I doubt that you have voted half and half all your life. You just created an unlikely scenario here. In most cases (unless somebody has a gun to your head) your vote is a reflection of your own beliefs and disposition. The only time I would expect to see somebody being 50/50 on his voting record is when it is either his second time voting or he decided to change parties (which is excusable). I don't think very many people vote the opposite way just to fool people. That would be ridiculous.
Wow, you really don't understand the dynamics of politics in this country, do you?
Very few politicians are 100% liberal or 100% conservative. In fact, many candidates in both parties may be economically liberal and socially conservative, or economically conservative and socially liberal. Look at the voting records of every single Congressman. More specifically, look at Sen. Ben Nelson and Rep. Chris Shays. Both of them have political ideologies which go against the typical ideologies associated with liberals and conservatives. So how do you classify that?
Someone who has been voting for ten years in Nebraska could have a mixed record of voting for Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel for the Senate. One's a Democrat and the other is a Republican, and both could be classified as moderates. Is that not an exact representation of independence? Is that not an exact representation of someone voting for candidates based on the ISSUES they support, versus political affiliation?
Same thing in Connecticut. If an independent voter voted for Chris Shays for Congress and Chris Dodd for Senate, how can that not be a sign of political independence? Once again, that voter would be voting on the issues and not on party or ideology.
It is rare that independents are true independents. However, approximately a quarter of independent voters are true independents who do not confine themselves to one party.
It is still conservatism by virtue of the fact that you still call it that.
Ugh. It is not conservatism which can be associated to one party, which is the type of attitude you have taken throughout this thread. Bill Clinton had many conservative traits. So do many Democrats in Congress.
Look, you can be embarrassed all you want. I am more interested in this country getting out of and staying out of a rut. There are plenty of intelligent folks out there who know better than you.
So, you are interested in getting the country out of a financial rut by pouring BILLIONS of dollars WE DON'T HAVE into an industry which is DYING? That is not fiscal responsibility at all, that is throwing all your chips on the table and blindly hoping for success.
You still using yours I see. It is not going to happen. They will survive because enough people care, not like you.
If Americans cared about the dying American automobile industry, then they wouldn't have put Toyota in a likely position to become America's number one automobile manufacturer years ago. But because Toyota actually provides vehicles which are FUEL EFFICIENT, RELIABLE and AFFORDABLE, people have given up on the American automobile industry altogether.
This is business. If American manufacturers cannot compete with foreign manufacturers in the automobile market, then oh well. Sorry all those jobs are going to be lost, but maybe the executives at these companies should have thought about that before relying on outdated business models while their competitors offered top-of-the-line products Americans WANT instead.
This is nonsense. If that were the case, the they wouldn't have the market share that they do in North America. I wish people like you would stop throwing out baseless opinions and start looking at the facts.
I only see one model each for BMW and Mercedes (the X3 and S-Class respectively) the must be keeping it very hush hush. It shouldn't be surprising that alternative fueled vehicle is the trend now since the volatile fluctuation of fuel prices hit. I is left to be seen who will come on top. My bet is that there is enough pie for everyone if the economy improves and the government is serious about energy independence. If the price of gas stays down, though, this will be a passing fad, just like it was some 30 years ago.
You also know that Mercedes-Benz allows its customers the option of using biofuels on most (if not all) of its vehicles, right?
And I'm not talking about the luxury market, though that's a good place to look considering Lexus has three popular hybrid vehicles in its fleet and has another on the way. No, I'm talking about the sedan/ SUV market. Look at Toyota-- they have three hybrid models available (the Prius, Camry and Highlander). Look at Honda. They have a hybrid, a car which runs on natural gas, and the first fuel cell vehicle to be released (though it is only limited in California and New York). Honda is also releasing three more hybrid vehicles in the next two years, two of which are projected to get more than 65 miles per gallon.
And hell-- let's even look beyond hybrid cars for a moment! Toyota, Honda, Mini, Suzuki, Kia, Hyundai, and Volkswagen have compact cars which get 30-40 miles per gallon. How many do GM have? ONE-- the Chevy Aveo, which accelerates poorly and has very little interior space when compared to the Honda FIT and Mini Cooper Clubman.
And look at this: The top 10 most fuel efficient vehicles, all of which get above 34 miles per gallon:
http://www.findgascards.com/blog/10-ten-fuel-efficient-vehicles-for-2008/
Notice anything interesting? Only ONE of those vehicles is American made!
Seriously, do not argue that American vehicles are more innovative or that the hybrid/ compact market is going to go down. The latter has been rising for YEARS and does not appear to be dropping even with the decrease in gas prices (looks like Americans learned their lesson when gas hit $4 a gallon over the summer, no?). The former is something which could have and should have been solved years ago, but American car companies were too busy focusing on how they could reap the most profits THEN than in the FUTURE.
That, my friend, is poor business.
Oh for sure they will need more than $25 (or even $34) billion, but they don't necessarily need to get the difference from the feds. Once the financial markets stabilize (hopefully after the first quarter of next year) and the banks start lending again, the government can guarantee them loans through private sources (just like what was done with Chrysler back in 1979). As far as you dissing Obama, you should know better than that. He is being advised by some pretty brilliant people and if you have live as long as he has, you would know that bailouts work. What needs to be present is a plan to create jobs, shoring up the economy, and oversight of the Big 3 while they are under the bailout plan, which is what is being worked out now.
What needs to be done is to eliminate these awful car companies and allow true innovators to take over the automobile market in America. If Ford, GM and Chrysler fall, I have no doubt in my mind that an intelligent businessman who understands the dynamics of this situation would start an automobile company which actually provides innovation, fuel efficiency, and affordability.
), foreign manufactures have twice the innovative vehicles planned in the coming years. The American automobile industry will never be able to fix all of its problems over night. Meanwhile, they are going to experience even more economic woes in the years ahead, and what are they going to do then? Ask for more bailouts?
lets just hope it is his "theoretical choice" or something 
