move. It doesn't matter that a few of the majority party's members are liberal, left-handed or smell bad, having the most members makes your party the majority.

So you see, when the GOP was in the majority we had Specter and Snowe and Collins, but it didn't matter because we had enough of a majority to stop Clinton or to pass welfare reform, but their mere presence made us a majority.

So, it does matter whether the members are Democrats or Republicans because of what? The Agenda.