Joe Lieberman won't run for office in 2010. CC by Unknown/Wikimedia Commons

Senator Joe Lieberman has announced that he will not run for re-election in 2012. After more than 20 years as a United States Senator, Joe Lieberman has decided to retire. After four terms, he has decided it is time to move on.

Senator Joe Lieberman getting out after four terms

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has finally a he’ll retire from Senate after four terms in office. The New York Times reports that a press conference in a Marriott hotel in Stamford was the site of the announcement from Lieberman, and it was expected. He made a joke about telling his wife that “when Regis leaves television, I’ll leave the Senate,” while saying he wanted to move to something else. Regis Philbin indeed recently announced his retirement from television. Next Lieberman made it clear he didn’t quite agree with Republicans or Democrats right now.  Lieberman is an independent in the Senate — one of only two right now. Both tend to lean Democrat in most decisions.

Political career ending

Joe Liebermann has been in elected office for almost 40 years. He was elected to serve as the Attorney General of Connecticut from 1983 to 1989 after being a State Senator in Connecticut for 10 years. He took his seat in the U.S. Senate immediately after his Attorney General post. He’s held the position since, despite losing the Democratic primary in 2006. He ran successfully as an independent. He has been criticized for advocating the war in Iraq and endorsing John McCain in the 2008 election, citing Barack Obama’s lack of experience.

Others want the position

Many successors are thinking of running to take his place. Linda McMahon, who unsuccessfully ran as the Republican candidate against Richard Blumenthal, is rumored to still want a Senate seat. There was an announcement already from former Secretary of State of Connecticut, Susan Bysiewicz. She plans on running in the 2012 election for the seat.

Sources

New York Times

NPR

Senator John Kerry hailed the Senate cloture vote to end debate on the new START treaty as a great bipartisan effort. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The new START treaty, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, has been approved to be voted on by the Senate. The Senate had seemed to stall on passing the treaty, which reduces American and Russian nuclear arsenals. The START treaty vote was incredibly close.

Senate barely ratifies new START treaty

The U.S. Senate has passed a cloture motion, clearing the way to a final vote on the new START treaty after a tumultuous few days of debate and some harangues between partisan factions. Cloture is a part of parliamentary procedure, which forces debate to wrap up and a vote to be held. The START treaty vote for cloture was incredibly close, as it just barely cleared the necessary two-thirds majority with a vote of 67 for and 28 against, according to the New York Times. In all, there were eleven Republicans who crossed party lines and voted to kill debate. No Democrats voted against it. Though the treaty did pass, it did so by only two votes. There will still be a Democrat controlled Senate in 2011, but the lead will be even slimmer.

Old saw forms basis of objections

The biggest thorn in the sides of Republicans over this bill was mostly over missile defense. Missile defense systems have been a huge issue for decades, especially during the Reagan administration when the Strategic Defense Initiative or the “Star Wars” program, was an enormous national priority, though the program wasted billions of dollars, produced no results and was known to not be feasible to begin with. Senate Republicans wanted to ensure that the treaty did not impinge on the capability to develop and deploy missile defenses at home or possibly in Europe, though John McCain (R-AZ) had assured that it would not.

Final vote still pending

The final vote on the treaty, New START, may take place before Christmas. If the treaty passes, it will reduce the number of U.S. Warheads to 1,550 and number of launchers to 700. Then it must be approved by the Duma, the Russian legislature.

Sources

New York Times

John McCain heavily defeated J.D. Hayworth, the Tea Party favorite, in the Arizona primary. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Sometimes old dogs do learn new tricks. The trick for John McCain was how to make sure that he didn’t lose the Arizona Republican Primary to a Tea Party endorsed candidate, J.D. Hayworth. John McCain isn’t the only incumbent facing a similar candidate, but McCain still knows how to campaign. Hayworth was trounced in the primary, and will have to lick his wounds for another six years. The Florida Senate race and Alaska Senate race are also being closely watched, as many wonder just how effective the Tea Party rallies and activism will be in the end.

McCain serves crow to Tea Party

Senator John McCain, the defeated Republican candidate from the last presidential election, had a fight on his hands. Former congressman J.D. Hayworth, a Republican and Tea Party darling, was gunning for his Senate seat, along with many other anti-incumbent candidates. While the hostility toward the Washington establishment may help others, it did Hayworth no good. McCain received about 60 percent of the vote and Hayworth only 30 percent. Granted, John McCain did spend about $20 million on campaigning, and he changed his previous tune on immigration, according to CNN. He is expected to easily defeat the Democratic candidate.

Three choices for Sunshine State Senate

The Florida election results 2010 should prove interesting. Governor Charlie Crist is running as an independent. The Republican candidate, and also a Tea Party heavy, is Marco Rubio, a member of the Florida legislature. The Democratic primary just concluded, and Representative Kendrick Meek upset billionaire Jeff Greene. Greene self-financed his campaign but failed to capture the primary.

Alaska up for grabs

The home state of Sarah Palin also has a closely watched election for the U.S. Senate. Longtime incumbent Lisa Murkowski faces a challenge in the Republican primary from Jeff Miller, a Tea Party affiliated candidate who also has an endorsement from Sarah Palin. That race is virtually neck and neck, with Miller leading by a paper thin margin. Tea Party candidates are thus far somewhat successful in primaries, but the true success will be determined in November.

