A Republican Senator from Connecticut would be better than Lieberman

[Ardent15]

Here's why...

The Republican would still be facing 50+ Senators, even if it wasn't a filibuster proof majority. Moreover, the Republican would have no committee chairmanships and would be marginalized.

Furthermore, Republicans from Connecticut tend to be less batshit insane and more worried about their wallets than Republicans from elsewhere. In other words, moderate.

Of course, a Democrat would be certainly be preferable, and that's probably what will happen. We'll get a Democrat in there next time Traitor Joe is up for reelection.

Either way, if Lieberman loses, the people win.

[still_one]

1. next time? Connecticut had its next time when Ned Lamont was running

They knew what lieberman was

[Ardent15]

2. Lieberman bullshited them

Also, Lieberman didn't get a majority. He won with 50 percent.

[Kaleva]

3. In a three way race.

[still_one]

4. and bush bullshited the country in 2004. I really don't buy that. I am not just jumping on

Connecticut. I am from California, and we have had our share of elected representatives who say one thing and do another.

The very fact that Lieberman went from Democratic to independent should have been the tip off

I do agree with you that the people of Connecticut will not elect Lieberman again, especially since the polls I have seen in that state indicate healthcare reform with a public option, something Liberman isn't for.

I also don't think Liberman will run again either, he will have enriched himself enough

I feel sorry for everyone who was taken for a ride by the republicans, and countrary to what the MSM would lead you to believe, I don't think the Democrats are in trouble in 2010 or 2012. Not because they are so wonderful, but compared to the republicans, they are

[Ardent15]

5. In that, I agree. nt