Whats the deal with Joe Lieberman?

Is Joe Lieberman a democrat? I believe yes. Here are my two points. 1) Just by sheer voting record, one could conclude that Joe is a dem., citing this sample voting record: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000304/votes/
Of the 98 eligible voting issues, Lieberman went against the Democrats 6 times, or roughly 6%. 2) According to the readings, pg 184, Aldrich makes the point that certain policies within a party can be appealing to some, but less to others within the mainframe of the party scheme. Aldrich brings up the case of the "McGovern Democrats", who were less liberal towards the civil rights movement then their activist counterparts. Lieberman could be fashioning his own brand of this type of attitude, considering he is not as liberal toward foregin policy, ie the direction and purpose of the Iraq war. I think the correct moniker would be "Lieberman Democrats".

I believe the Senate democrats have done enough. Why make an example out of a man who may prove to be vital in a few years, especially when the Democrats have a realistic shot at 60% control? They stripped him of one subcommittee and left him on as the head of the more important Homeland Security Committee. The democrats know that they have more pressing issues at hand, and one slap on the wrist will send both a message and keep the party moving towards their goals. As one Senator put it: But senators pointed to statements by the Obama campaign in support of Mr. Lieberman as justification for their decision. “The Senate Democratic Caucus has decided that if President-elect Barack Obama can forgive, so can we,” said Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware.

Libertarians...now ours chance..

The Republican party is down, but not out; Cycles seem inevitable in a 2 party system. Whats the next course of action? Hide under the blankets and hope that everything is going to be all right? One possibility, but I doubt it. I think how, or more importantly, when the party bounces back depends greatly on how the new administration is perceived on the job they are doing. Obama and friends really need to mess up bad, like the Beatles did by saying they were bigger than Jesus. Obama's approval rating has to be in the tank, right around Bush's current level( 27%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating ), for the Republicans to even consider sending a viable candidate to the White House in 2012. The govenors are meeting to discuss a possible candidate for 2012, but why waste a budding politician on an election that looks cloudy at best? If Michael Dukakis can be sacrificed, the Republicans can surely withstand losing another Bob Dole.

Im sure the Republicans will lose some members as penalty for the Bush mishaps and its now time for the damage control team to earn their keep. I offer this: spend the next 4-8 years reinventing the party. Better mobilization efforts, rediscovering conservative fiscal policy, refocusing on states that got the party to this level, candidates that arent on death's door step. Maybe it is also time to start getting away from religon and politics. All this talk about Evangilists and the Christian Right...blah, blah, blah....Religion and politics do not work together. As a moral code, yes, but as a government, it becomes contridictary of what the state needs to achieve. Next, when asked, just say Bush who? Act dumb, it never happened. The era of spend , spend, spend is done; no more from a right winger. Republicans need to go back and try to take back roughly 1-2 % from every eligible voting group. They need to redefine what their platform is and stop with the BS. Be a pioneer in the political world and shoot from the hip. Explain to the American public how these issues will affect them, clearly define where they stand, and for the love of God, stop going back to predetermined talking points in a debate.

Finally, I propose 2 interesting candidates ( NY Times mention one): Colin Powell and Paul Ryan, even though I think Mr. Ryan is more of a 2020 reality. When Powell was Sec. of State, he was one of the most conservative Republicans in the chain of command. And sources say, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EPF/is_n5_v95/ai_17459252 he would have had a viable chance in 1996. He may a bit old , but it would be interesting to see Obama v Powell in 2012. Dont burn me at the stake here, but wouldnt Powell v Obama really boil down to the issues?

Reflection on the national popularity contest

- Well, I wasnt suprised that Obama would end up prevailing. The combination of the unapproval of Bush and the economy taking a crapper at the right time for Obama proved too much for McCain to overcome. I'm still unclear to this way over hyped word called "change". When, Where, and more importantly, How still has not fully been established in my view. I really think we have the 2nd coming of Jimmy Carter on our hands here; situations and campaign slogans are irrely similar. I was actually suprised how close McCain was in the popular vote at the beginning of the evening, but towards the end, California voted and it was good night nurse. Speaking of California, I was suprised to see that 3 pieces of conservative proposals on the ballot passed (or didnt, to get technical), with ease as well. #'s 7,8,10 http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_10906329?source=rss .

Our group had Obama winning, but we expected a closer race in the electoral sense. We had 5 states going to McCain that went to Obama: FL,GA, ME, NV, and OH. Our popular vote predictions were off as well: 66 mil for Obama and 63 mil for McCain, while the real results were 63 mil for Obama and 56 mil for McCain. These vote totals may not be final, but for an election that was tabbed as the coming out party for the younger demographic and new voters, the numbers dont reflect this at all: in 04, bush had 62 mil compared to Kerry's 59 mil, which, when added up, suggest less participation for this years election.

These numbers also say that Obama does indeed have an electoral mandate to the presidency. His electoral number exceeds the required 270 to claim victory for t he oval office.

P.S. Is anyone else troubled by the fact that Milwaukee passed legislation requiring companies to give 5 paid sick days? Thats essentially 2 weeks of paid vacation for everyone. What happened to proposals that stimulate job and company growth, not the opposite where government is forcing policy on business? Benefits and jobs will be cut to make up for the cost of this absurd government intervention.