Midterm News Headlines
Here's a quick look at today's headlines:
* NJ-SEN: Dem Bob Mendendez pulls away from GOP candidate Tom Kean, Jr., in a new poll. This is key, because as the Washington Post reports in an extensive article on Dem Senate chances, it now means that with their widening leads in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio and Rhode Island, Dems have to win only two (rather than all) of the three races now seen as key -- Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia -- in order to recapture Senate...
* PA-SEN, MO-SEN: Dem Bob Casey picks up the endorsements of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Inquirer, while Dem Claire McCaskill grabs the backing of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch...
* PA-07: Embattled GOP Rep. Curt Weldon lashes out at media for reporting on Federal probe of him and daughter's lobbying firm: "When the media has a liberal bias and attacks three of your five children, and you have no recourse except to accept their lies, there's something wrong with the system," Weldon says.
* VA-SEN: GOP Senator George Allen decides that change the course is a better idea for Iraq than stay the course...
* CT-SEN: Dem Ned Lamont gives his campaign another $2 million, while CFL candidate Joe Lieberman denounces forthcoming Lamont ads as negative without seeing them.
It's just so ironic that whiny Joe is calling Ned "negative".
Just what is Joe for, anyway?
October 22, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Just what is Joe for, anyway?"
Joe is for Joe.
October 22, 2006 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I believe The dems need a 52-48 senate in the event Lieberman wins in CT, because he will switch parties if he wins, transforming a 51-49 senate to 50-50, with Cheney breaking ties.
I know Lieberman's said he'll "caucus with the Democrats", but I take this with a shovelful of salt given his petty vindictiveness since losing the primary.
October 22, 2006 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
I totally agree with you, mf, that we can't trust Lieberman to stay on the Democratic side of the aisle. But I wonder whether he'll really switch, and I wonder how much it matters, if the Democrats take the House in this election.
On just the Lieberman score, wouldn't he rather be a member of the party with the momentum, the party that seems to be ascending? If the Dems take the House, the calculus in the Senate changes substantially. Even if the Republicans were to have a narrow advantage there, they couldn't lock out the Dems and run the place like they owned it anymore. So I wonder whether Lieberman would want to switch, or instead, try to prove all of us in blogovia wrong by acting like a born-again Democrat (hoping that the momentum will continue in '08, putting the Liebmiester back in charge of some committee or something).
Besides all that -- no matter whether Lieberman switches or not -- I'm not sure a 51-49 majority in the Senate is really much different from a 50-50 split (or even a 49-51 minority), IF the Dems take the House. In practical terms, the Dems will be able to filibuster whenever necessary (e.g. for the next round of nominations). And, frankly, so will the Republicans, even if they are slightly in the minority. (They have a tendancy to stick together.)
I'm not saying a majority wouldn't be better. It would. I hope it turns out that way. But we won't have a veto-proof majority, or a 2/3rds-vote-for-conviction-upon-impeachment majority, no matter what. So I don't know if it is as important as winning the House (with as wide a margin as possible).
-- ARG
October 22, 2006 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever you are trying to figure out what Joe Lieberman is going to do, just ask yourself, "what is the most selfish possible outcome?"
Thus, Lieberman definitely won't switch if the Dems are in control of the Senate.
October 23, 2006 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink