Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bearshark who wrote (208029)	11/8/2006 3:16:02 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually there are 2 independents not 1. And both are needed for majority.

To: bearshark who wrote (208029)	11/8/2006 3:16:57 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

At the risk of repeating myself, Liberman does not have a choice but to vote with Democrats. Otherwise he will end his career. I also don't see the Senate as important at this stage as you do; they are unable to move their agenda through the Senate, especially with Bush as the president, and the control of the House can give them all the investigative power that they need. In fact, strictly from a politics point of view, it may have been better for Dems to have done more poorly in the Senate race. The Senate "majority" may tempt them too much to trip over each other. They should just give the Reps the majority in Senate and blame the Reps for the gridlock that is sure to follow. ST PS Having Liberman does not give Dems a majority. There are two independents.