As others have said, you sure sound like a professional lurker, hired by Rove to spew your FUD where ye may. You certainly don't sound like a Dem, and after one million posts by you, I still have no idea what your actual views are beyond your claim of some arcane knowledge on why, exactly, we'll all lose again. All I know is, you've made your point, whatever that is.

As to Lieberman and these other seats you speak of, I ask you what victory are you talking about? To you, it seems, our only hope for victory is to concede defeat and vote in a bunch of "me too" "centrists" who will give Bush and company everything they want in the interest of seeming bipartisan. Wow, I'm so excited.

Here's my perspective. More than merely electing Democrats to the seats, we need voices who will stand in opposition to the regime. I realize that by your definition my weird belief in that concept of opposition has already revealed me as a Lefty-left, a Nutroot, a party destroyer destined to lose, but oh well. Please don't post another one of your tirades. I think we all get it. Yes, I am a lefty-left nutroot. You forgot to mention moonbat. There, now, I've taken care of that one for you.

Back to the real subject: without opposition, it doesn't matter whether we send a Dem or a Republican or a trained chimpanzee to Washington. It just won't matter. The chimp can rubberstamp us into Iran just as easily as anyone. It just won't matter; we will have lost anyway.

For Lieberman, the same. We return him, as you suggest, and sure, he votes Dem most of the time but so what? On the big ticket items, the war being one of them, he has defiantly stated he would do it all again. He has given every indication he will follow the President into even deeper shit. There are many, many reasons to oppose Joe Lieberman, beginning with the mere existence of his third party run. Whether he's voted 90 percent of the time with the Democrats or not, the fact remains that with his senate run he has shown more defiance and opposition and rage at the will of the electorate than he ever has to Bush. "War in Iraq? Okey Dokey, can we start another? Vote me out of office? Fuck you, voters! Triple and quadruple fuck you times infinity. I'm running anyway. I may take you all down with me, but you should have thought of that before you dared -DARED- to try and make your voices heard at the ballot box. There will be no voice of opposition heard on my watch!"

Don, it's like the old good cop/bad cop routine. We're all sitting in Examination Room One; the lighting is bad, the air conditioning is off and we've been left sitting here for five long years. Suddenly the door bursts open and the gambit begins. Bush is definitely the bad cop; Lieberman might even be the good cop. But the thing you have to remember is that He's still a cop! He is not your friend. He wants the same result as bad cop, but he offers a ray of hope as he pushes a yellow legal pad in front of you. "In your face, bad cop!" you think to yourself, savoring your "victory" as you sign a bogus confession in the hopes of a lighter sentence.

Call me Lefty-Left.

I happen to know more than a few "Danger Men" myself. This is a good description of the type. It really angers them that I don't constantly feel the same sense of panic that they have made central to their own existence.

I think James Barrie said it best in the opening line to Peter Pan.

All children, except one, grow up.

Bush is Peter: the complete narcissist, incapable of caring about another viewpoint, or even to comprehend that such a thing exists or could exist.

Hook: the eternal enemy, whose sole purpose in life is to enable Peter to play out the same childish fantasy over and over.