Comments on: Scenario http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/ Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:07:23 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: AtlanticBlog http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20193 AtlanticBlog Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:34:21 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20193 <strong>Blowback</strong> The Jewish Week has a piece on Joe Lieberman, and it suggests we are going to be in for a... Blowback

The Jewish Week has a piece on Joe Lieberman, and it suggests we are going to be in for a…

]]> By: Justin http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20192 Justin Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:10:49 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20192 I expect a hanful of Republican Senators - those that were friendly with Chaffee - to become much more important in such a sistuation. I do not think its patently clear that such a situation would mean a Republican senate. I expect a hanful of Republican Senators – those that were friendly with Chaffee – to become much more important in such a sistuation. I do not think its patently clear that such a situation would mean a Republican senate.

]]> By: Bruce Moomaw http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20191 Bruce Moomaw Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:54:38 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20191 George Will is also predicting potential disaster from the current use of electronic voting machines. (He pooh-poohs -- without trying to provide any evidence -- the idea of deliberate sabotage, but describes a swarm of accidental breakdowns in the damn things, and demands a paper receipt for each voter, exactly as we should have in any case.) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701308.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701308.html</a> George Will is also predicting potential disaster from the current use of electronic voting machines. (He pooh-poohs — without trying to provide any evidence — the idea of deliberate sabotage, but describes a swarm of accidental breakdowns in the damn things, and demands a paper receipt for each voter, exactly as we should have in any case.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701308.html

]]> By: Nony Mouse http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20190 Nony Mouse Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:59:49 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20190 Prup -- I don't know; what percentage of reporters are voting for democrats (and seeing difficulties voting for them) versus republicans (and seeing difficulties voting for them)? The one that I knew of in 2004 was found in early voting in Texas -- there was an unhandled case in software that if you voted 'party line' so you didn't pick individual races AND skipped the amendment on the bottom of the ballot, it messed up the first selection on the ballot, but that was cleared up before election day. The other one that I heard about in '04 was that one district in New York? only allowed registered Democrats to use the electronic machine; registered Republicans were given paper ballots. What Cranky said on a previous post about making the software open-source is a fine idea, but there are a so many different districts and cases it would be a HUGE undertaking to try to review all of it. Seriously people, on that post about requiring human-readable output where I suggested optical scan ballots, the reason I suggest them is that I have yet to hear someone claim that the pen doesn't mark the paper for their candidate (it's not an X, it's a "complete the arrow" draw a line with a black felt-tipped pen. The only person I've ever seen needing help was a lady in a wheelchair who needed someone to carry her ballot to the low wheelchair-accessible voting area and then feed it into the slot). Personal opinion is that we really need something like that. And a better way of keeping voter rolls current (much less possibility of fraud), but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. Prup –
I don’t know; what percentage of reporters are voting for democrats (and seeing difficulties voting for them) versus republicans (and seeing difficulties voting for them)? The one that I knew of in 2004 was found in early voting in Texas — there was an unhandled case in software that if you voted ‘party line’ so you didn’t pick individual races AND skipped the amendment on the bottom of the ballot, it messed up the first selection on the ballot, but that was cleared up before election day. The other one that I heard about in ‘04 was that one district in New York? only allowed registered Democrats to use the electronic machine; registered Republicans were given paper ballots. What Cranky said on a previous post about making the software open-source is a fine idea, but there are a so many different districts and cases it would be a HUGE undertaking to try to review all of it.
Seriously people, on that post about requiring human-readable output where I suggested optical scan ballots, the reason I suggest them is that I have yet to hear someone claim that the pen doesn’t mark the paper for their candidate (it’s not an X, it’s a “complete the arrow” draw a line with a black felt-tipped pen. The only person I’ve ever seen needing help was a lady in a wheelchair who needed someone to carry her ballot to the low wheelchair-accessible voting area and then feed it into the slot). Personal opinion is that we really need something like that. And a better way of keeping voter rolls current (much less possibility of fraud), but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.

