Replies

I don't trust LIEberman at all, as far as I'm concerned, voting for him is not a good idea, and sending money his way is a really bad idea. It's a waste of money. Once he sides with the dems it will be too much of an embarrassment. Besides, I think we can hold the Senate without him. Lieberman has voted against tax cuts and the American Conservative Union has twice given him a score of ZERO. Ignore the stench sometimes, sure, but this is too much. He's not getting my money.

I think we can hold the Senate without him. Lieberman has voted against tax cuts and the American Conservative Union has twice given him a score of ZERO. Ignore the stench sometimes, sure, but this is too much. He's not getting my money.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I agree totally about the money. Its the vote that's important. The goal shouldn't be to hold the senate, that's just the first objective. The goal should be to get as many pro WOT votes as possible. Lamont, the Soros/Koz straw man, is a much worse alternative than Joe Lieberman.We have to think six years down the road here. If Lamont gets in we lose a strong supporter of Israel. As this war unfolds we will need guys like Lieberman to swing right. Lamont will side with the Palestinians, the anti-war pacifist crowd and appeasement. Who would you rather have in the senate after Iran nukes Israel, Lamont or Lieberman?