1 posted on
11/13/2006 8:27:51 AM PST by
Checkers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: Checkers
Pure b.s.wishful thinking.
2 posted on
11/13/2006 8:29:43 AM PST by
pgkdan
To: Checkers
wondering if liberman will remember who left him to twist in the wind?
To: Checkers
Very simple. This is Lieberman's way of making sure that he gets all of the committee assignments that he wants. Why should he make a commitment to the Dems before they make a commitment to him?
4 posted on
11/13/2006 8:30:15 AM PST by
sittnick
(There is no salvation in politics.)
To: Checkers
Lieberman is in a pretty good spot and a thorn in the side of the Dems.
Interesting: he wouldn't have won without the GOP. A lot of republicans voted for him.
6 posted on
11/13/2006 8:32:45 AM PST by
dhs12345
To: Checkers
I think Joe is enjoying being "courted", at least in the media, by both parties.
Why would he commit...and lose all that "love"?
7 posted on
11/13/2006 8:33:08 AM PST by
Txsleuth
To: Checkers
The only way Joe would consider this is if he plans on retiring after next term. I doubt he could get re-elected if he did this and the media would destroy him.
To: Checkers
Joe would jump off the 51 ship onto the 49 ship?
Sorry, but someone's chain is being yanked.
10 posted on
11/13/2006 8:33:48 AM PST by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: Checkers
I saw him on one of the talk shows yesterday. He was pressed on this by Wallace or Russert (I forgot whom since they are eminently forgettable shows). There's no way he's going to leave the Democrats.
13 posted on
11/13/2006 8:34:34 AM PST by
jammer
To: Checkers
Joe is keeping the option open to extract more from the Dems. That's all it is.
14 posted on
11/13/2006 8:35:09 AM PST by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: Checkers
We need to say it over and over. Lamont, lost big time -- in a Northeast liberal state.
To: Checkers
Why doesn't Lieberman run for Senate majority leader? He could get the votes. Why is he letting Reid dictate the leadership positions?
To: Checkers
This kind'a crap clues you in on just how far we've fallen... hoping that Joe Lieberman switches parties.
Ughhh...
18 posted on
11/13/2006 8:38:04 AM PST by
johnny7
("We took a hell of a beating." -'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell)
To: Checkers
Joe isn't going anywhere unless the dems really goes nuts, even then I doubt it. Joe is just having some fun driving the kossacks nuts. And, I can't blame him.
23 posted on
11/13/2006 8:46:17 AM PST by
jbwbubba
To: Checkers
Any move Lieberman made would be countered by Hagel officially going to the dark side.
To: Checkers
Perhaps something like a Majority Leader Murtha might do the trick. Murtha is in the House. So august is the Senate that a Senator would hardly deign to notice who might be the majority leader of the lower chamber.
27 posted on
11/13/2006 8:53:17 AM PST by
Plutarch
To: Checkers
He's only blackmailing the dems, not that there's anything wrong with that.
To: Checkers
Lieb's way of getting the Dims to kiss his butt on everything.
To: Checkers
Lieb's way of getting the Dims to kiss his butt on everything. It'll work too.
To: Checkers
I believe that none other than William F. Buckley and the National Review group helped Lieberman get elected the first time; seeing him as a more conservative Democrat than the incumbant at that time.... (was it Lowell Weicker?, anyone?).
To: Checkers
Not happening. It's equal parts leverage for getting choice committee assignments and sticking it to Dem leadership for supporting Lamont.
No one should mistake Lieberman for a moderate because of his position on Iraq and his calculated criticism of Lewinskygate. He's a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson