|
He has a swing vote, potentially. Therefore, he is potentially dangerous to the future of the US. He is firmly in the grip of AIPAC, and therefore, of the neoconmen still infesting our White House, DOD, and State. He is unashamedly in favor of invading Iran. He loves the Iraq quagmire and thinks we are on the right track and will win. Hell, he just said so after traveling to Israel and meeting with "Middle East Leaders". Oh, yes, he stopped in at Turkey for a short while, too. I do NOT believe that he actually went to Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or most importantly, Iraq. He loves the limelight. He has no shame. He plays a pious, pleasant, placating patriot, when he truly is self-dealing, egotistical and convinced the Iraq and Iran must be under US and Israeli domination.
He forgets one thing. The population has shifted radically since his indie run. barely 1 out of 4 people can support the president's economic and war-mongering policies. Fewer find W worthy of their trust. If Joe continues to hang on to the neocon apron, he will find himself mighty unpopular, mighty soon. I suspect that after a few public displays of Connecticut's growing disaffection with him, he may be begging W to appoint him to the UN. I can easily envision people protesting him both in DC and his home state. His ego can't handle too much of that.
I have mixed emotions on that. What would a Lierbman presence in the UN do, other than to put a smiley face on Bolton-like policies? And who would replace him in the Senate?
Let's assume that he is a arrogant, petulant and unresponsive as the Boy King, that he remains a senator, and labels himself a democrat (little d). Should any Democrat caucus, committee, meeting or strategy session take place, they had better beware. It would be akin to having KKKarl Rove sitting in on the meeting.
So other than to gather where he is present, early and often, and voice our objections, what can we do about good ole Joe?
|