To: Huck
I just have to respond to your tagline.
First, this is not the same situation as 2000 where an election result was contested and selectively at that. Secondly, he really didn't have any say since he wasn't the main man. He was obligated by his position to do whatever Gore decided. I will not fault him for that specifically, although I do acknowledge his contribution to that debacle of a team.
Secondly, in this case, he realizes that if he does NOT run, it will be a blow to the WOT and that is of vital importance to this country. Without that, honestly, I doubt he would run. On the other hand, I bet that without that Lamont would not have run. While I disagree with him about, well 90% of the time, I will say that I would support him in this case over a clearly crooked GOPer. So that doesn't seem like being a sore looser as much as a man committed to the country.
So...I guess what I'm saying is that, yes, you may be the only one.
To: pollyannaish
he realizes that if he does NOT run, it will be a blow to the WOT You may believe that, but I don't. I believe that he realizes if he doesn't run, he's out of a cushy job.
131 posted on
08/08/2006 9:56:54 PM PDT by
Huck
(Am I the only one who thinks Lieberman is a sore loser??)
To: pollyannaish
You're not even in Connecticutt. It's up to them, and clearly, they don't want Joe. To me he's just another spoiled incumbent. They get relected a couple of times, and they start to think it's a lifetime appointment.
135 posted on
08/08/2006 10:01:19 PM PDT by
Huck
(Am I the only one who thinks Lieberman is a sore loser??)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson