Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Nah, Joe's just playing both sides off against each other. It's what Joe does best.

As for cut-n-run, even Hillary Clinton won't support cut-n-run because she wants to be President.

I believe that those seeking to "stay the course" in Iraq have more to fear from Jimmy Baker, Poppy Bush and Robert Gates than the Democrats. Baker may well be the only person on the planet with the ability to persuade George W. Bush to change course in Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 07:57 AM

one things for sure, Simberg will never be in
Iraq, wether it's digging a fighting position,
manning a guard post or even driving a truck,
he's much more important safe and sound
in the CONUS.

Posted by anonymous at November 13, 2006 09:52 AM

No, Anonymous Moron, what's for sure is that you enjoy making a fool of yourself on the web with your continued mindless repetition of a discredited argument.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 13, 2006 09:56 AM

For the record, I am 99.999999% certain I will never find myself in Iraq either.

Nonetheless, as an American I am entitled to my opinion.

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 10:02 AM

I don't think Lieberman will switch parties.. he goes to the back of the line in the GOP, I think, and it'd only be for two years. The electoral map for the 2008 Senate races is terrible for the GOP, which has to defend 21 seats and attack 12. Another pickup or two seems very likely.

As a Democrat, I'd be glad to see the last of him, but I don't vote in Connecticut so he's not accountable to me. So I agree with Bill - he's just planting his flag a little so the Dems keep his seniority intact even though he's left the party.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 13, 2006 10:03 AM

I don't think Lieberman will switch parties.. he goes to the back of the line in the GOP, I think

That all depends on what kind of deal he cuts.

As for it only being for two years, two years is forever in politics. No way to predict the outcome this far out.

Anyway, it could as easily be said that the party left him as he left the party.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 13, 2006 10:13 AM

Rand I think that you're making a "They're all out of step except Joe" argument. As an unapologetic supporter of the occupation of Iraq he's clearly at some odds with the party as a whole. That's why he lost the Democratic vote in Connecticut last Tuesday, and why he lost his primary.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 13, 2006 10:26 AM

No, I'm making the argument that on every issue except that one, he's a Democrat. It's a shame there aren't more like him, but then, I guess they'd get drummed out of the party, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 13, 2006 10:29 AM

I don't think Lieberman will switch parties.. he goes to the back of the line in the GOP.

You mean like Phil Gramm did?

Posted by Leland at November 13, 2006 10:39 AM

Lieberman supported many positions at odds with the Democratic Party mainstream, on subjects such as the energy bill, insurance regulation and reform, and Plan B contraception. After his victory, Lieberman can never again speak for the Democratic Party, particularly as an apologist for Republican talking points on Fox News, for example, because he left the Democratic Party when he ran under his own flag in the election.

His candidacy relied on Republican votes, Republican money and Republican support. He won at least in part because he was able to distance himself from his own record on the energy bill and the war (running all over Connecticut claiming, implausibly in my view, “no one wants to bring the troops home more than me”), because the Republican party nominee was the weakest in a generation, and because the national Democratic party abandoned its own nominee.

But I suppose it all depends on what kind of deal they can cut if they make him an offer - Leland, your point on Phil Gramm is a good reminder; thanks. Didn't they offer Shelby a good deal when he switched parties too?

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 13, 2006 10:47 AM

"The electoral map for the 2008 Senate races is terrible for the GOP, which has to defend 21 seats and attack 12. Another pickup or two seems very likely."

And most of those are in pretty Republican states. Mu understanding is there are not going to be many competetive races in that batch. Unless Warner runs for Warner's old seat.

Not to metion that McCain will proabally have pretty big coattails. Hillary will prove a gift to the Republicans.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 13, 2006 10:49 AM

Jane,

I can't speak much about Shelby. Further, although I wanted to remind you of Gramm, Gramm also did a few more things that Lieberman probably would not. For instance, I don't expect Lieberman to force a special election to allow voters a chance to vote for him as a Republican. Gramm did that, and by doing so, showed he carried the same support from his constituency he had as a Democrat. Also, Texas, as a more populous state, carries more political power than Connecticut.

Posted by Leland at November 13, 2006 11:49 AM

I can see clear pickup opportunities in Colorado, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia. I don't think Nebraska is out of the question, either. Possibly Oklahoma. If these are all red states, Mike, they're red like Montana, or Missouri. You guys might pick up Jersey or South Dakota, but if Democrats play defense at least as well as we did this time and take all the winnable seats, like we did this time, you ought to be concerned about a 60:40 Senate. Which I don't personally think is a good idea - too much concentration of power.

While I think McCain's nomination is likely ("It's his turn" has motivated every GOP presidential nomination in my lifetime), I would not bet on Hillary getting the nomination. I have no intention of voting for her, although as a Californian it's usually all wrapped up by the time anyone gets around to asking me what I think.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 13, 2006 12:03 PM

"It's his turn" has motivated every GOP presidential nomination in my lifetime

How was it "Bush's turn" in 2000? How was it "Reagan's turn" in 1980?

The only people that I can see this "rule" applying to are Bush in 1988, and Dole in 1996.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 13, 2006 12:11 PM

Jane,

I think you are projecting. This year will not apply to 08. With the exception of Allen, all the Republicans that lost were exceptional weak candidates. Allen lost because he rann a bad campaign in a bad year to the most conservative Democrat since Zell Miller. I suspect that Allen will reclaim his Senate seat in 08.

