Never too late to change parties, Ben

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., pictured in Lincoln, Neb., Friday, Feb. 2, 2006, is the only Senate Democrat expected to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

:eyes:

It would suit me fine if he changed it to "Adolf".

His first, of course, is his "real pal," Joe Lieberman.

He filed to run as a Democrat.

those words....

He's not my favorite Democrat, by a long shot, but I guess he's my favorite current Democratic member of the House/Senate from Nebraska. You know of anyone else?

Republicans.

If he remains a Democrat, and, as a result the Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, it is huge in terms of Committees, investigations, etc. If the Democrats capture a 51/49 majority in the Senate and then Ben takes your advice...we end up with 50/50 and no control. Worse yet, what if its 50/50, which leads to committee stalemate...and then Ben takes your advice, turning control back to the repubs.

And remind me again...if Nelson votes the same way on particular bills whether he's a repub or a Democrat, how are we better off with him as a repub? Its not as if there's a more liberal Nebraskan who would win running as a Democrat against Nelson running as a repub.

Let me put this is stark terms: If the Senate ends up 50/50 and Nelson stays a Democrat, there are an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on Committees and an amendment like the same sex marriage amendment never makes it out of committee. He changes to a repub, and the repubs get a majority on every committee.

Any Democrat that urges an elected Democrat to switch parties while the Democrats are still in the minority in the House and Senate should have their head examined.

... With a majority, we can start swapping out jackass Democrats for REAL Democrats.

Those who insist on reversing it are putting the cart before the horse.

They also staunchly refuse to recognize the reality that some Democrats occupy seats in thoroughly red areas. Even if those Democrats had the best progressive ideals, they're simply not in a political position to be helpful to us, beyond getting us committee chairs and the like.

Reality is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition, folks. It's that kind of thinking that resulted in Nader-voting-jackasses. (That last is pure opinion, of course.)