Discussing a possible Lieberman switch
The Hill has an interview out w/Joe Liberman...and discusses his feelings on the Dem majority and their lack of fortitude in the War on Terror...which prompts some to think over the possibilities of a Lieberman party switch (which he won't rule out) and it's repercussions for the GOP in 2008, etc...
Blogs for Bush concludes:
As for whether a switch would be beneficial to the GOP - I'm not so sure. With the extreme polarisation of politics created by liberal Democrats from the time Kennedy smeared Bork in the 80's, there's not much real advantage to being the Senate majority unless you have the rock-solid support of 60 Senators. Reid is finding out that being majority leader is a lot less fun than being minority leader - Reid, as majority leader, actually has to get things done, but he's only got the relatively sure votes of 49 Senators right now...and in some crucial votes, far less than that. ... For the GOP to take control right now, it would just elevate Reid and put the GOP on the spot for results with 2008 staring us right in the face. In an emergency, I'd agree - but as things are right now, I think our Senate minority is doing more for us than our majority did for years.I tend to agree...especially with that last statement. Without a House majority to work with...and needed 60 votes to get pretty much anything done at all, what have we lost besides chairmanships? (Other than the political burden of being "in charge") Right now, at least the Dem majority serves as a political foil, and a rallying point for the GOP base, (in times when our guys play the cards right).