]]> By: Prup (aka Jim Benton) http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20189 Prup (aka Jim Benton) Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:46:37 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20189 Rhat’s the “best” way to do it. But there are others — and how many of us will check the summaries.
From an e-mail to BradBlog:
A friend of our family’s went last Friday to early vote in Maplewood at Sunnen Park. He voted for Claire McCaskill, but each time he, the election worker, and the election supervisor pressed the screen for Claire, the screen said he had voted for Jim Talent.
And from The Miami Herald:
Debra A. Reed voted with her boss on Wednesday at African-American Research Library and Cultural Center near Fort Lauderdale. Her vote went smoothly, but boss Gary Rudolf called her over to look at what was happening on his machine. He touched the screen for gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, a Democrat, but the review screen repeatedly registered the Republican, Charlie Crist.
That’s exactly the kind of problem that sends conspiracy theorists into high gear — especially in South Florida, where a history of problems at the polls have made voters particularly skittish.
A poll worker then helped Rudolf, but it took three tries to get it right, Reed said.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/15869924.htm
And from the Tampa Bay Tribune:
I voted early on Oct. 25 at the Jan Platt Library. My first two votes registered quickly and easily; however, my vote for the House seat did not register. I hit my selection at least a dozen times and it did not take. I tried to get someone to assist me, but there was no one there to help. Finally my vote registered. After casting several more votes, I tried to vote for the secretary of agriculture. I twice selected the Democrat, and twice it indicated that I had voted for the Republican. I called that vote two times, and on the third attempt it accepted my vote correctly.
http://www.tbo.com/news/opinion/letteroftheday/MGBW6ZPJUTE.html
This is the sort of thing that has been reported in the areas I mentioned. Perhaps it is human error, or machine fatigue — or misalignment like what happened in, was it Iowa? But somehow all the reported errors favor the Republicans.

]]> By: KCinDC http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20188 KCinDC Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:08:45 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20188 Prup, if there's manipulation of the electronic voting machines, there aren't going to be reports of it. That's the whole point, that there's no way to observe whether the vote being recorded is the one intended. Any changed vote isn't going to show up on the screen. Prup, if there’s manipulation of the electronic voting machines, there aren’t going to be reports of it. That’s the whole point, that there’s no way to observe whether the vote being recorded is the one intended. Any changed vote isn’t going to show up on the screen.

]]> By: Prup (aka Jim Benton) http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20187 Prup (aka Jim Benton) Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:35:34 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20187 It may not matter. There are already reports -- only anecdotal so far except in Florida -- that voting machines are 'flipping' votes from McCaskill to Talent and in other cases -- Texas, Arkansas, Florida -- also tipping votes from Libertarian or Democrat to Republican. And once again, San Diego County has sent Diebold machines home with volunteer poll workers, leaving them open to all sorts of hackery. I have so far tried not to be paranoid about this, but I am getting VERY scared. This is perhaps the most important issue right now, because there is a chance for voter fraud on a scale inconceivable in a 'developed Democracy.' A lot of races are very close out there, and I am hoping that everybody is watching this. (I am getting the feeling that Florida 2000 will be minor compared to the chaos this one is heading for, that either it will take demonstrations or a new election to find out who actually won this year.) Please, please, where possible, if you have a Diebold or other EVM, vote by paper ballot, and have poll watchers and reporters watching out for this. And if you are approached by an exit-poller, answer him, this is the way other elections in foreign countries have been over-turned. I hope I am just over-tired and more scared than usual. It really 'can't happen here,' can it? It may not matter. There are already reports — only anecdotal so far except in Florida — that voting machines are ‘flipping’ votes from McCaskill to Talent and in other cases — Texas, Arkansas, Florida — also tipping votes from Libertarian or Democrat to Republican. And once again, San Diego County has sent Diebold machines home with volunteer poll workers, leaving them open to all sorts of hackery.
I have so far tried not to be paranoid about this, but I am getting VERY scared. This is perhaps the most important issue right now, because there is a chance for voter fraud on a scale inconceivable in a ‘developed Democracy.’ A lot of races are very close out there, and I am hoping that everybody is watching this. (I am getting the feeling that Florida 2000 will be minor compared to the chaos this one is heading for, that either it will take demonstrations or a new election to find out who actually won this year.)
Please, please, where possible, if you have a Diebold or other EVM, vote by paper ballot, and have poll watchers and reporters watching out for this. And if you are approached by an exit-poller, answer him, this is the way other elections in foreign countries have been over-turned.
I hope I am just over-tired and more scared than usual. It really ‘can’t happen here,’ can it?

