Why oh why isn't Sensenbrenner and Schmidt on the Endangered Species list?

I can't wait to see how Sensebrenner acts when the Dems take control and he no longer has control of the gavel or the light switches. It will be worth it to have him in for another 2 years in the subservient role... anyone want to take odds on when he has a stroke because he is no longer the bully?

Watch out for Republican dirty tricks, voter suppression tactics, Diebold rigging, negative ads, and tons of money in the last week and a half.

Tom

How refreshingly naive. JL is practically a lock to switch, either directly or by resigning to take a Cabinet post (thereby handing the seat to a GOPer to be appointed by CT's Republican governor).

I am optimistic, overall, and find promising omens in the stock market recovering, the Washington Post describing Democratic candidates as better-looking (with above-average children), and now there is good news on the science front.

Nope, the environmental news is still bad, but NASA's confidence in shuttle damage assessment and repair while in orbit has them saying they are planning a repair mission for the Hubble Space Telescope. Since this jewel is a crowning achievement of the human race, expanding our knowledge of the Universe by an amount far greater than Galileo's first use of a telescope, it speaks well of our commitment to understanding.

Anybody notice how wooly-bear caterpillars are doing? Is the long winter of our discontent coming to an end?

If there is a 50-50 split, the Senate will go Republican because of Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

I tend to think that Joe, who believes himself the savior of the Democratic Party, will stay Dem. After all, in two years the Dems are certain to take control of the Senate if they don't do so now. If he's shown anything, its that the survival of Joe as a political entity is his top priority. Switch parties now and he'll be lucky to get any committee assignments at all.

Sorry, that's just wrong. The Vice President, as president of the Senate, customarily votes only to break tie votes. That includes the vote to form the leadership, meaning that 50-50 is in fact a GOP "majority".

Seems likely that the best we can hope for is either 51 or 50 senators- in either case
including Joe. Who will owe us nothing.

Running Lamont was an indulgence.

I think you mean 51-49 would be the best we could expect and I agree.

"Running Lamont was an indulgence" - yes

It depends on the trade off. Our best realistic hope for this election was that Pat Leahy might head judiciary i.e. Bush could be stopped from stacking the judiciary with brilliant , hyper-conservative appeals court or even supreme court judges who will afflict our children and their children .

There wasn't ever any chance of a sufficient majority to e.g. force an Iraq withdrawal . The best we could hope for was to defend our legal system. Which required 51 senators who would vote to make Reid majority leader.

Before Lamont's run Joe could have been counted on for one of those votes and OBTW it would have been a low cost campaign. Now we have poured $ into winning the primary and struggling unsuccessfully in the general.

Result: Joe is going to win anyway and he isn't going to be the 51st vote. We blew it.

Furthermore I wonder if this was ever as much as we claimed about policy . I was really turned off by our attacks on Joe's religiosity . As an atheist I believe strongly in not attacking people for their beliefs and that seemed to be part of what was going on in that 'let's get rid of Holy Joe' movement. Compare with the absolute lack of criticism of Maria Cantwell who votes with the Republicans more often than Joe. Look it up.

BTW I was making these same arguments in this space prior to the primary.

My hope is that behind the scenes Reid and Schumer are going whatever can be done to cauterize this self inflicted wound.

During the year and a half when Leahy controlled Judiciary it served as a firewall preventing nominations from reaching the floor. Even with those democratic senators who,sadly , will vote as you describe I think there's a good chance that if Leahy can keep the right membership of his committee it can hold the fort. He'll get some support from Spector.

I understand there's a nuts and bolts argument for providing some red meat
for the democratic left. They can't be expected to support a party that stonewalls them. And I in fact share almost every one of its positions( needless to say I marched against the war) but the destruction of our legal principles -and the undermining of our national morality which that represents- is so anathema (sorry I can't come up with a less pretentious word at this time in the morning ) to me that I cringe at the idea they we may have fumbled on the two yard line.

If you want pure orthodoxy with all members and candidates following the same party line, the Democrats are not your party. Senate Democrats go from Ted Kennedy (MA) to Ben Nelson (NE) - they reflect their constituencies. If you want strong party discipline and whips keeping members in line, you'd be more comfortable in the British political system. Even Republicans in this election cycle have had to back away from their normal rigidity, though the ideologues must be choking at having to support Chaffee and Shays.

Lieberman has always been out of sync on some issues, but this year was not the year to push him out. No matter how many mea culpas the Democratic leadership does for his vote, he's now beholden to big Republican money for his re-election. He has a lot of favors to repay.

I share your concern flavius, with holding the line on the confirmation of extremist candidates for the judiciary. These are lifetime appointments of people that will outlive this and future administrations. Having a firm majority with Leahy in the key post of Judiciary Chair is critical. I don't trust Specter's ability to be able to filter out the extremists, because at the end of the day he's a Republican.