Further Reading

CNN

The Arizona immigration bill has been derided by President Obama as misguided. Photo from Wikimedia Commons

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, also known as SB 1070 or the Arizona immigration bill, has caused a firestorm of controversy.  Allegations of racial profiling and discrimination, among other things, have been flung in the debate.  The President of the United States himself condemned it, while his former campaign nemesis John McCain has come out in support of the bill.  The Arizona immigration bill has also drawn the ire of the Catholic Church.  Despite protests on either side of the debate, the fact remains that Arizona will soon need debt management dealing with the problem.

President Obama slams Arizona immigration bill

The President has condemned the Arizona immigration bill, SB 1070, as being “misguided,” as reported by CBS.  He also said the bill could potentially “undermine basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans” and that it threatened the public’s trust in law enforcement.  The bill would allow police officers to ask for identification of anyone suspected of a crime they believed to be in the country illegally. The Mexican government has passed a resolution asking for Governor Brewer to not sign the bill, as they believe the bill will be an impetus for discrimination against Hispanics.

John McCain backs bill seemingly reversing course

Senator John McCain, according to a New York Times blog, has voiced his support of the Arizona immigration bill.  Senator McCain had previously adopted stances more favorable to immigrants, and this seems to be a reversal of posture.  In an interview on Fox News, he told Bill O’Reilly that he thought the state was doing what is believed to be the best thing.  The federal government, as he and others have pointed out, has failed to do much about illegal immigration.  The state of Arizona is on the verge of needing money now to deal with illegal immigration in the state.  Arizona officials deal with this problem more than almost any other state.

It all comes down to Gov. Jan Brewer

The Arizona immigration bill is set to go to Governor Jan Brewer’s desk for approval.  There have been repeated calls for her to veto the bill.  The Mexican government, the Bishop of Tuscon and the Archbishop of the Los Angeles Diocese are among the many who are calling for a veto.  Several Latino members of Congress, including Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva have denounced the bill as racist.  President Obama has announced that he will have staff reviewing the legality of the legislation, should it pass.

Birthers probably wonder if his medical license is from Kenya, too (Photo: Examiner.com)

Sen. McCain has already made it known that he didn’t approve of the original $1 billion allotted for the Cash For Clunkers bill, so he definitely doesn’t approve of funneling $2 billion more into it. He will do all he can short of a filibuster (the GOP can’t pull that off since the Democrats have a super majority) to stop the additional funding. Good luck, John. By running out of money so quickly, it could be argued that Cash For Clunkers has been an overwhelming success. That is, the Obama administration got what they wanted in less than two weeks, when they had allotted several months to get thousands of gas-guzzling cars off the road. Now, if I can convince you to try no fax payday loans and short term loans when your budget needs a bridge to payday – and do it in that little time – this little venture here would be equally successful.

The auto industry definitely needed a boost

And cornerstones of the American economy (like Ford Motors) got it in July, largely thanks to the Cash For Clunkers bill. I don’t care how long it took Cash For Clunkers to achieve it’s goal… it was successful. And I now believe that it shouldn’t be extended, because too many taxpayers will come to depend on such a program over time. I like the description that it was supposed to “prime the pump” for automotive industry sales, not become a permanent fixture. Whether people are going to truly be able to afford the Cash For Clunkers bill vehicles they’ve obtained is another matter.

But did Cash For Clunkers help the Obamacare movement?

And by Obamacare, know that I’m referring to the current effort to reform the healthcare system. Clearly, the amount of time and money that would be involved in making the Cash For Clunkers bill program a success was underestimated. That has led to scores of conservative commentators saying that if they miss the cost estimate on something like Cash For Clunkers, just imagine was the Obama administration will do with health care reform.

An interesting blog post by Robert George on the NBC Bay Area Web site points out the above alternative view of the Cash For Clunkers goings on. What if the costs for universal health care are being underestimated? We know that Americans were quick to lap up the Cash For Clunkers deal. If we’re talking taking care for oneself, would that be even more in demand? Apply for no fax payday loans and short term loans while you think about it.

Not so much

Americans show every day just how much they care about their vehicles versus their own bodies. Constant washing and maintenance, pushing their credit to the limit, all part of that love affair with the automobile. Yet the majority of people in this country don’t take proper care of themselves. Smoking, overeating, lack of exercise, damaging the environment and having it come back to them in a big way with a rise in skin cancer due to ozone holes… and that’s just the beginning.

But George spins this as fiscal irresponsibility. It’s a common argument against Obama’s health care plan, and the fact that Cash For Clunkers ran out of money as quickly as it did won’t help dispel that notion. $1 trillion over 10 years for Obamacare? Seems unlikely, but whatever the case, we must be willing to pay for the health of our population. Trim the fat from anywhere; I’d suggest obsolete defense contracts that are left on the books merely because they keep people close to Republican congressmen and women employed.

It won’t make Obama’s battle any easier

If Obamacare is going to make it as it needs to, Democrats are going to have to remain unified behind the notion that there will be areas to cut. There have to be, considering how many taxpayers we have. That money has to be going somewhere, and if we can cut out the pork projects, I’m sure there’s enough money to make universal healthcare a reality.

Related Video (apparently, there they were feeling the aftershocks of the Baja California quakes):