]]> By: Cranky Observer http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20186 Cranky Observer Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:12:55 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20186 > Cranky - So making a deal with an > 3rd party senator Conn voters sent > in is a betrayal of the voters? wtf? I am not talking about the voters of Connecticut - I am talking about the Democratic Party. Specifically the incumbents and Washington DC insiders of the Democratic Party. I strongly suspect that the reason Lamont went on "vacation" the week after the primary is that certain insiders promised him they would engineer a face-saving, Marcos-style retirement for Joe if Lamont agreed not to savage him. And that not only did they not accomplish this, but Lieberman persuaded many of the key insiders to back him despite that fact that he was no longer the Democratic candidate (and in fact not even a Democrat as noted above). Look - I didn't much like John Kerry. But when he was nominated I swallowed my dislike, handed over cash, worked for his campaign, and even put on a good salesman's face to go door-to-door and persuade my Republican neighbors that Kerry was the best choice. I didn't like it, but he WAS the Democratic nominee and I felt that the Democratic nominee was the best choice for the nations. So I did it. Now we learn that the primaries don't mean anything, and that the Dem insiders will back whomever they wish regardless of the largest turnout in CT Democratic Primary history. I understand that Hillary Clinton is the favorite among the Dem and DC elite for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. I don't much like Hillary Clinton. Should she be nominated, do you expect me to donate money to her campaign? Work for her? Go door-to-door for her? Why? Isn't it a matter of "fooled me once"? Cranky > Cranky – So making a deal with an
> 3rd party senator Conn voters sent
> in is a betrayal of the voters? wtf?
I am not talking about the voters of Connecticut – I am talking about the Democratic Party. Specifically the incumbents and Washington DC insiders of the Democratic Party.
I strongly suspect that the reason Lamont went on “vacation” the week after the primary is that certain insiders promised him they would engineer a face-saving, Marcos-style retirement for Joe if Lamont agreed not to savage him. And that not only did they not accomplish this, but Lieberman persuaded many of the key insiders to back him despite that fact that he was no longer the Democratic candidate (and in fact not even a Democrat as noted above).
Look – I didn’t much like John Kerry. But when he was nominated I swallowed my dislike, handed over cash, worked for his campaign, and even put on a good salesman’s face to go door-to-door and persuade my Republican neighbors that Kerry was the best choice. I didn’t like it, but he WAS the Democratic nominee and I felt that the Democratic nominee was the best choice for the nations. So I did it.
Now we learn that the primaries don’t mean anything, and that the Dem insiders will back whomever they wish regardless of the largest turnout in CT Democratic Primary history.
I understand that Hillary Clinton is the favorite among the Dem and DC elite for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. I don’t much like Hillary Clinton. Should she be nominated, do you expect me to donate money to her campaign? Work for her? Go door-to-door for her? Why? Isn’t it a matter of “fooled me once”?
Cranky

]]> By: wren http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20185 wren Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:38:47 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20185 Joe's a jerk but he's not stupid or suicidal. Given the trends, I think he organizes as a Dem and stays quiet for a year and gets back on Sunday TV in early 2008. Joe’s a jerk but he’s not stupid or suicidal. Given the trends, I think he organizes as a Dem and stays quiet for a year and gets back on Sunday TV in early 2008.

]]> By: Bruce Moomaw http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20184 Bruce Moomaw Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:37:10 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20184 Of course, there is that alternative scenario that we could have had: (1) The Senate Democrats DON'T pull their punches out of fear of annoying Lieberman. (2) Lieberman wins anyway -- one of 51 nominal Democrats in the new Senate. (3) Lieberman is so insulted by the Dems' attacks on him that he jumps parties for that reason. So, you know, it's a judgment call. In fact, several comments Smarmy Joe has dropped in the last couple of weeks strongly suggest that, if he DOES become the man who single-handedly decides control of the Senate, he intends to open a bidding war by both parties to gain his allegiance. Until such time as we radically revise America's election system to allow instant runoffs -- and thus elect far more centrists -- the nation's legislators will continue to be politically polarized in a way that makes such bizarre situations possible. Of course, there is that alternative scenario that we could have had:
(1) The Senate Democrats DON’T pull their punches out of fear of annoying Lieberman.
(2) Lieberman wins anyway — one of 51 nominal Democrats in the new Senate.
(3) Lieberman is so insulted by the Dems’ attacks on him that he jumps parties for that reason.
So, you know, it’s a judgment call. In fact, several comments Smarmy Joe has dropped in the last couple of weeks strongly suggest that, if he DOES become the man who single-handedly decides control of the Senate, he intends to open a bidding war by both parties to gain his allegiance. Until such time as we radically revise America’s election system to allow instant runoffs — and thus elect far more centrists — the nation’s legislators will continue to be politically polarized in a way that makes such bizarre situations possible.

