True.
I also think there's another issue when we start looking at state reps. Simply, they are supposed to be representative of the views of their state. I don't like it, but apparently Snowe and Collins, at least for the time being, hold views that the people of Maine agree with -- at least enough to keep getting them reelected. Liberal states elect liberal-tending reps. That's the way it is.
Sure, we can (and should) try to grow the conservative movement in the more liberal states. But rather than focus on "getting rid of" Republican Senators that the people of that state seem to actually want to represent them, why not realize that, at least for now, that is the best available "R" we are going to get out of that state and instead focus on growing our majority by targeting other states.
One can wail all he wants that the people of Maine or Massachusetts or wherever have elected a liberal Republican, but if the people of that state are generally liberal, this is the way it should work.
The larger the majority we can cobble together, the less influence the more liberal Republicans will have. And the greater the likelihood that we will be able to put conservative Republicans into positions of leadership in the Congress.
But wailing about the fact that a generally liberal state elects generally more liberal representatives seems pretty unhelpful to me.
Sometimes the people of liberal states get so fed up the elect a real conservative, like Chris Christie.
But that isn't possible with a liberal Republican in office in those states. Thus, the liberal Republican is worse than a Democrat holding the seat.
Some of them are still around. One of their body, Jeffords, decided to switch parties in mid session and became a Democrat just before his friends in AlQaida attacked America.
We have yet to address the question of his involvement in that event.