I think your analysis, especially by including Kentucky and Tennesse are possible pick up opportunities are wishful thinking at best.

The path is cleared for Hillary and McCain will massacre her in a landslide that would make the Gipper blush.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 13, 2006 01:00 PM

Jane, the way I see it, I think there's a great chance that the Democrat party will suck it up and ignore Lieberman's minor rebellion. After all, if Lamont was such a great candidate, he would have beaten Lieberman in the general election. Clear example of how both parties tend to favor people who parrot the right ideology over strong candidates who win general elections and will ultimately do more to further party goals.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 13, 2006 01:17 PM

Mike, I put Kentucky on my list because of a few factors - local scandals are going to hurt the GOP a la Ohio, Bunning almost got beat last time, and the GOP lost a house seat there. That suggests the state is trending blue. McConnell is a very strong campaigner though, so it'll be a fight.

Alexander is a pretty good candidate too, in Tennessee, but a wiser, better Ford could turn it around. I wouldn't call it wishful thinking so much as "within the bounds of a good race." Wishful thinking would be Alaska, Texas, or Alabama.

Allen lost because slightly more of voting Virginians would prefer not to be represented by a bigot. Webb ran an unimpressive campaign, too.. he just didn't keep shooting himself in the foot.

Karl, I agree with you that the most likely outcome is that the Dems will hold their noses and allow Lieberman to caucus with them, and he'll go along with that because it suits his purposes. But I think Lamont's loss has more to do with other factors than "he was too liberal to win the general election" despite Lieberman's attempts to frame it that way.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 13, 2006 02:09 PM

Jane, I don't think it's fair to characterize the situation as one of Joe leaving the party--they quite clearly left *him*--with a knife in the back.

The amazing part is his previous comments that he'll caucus with them; comments, admittedly, that he's been tempering lately.

Posted by Rick C at November 13, 2006 02:14 PM

"Mike, I put Kentucky on my list because of a few factors - local scandals are going to hurt the GOP a la Ohio, Bunning almost got beat last time, and the GOP lost a house seat there. That suggests the state is trending blue."

No, that suggests they lost a house seat. One data point does not constitute a trend and it would be hubris to attempt to infer one from one election. The Dems gained house seats in 1992 but they lost big time in 1994. The trend is more Republicans. That does not mean year specific conditions will not result in occasional setbacks. In spite of Iraq and so many Conservative Democrats and the tendancy to reject the party in the White House in the sixth year, this years losses for Republicans are significantly below the historic average.

If we were to project all current trends into the future based only on present conditions, it will be 50 degrees below zero here by march.

If the Dems want to keep running DINOS, that is fine by me. Either way, I win.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 13, 2006 03:13 PM

The flip side of "How solid is Joe?" is "How solid is Mel Martinez?"

You guys okay with that choice for RNC?

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 03:22 PM

I don't know what "guys" you're referring to. I'm not a Republican. But if I were, I'd be scratching my head over this. Well, I am anyway.

Maybe it's because he's Hispanic. I guess Rove still hasn't learned...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 13, 2006 03:40 PM

Allen lost because slightly more of voting Virginians would prefer not to be represented by a bigot.

So they went for a male-chauvinist, proud redneck defender of the Confederacy instead. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

My irony meter is pegged, Jane.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 13, 2006 03:44 PM

Simberg

It kind of rings hollow, you sticking up for
women, minorities and democrats.

Just admit you don't like Webb, because he's a democrat.

Republicans cryingout for the poor oppressed victims, is
just a new game of crying wolf.

Nothing wrong with you being a partisan stooge, you should
embrace it.

Posted by anonymous at November 13, 2006 05:38 PM

I hate to have to keep repeating myself but Rand forces me: if Webb is a male chauvinist who is proud of the South, what should we call Allen?

Fake cowboy with Jewish mama forcing Ham sandwiches down his throat to purge himself of ethnicity?

There is no irony in voting for someone who is what he is rather than a fake cowboy with an intense desire to run a plantation. If you had to choose, wouldn't you at least have the real thing so you know what you are dealing with?

Imagine, Allen could have been President! He was described as the perfect mix of Reagan and Bush, albeit when Bush was a tad more popular. What a Rethug he would have been - prancing around bombing the wrong targets in such a lovely hat!

Allen however has to his great credit, subliminably and effortlessly (for him) contributed a new word to the English language, something the Webb "master" has yet to achieve despite his many pro-confederate, offensive, warmongering, redneck and chauvinist books.

Posted by Anonymous Moron at November 13, 2006 05:49 PM

I hestitate to comment because of the company that declines to self-identify, but it wasn't Webb who kept a Confederate flag, a noose, and the trappings of the antebellum South wrapped about him as he tried to construct his identity.

I'm not sure about the chavinism charge - I was troubled by the remarks attributed to him about women at Annapolis, but I thought Justice Alito's activities in his Princeton alumni group were far worse.

I don't think that your irony meter goes up quite as far as it should, Rand. Mr. Allen constructing an identity for himself as a "good ol' boy southerner" when he went to high school barely fifty miles from where I'm sitting suggests a level of irony you haven't yet appreciated fully.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM

Apologies to all for double post. Rand, please feel free to delete.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 13, 2006 09:37 PM

A noose? I must have missed that photo-op.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at November 14, 2006 12:31 AM

Well said Jane!

Posted by Anonymous Moron at November 14, 2006 01:39 PM

Post a comment