]]> By: Chris O. http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20183 Chris O. Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:54:48 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20183 If Lieberman does that, the pressure to filibuster his ass in the Senate will be overwhelming. I'll lead the charge on it. If Lieberman does that, the pressure to filibuster his ass in the Senate will be overwhelming. I’ll lead the charge on it.

]]> By: Prup (aka Jim Benton) http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20182 Prup (aka Jim Benton) Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:40:32 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20182 Is anyone sure that such a scenario is possible? What exactly are the Senate rules as to when a 're-vote' on organization is possible? I remember this came up when Jeffords switched, but I don't know how it came out. Is anyone sure that such a scenario is possible? What exactly are the Senate rules as to when a ‘re-vote’ on organization is possible? I remember this came up when Jeffords switched, but I don’t know how it came out.

]]> By: dan http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20181 dan Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:08:39 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20181 Cranky - So making a deal with an 3rd party senator Conn voters sent in is a betrayal of the voters? wtf? Cranky – So making a deal with an 3rd party senator Conn voters sent in is a betrayal of the voters? wtf?

]]> By: Cranky Observer http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20180 Cranky Observer Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:09:21 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20180 > #2: Senators who kicked Lieberman to > the curb so that he no longer votes > for them must accept Republican control. So - primaries have been rendered meaningless? I am supposed to just shut up and contribute money to the Democratic Party Powers That Be(tm)? Senate seats are now sinecures? Would have been nice to know those things prior to the beginning of the election season. Just as an aside: by his own definition, Mr. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat; he is a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Cranky > #2: Senators who kicked Lieberman to
> the curb so that he no longer votes
> for them must accept Republican control.
So – primaries have been rendered meaningless? I am supposed to just shut up and contribute money to the Democratic Party Powers That Be(tm)? Senate seats are now sinecures?
Would have been nice to know those things prior to the beginning of the election season.
Just as an aside: by his own definition, Mr. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat; he is a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party.
Cranky

]]> By: Barry http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20179 Barry Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:02:23 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20179 Rob: "Lieberman has to realize that he has hit his ceiling now. He can fight every six years to eek out another senate win with luck or he can get on the conservative sinecure by taking a Bush administration job (he won't get one from anyone else). About the only thing that could keep that from happening if he really believes the Unity crap and thinks McCain is just dying to nominate him as a VP." I can see Lieberman figuring that handing the Senate over to the GOP for two more years would (a) pay *extremely* well, and (b) put a stick in the eye of a party that he's been betraying on a regular basis already. Rob: “Lieberman has to realize that he has hit his ceiling now. He can fight every six years to eek out another senate win with luck or he can get on the conservative sinecure by taking a Bush administration job (he won’t get one from anyone else). About the only thing that could keep that from happening if he really believes the Unity crap and thinks McCain is just dying to nominate him as a VP.”
I can see Lieberman figuring that handing the Senate over to the GOP for two more years would (a) pay *extremely* well, and (b) put a stick in the eye of a party that he’s been betraying on a regular basis already.

]]> By: Nicholas Beaudrot http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20178 Nicholas Beaudrot Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:40:59 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20178 It's a non-starter. Here are some amendments to your scenario: 1a: Connecticut Democrats pick up at least one seat in the State House and retain their existing margin in the Senate, giving them a veto-proof majority in both houses. 7: Before Lieberman's SecDef confirmation hearings begin, Connecticut Democrats pass a law mandating a special election within 60 days of any Senate vacancy. 8: Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) announces he will seek the Senate seat that Lieberman vacates. Polls show the only viable Republican candidates, ex-Congresspersons Shays, Simmons, and Johnson, trailing by double digits. 9: Blumenthal cruises to election, and votes to re-reorganize the Senate with a Democratic majority. 10: Karl Rove weeps in his glass of milk. It’s a non-starter. Here are some amendments to your scenario:
1a: Connecticut Democrats pick up at least one seat in the State House and retain their existing margin in the Senate, giving them a veto-proof majority in both houses.
7: Before Lieberman’s SecDef confirmation hearings begin, Connecticut Democrats pass a law mandating a special election within 60 days of any Senate vacancy.
8: Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) announces he will seek the Senate seat that Lieberman vacates. Polls show the only viable Republican candidates, ex-Congresspersons Shays, Simmons, and Johnson, trailing by double digits.
9: Blumenthal cruises to election, and votes to re-reorganize the Senate with a Democratic majority.
10: Karl Rove weeps in his glass of milk.

