Redstate

don't hold the nations safety above all? I'm sure you can find some nutzoids in the pro-life movement, but they sure don't come anywhere close to the level of irrational dedication like the pro-choice feminazis who defend a probable rapist in Chief for the holiest of sacraments, abortion. NRtL endorsed Fred, didn't they? He's not as pro-life necessarily as Huck, but they found him to be a better choice. I sense a hint from you that most socons would be willing to lose America if they don't get their way 100%.

Perhaps I read too much into what you wrote...

Yeah, I think you read too much into that. I'm pro-life too, and I didn't get that sentiment out of that comment.
Kudos to those who are left of center who "get it" like Lieberman does, regardless of their positions on the other issues.

I certainly believe that Fred would act very responsibly in defending our nation's safety.

Huck's heart is in the right place on this, but that Foreign Policy article shows some real deficiencies of judgment, and telegraphs the wrong signals to very dangerous people. The road to hell as the old saying goes is paved with good intentions, and bad signals get people killed.

... would be for him to stay an Independent, and just caucus with the GOP.

The Democrats' MO is to see thing that aren't there. They also believe that they had an actual policy mandate, which couldn't be further from the truth. They ran on nothing beyond "the Republican culture of corruption."

As for Sen. Lieberman, I believe that he's a genuine American profile in courage & should be recognized as such. I think that Joe Lieberman's endorsement of McCain is more principled than NRO's endorsement of Mitt Romney as a conservative.

Don't care how many Dems identify with Joe. But plenty of Independents do, enough to get him reelected over the opposition of his own party. And Republicans + Independents = Majority = Presidency.

Wonder if a McCain-Lieberman ticket could be in the cards? Or would McCain need to pick someone like Huckabee or Thompson to lock in the base?

(Yeah I know, all hypothetical and pretty unlikely with McCain currently 3rd or below in most polls, but fun nonetheless)

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

I think he's the consensus pick if we get a brokered convention. And a McCain/Lieberman ticket probably loses 45 states, so I doubt he's that stupid.

...they'd bleed votes on the right, pick up a lot in the center, leaving Obama/Biden (or something like that) to try and scrum for the center and the left and the result would be... who knows really. But it'd have a better chance than any ticket with Romney or Guliani at the top.

Romney, I'm not so sure. With Romney, a conservative can say "OK, you at least claim to agree with me. I'm not sure I believe it, but I know the other side doesn't".

With Giuliani a conservative knows he's lost before he even sets foot in the voting booth.

...could vote for him, he'd have to win the nomination and Lieberman hopping aboard won't help him anywhere except MAYBE New Hampshire.

That said, only McCain and perhaps Thompson can win in 2008 and neither appears anywhere near the front of the pack.

As for my name being an oxymoron... whatever... I'll take the trend lines on my party over the ones on yours at the moment and we'll leave it at that.

does not equal the democratic party. Obama personally has a very nice tredline going, but I wouldn't get too cocky about the way things are going for the larger party. You may want to refresh yourself as to how Pelosi and Reid have been doing lately.

...tea in China? Congress is a major disappointment, but its terrible numbers are because NO ONE... left or right... is happy with what's going on there. Democrats wants them to go left, REpublicans right. (So a 19 approval rating means that 71 of Democrats + Republicans hate congress, not 71 of Democrats and Republicans hate Pelosi and Reed.) Still, the country, as a whole, wants out of Iraq (no need to debate if that's right or wrong) and the President's party is saddled with eight years of scandal weariness. (And now, I guess, as I type this I'd have to admit that while the Republican trendline is decidedly down, the Democatic trendline is probably just static). When the dust clears in 2008, based on history and the amount of seats the Republicans have to defend, plus the amount of retirements... its an almost certainty that both houses of Congress will have larger Democratic majorities than currently exist.

Oh, a grumble here and there, but all in all? This was a good year for the neocons.

2008 will be better, of course.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...but math was never my strong suit.

but how many more will they lose in the House? And how many losses will be offset by gains in those Republican seats the Dems only won because the Republican was a crook? Conservative Democrats in redstates are already bracing for the impact of a Hillary ticket.

if Obama is the nominee, I worry that the D's will pick up seats, because he personally is a strong candidate.

If Hillary is the nominee, we will definately get our majorities back, even if Ron Paul is our candidate.

...and your best/my worst case scenario where to play out... the Senate will be in D's hands for at least the next 6 years. The 08 and 10 playing fields are decidedly not in the R's favor.

Huckabee is well to the left of McCain. He might even be to the left of Romney. If McCain wins the nomination, he'd need Fred Thompson or John Kasich to secure the base.

Must have been voter fraud that put him in office. That's what happens whenever "real" democrats lose anything. Anytime. Anywhere. Rationally speaking, of course.

absentee

For several reasons.

First. McCain's age. If he gets the nomination, there is a strong likelihood that he will not run for a second term. He is going to need a R VP in waiting.

Secondly. Lieberman does not give him anything he doesn't already have - it already appeals to I's and conservative D's. MCCain will need to shore up his right flank in the general election.

No candidate needs to "shore up their right flank" too much if Hillary is running. Anyone even leaning towards the right will vote Republican. Rather, the GOP candidate should concentrate on grrabbing as many independents as possible to beat Hillary.

but not enough people on the right will be enthusiastic enough about this ticket to spend their time and energy to GOTV. Hillary's rabid fan base will come out in droves to move her into the White House, will the independents and conservative Democrats we hope to lure away offset the conservatives who stay away?

...and both McCain and Lieberman tend to be mavericks. Besides, in the real world of politics (the "getting things done" part, as opposed to the "get me elected" part), it should be a good thing that a former-Democrat might endorse a Republican.

As a friend pointed out the other night, most of the action on bills and such goes on behind the camera, not on the Floor. I watched McCain literally cuddling up to Kennedy out of C-SPAN's range ... and McCain's bill (I'm sorry, can't remember which one) passed a few days later.

Cross-Party endorsements are not a bad thing ... sometimes I think we spend too much time on Us v. Them ... remember, when the elections are over, the winners have to work together.

While I'm sure Joementum will elaborate more tomorrow, I'm guessing that this is based partially on friendship (two "maverick" Senators), but mainly on the fact that Joe "gets it" on the War on Terror, and frankly McCain (for all his faults on other issues) is the candidate best ready to prosecute the war--certainly more than Romney (who has no foreign policy experience beyond doing missionary work in Gay Pairee in the 60s) or Rudy (while he does talk a good game, towing the cars of UN diplomats isn't quite the same as what McCain has done).

Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for either Mitt or Rudy (although I'd be more reluctant on Rudy given life), but if you're a single issue GWOT voter (which Lieberman at this point probably is), then McCain looks like the best option.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

He is not Presidential material. He belongs in the House. The most important issue in this election is defeating islamo-fascists, and Ron Paul would surrender.

BTW - I think Ron Paul is great on domestic policy.