]]> By: Nony Mouse http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20177 Nony Mouse Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:27:16 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20177 It seems as though the commenters above feel like the senario above should play out as #2: Senators who kicked Lieberman to the curb so that he no longer votes for them must accept Republican control. Rove laughs hysterically. Moreover, you can't prevent a democrat pulling what Lieberman did any more than the republicans could prevent someone pulling what Jeffords did five years ago. It seems as though the commenters above feel like the senario above should play out as
#2: Senators who kicked Lieberman to the curb so that he no longer votes for them must accept Republican control. Rove laughs hysterically.
Moreover, you can’t prevent a democrat pulling what Lieberman did any more than the republicans could prevent someone pulling what Jeffords did five years ago.

]]> By: Anderson http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20176 Anderson Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:20:23 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20176 Lieberman is way too selfish to accept this deal. Exactly right. I can sooner see Lieberman switching parties, just to bask in the glory on Fox. Lieberman is way too selfish to accept this deal.
Exactly right. I can sooner see Lieberman switching parties, just to bask in the glory on Fox.

]]> By: Cranky Observer http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20175 Cranky Observer Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:13:20 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20175 > IMHO, that sort of back-stab can't > be accepted, by anybody who wishes > to have political credibility - That line was already crossed when the DC insider Dems failed to fully back the /Democratic Party nominee/ for CT Senate in 2006. Cranky > IMHO, that sort of back-stab can’t
> be accepted, by anybody who wishes
> to have political credibility -
That line was already crossed when the DC insider Dems failed to fully back the /Democratic Party nominee/ for CT Senate in 2006.
Cranky

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20174 Anonymous Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:51:37 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20174 On October 16, Huffington Post reported that Lieberman "won't say whether he supports the state's Democratic candidate for governor. Lieberman told The Hartfort Courant on Friday that his decision on whether to vote for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell or Democratic New Haven Mayor John DeStefano will remain private." He also could not say whether it would be better if the Democrats or the Republicans control the Senate. Does that sound like a man who intends to remain a Democrat? On October 16, Huffington Post reported that Lieberman “won’t say whether he supports the state’s Democratic candidate for governor. Lieberman told The Hartfort Courant on Friday that his decision on whether to vote for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell or Democratic New Haven Mayor John DeStefano will remain private.”
He also could not say whether it would be better if the Democrats or the Republicans control the Senate. Does that sound like a man who intends to remain a Democrat?

]]> By: Laertes http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20173 Laertes Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:31:15 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20173 I wish the senate democrats would go nuclear on Lieberman. Announce right now that they'll be stripping him of his seniority and his committee assignments. GOP control of the Senate is better that Democratic control at Lieberman's whim. The latter is responsibility without power. The GOP will get to blame the Senate for every screwup, while secretly keeping the Senate Dems on a short leash--at any sign that they're going to seriously inconvenience the Rethugs, Lieberman can threaten to pull the plug. I wish the senate democrats would go nuclear on Lieberman. Announce right now that they’ll be stripping him of his seniority and his committee assignments.
GOP control of the Senate is better that Democratic control at Lieberman’s whim. The latter is responsibility without power. The GOP will get to blame the Senate for every screwup, while secretly keeping the Senate Dems on a short leash–at any sign that they’re going to seriously inconvenience the Rethugs, Lieberman can threaten to pull the plug.

]]> By: Barry http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20172 Barry Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:30:11 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20172 Add the fact that, if Lieberman commited the backstabbing-whti-a-chainsaw act on the Democratic Senators, their confirmation of his appointment as Sec Def would be a confirmation of their strong desire not to have power. IMHO, that sort of back-stab can't be accepted, by anybody who wishes to have political credibility - not with us, who don't count that much, but with the GOP Senators. Add the fact that, if Lieberman commited the backstabbing-whti-a-chainsaw act on the Democratic Senators, their confirmation of his appointment as Sec Def would be a confirmation of their strong desire not to have power. IMHO, that sort of back-stab can’t be accepted, by anybody who wishes to have political credibility – not with us, who don’t count that much, but with the GOP Senators.

]]> By: elliottg http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20171 elliottg Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:06:07 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20171 Secretary of Defense vs. the deciding vote in the Senate. 6 years without having to seek reelection vs. a maximum of 2 years. Campaign finance laws vs. executive rules on accepting gifts. Lieberman is way too selfish to accept this deal. Secretary of Defense vs. the deciding vote in the Senate. 6 years without having to seek reelection vs. a maximum of 2 years. Campaign finance laws vs. executive rules on accepting gifts. Lieberman is way too selfish to accept this deal.

]]> By: Prup (aka Jim Benton) http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20170 Prup (aka Jim Benton) Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:05:01 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20170 But what makes you think that, if the vote were 50-49-Joe that he WOULD vote with the Democrats, and even give them a chance to start trouble for the Republicans he is getting so much support from. (Or, for that matter, that he would be confirmed if he tried the stunt you suggest.) If he voted for the Republicans, it would be 'political suicide' but he's not planning on running again. If he tried to take the DoD job, and Rell DID appoint a Republican, he'd end his own career, maybe before his term was officially up, and if there are any scandals out there, they'd be found, getting him to resign early. No, just expect Joe to vote Democratic if, and only if, his vote doesn't matter. But what makes you think that, if the vote were 50-49-Joe that he WOULD vote with the Democrats, and even give them a chance to start trouble for the Republicans he is getting so much support from. (Or, for that matter, that he would be confirmed if he tried the stunt you suggest.)
If he voted for the Republicans, it would be ‘political suicide’ but he’s not planning on running again. If he tried to take the DoD job, and Rell DID appoint a Republican, he’d end his own career, maybe before his term was officially up, and if there are any scandals out there, they’d be found, getting him to resign early.
No, just expect Joe to vote Democratic if, and only if, his vote doesn’t matter.

]]> By: ccobb http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20169 ccobb Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:02:27 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20169 A part of me actually hopes that happens. One, I do believe that the Senate in Repubs hands will just continue the debacle, just with more handwringing that slowly but surely tarnishes McCain. Two, the Senate looks likely to trend even more Dem in 2008. Three, the party learns the hard way never to let another Dem pull a Lieberman in a primary. And four, the House is where the action is anyway, so we get the oversight we need. A part of me actually hopes that happens.
One, I do believe that the Senate in Repubs hands will just continue the debacle, just with more handwringing that slowly but surely tarnishes McCain. Two, the Senate looks likely to trend even more Dem in 2008. Three, the party learns the hard way never to let another Dem pull a Lieberman in a primary. And four, the House is where the action is anyway, so we get the oversight we need.

]]> By: Rob http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20168 Rob Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:01:37 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20168 Lieberman has to realize that he has hit his ceiling now. He can fight every six years to eek out another senate win with luck or he can get on the conservative sinecure by taking a Bush administration job (he won't get one from anyone else). About the only thing that could keep that from happening if he really believes the Unity crap and thinks McCain is just dying to nominate him as a VP. Lieberman has to realize that he has hit his ceiling now. He can fight every six years to eek out another senate win with luck or he can get on the conservative sinecure by taking a Bush administration job (he won’t get one from anyone else). About the only thing that could keep that from happening if he really believes the Unity crap and thinks McCain is just dying to nominate him as a VP.

]]> By: Michael O'Hare http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20167 Michael O'Hare Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:51:30 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20167 Why would Lieberman, or anyone smart enough to play the game you describe, accept that job in these conditions? Why would Lieberman, or anyone smart enough to play the game you describe, accept that job in these conditions?

]]> By: JMG http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20166 JMG Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:48:14 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20166 How about a step where the remaining Dems filibuster Joe's appointment into the ground, leaving his lyin' ass on the unemployment line? How about a step where the remaining Dems filibuster Joe’s appointment into the ground, leaving his lyin’ ass on the unemployment line?

]]> By: pgl http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20165 pgl Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:33:37 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20165 So does Lamont have a chance in Conn.? So does Lamont have a chance in Conn.?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.samefacts.com/2006/10/election-2006/scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-20164 Anonymous Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:32:35 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/10/uncategorized/scenario/#comment-20164 The scenario you lay out is idea. The country sees Lieberman sitting among his true friends - and the Rethugs continue, via the Senate, to be responsible for the messes they have created. Personally, I'm hoping for a tie, which would require Cheney to cast tie-breaking votes repeatedly, thus getting his nasty mug on television. Putting the house and Senate in Democratic hands by less than overwhelming margins will do little - since there are so many DINO's - and because the Rethugs have perfected the dark arts. The scenario you lay out is idea. The country sees Lieberman sitting among his true friends – and the Rethugs continue, via the Senate, to be responsible for the messes they have created. Personally, I’m hoping for a tie, which would require Cheney to cast tie-breaking votes repeatedly, thus getting his nasty mug on television.
Putting the house and Senate in Democratic hands by less than overwhelming margins will do little – since there are so many DINO’s – and because the Rethugs have perfected the dark arts.

]]>