Voting record ratings are BS.  They attempt to measure a multi-variable equation with one variable.

Case in point: Dennis Kucinich voted against the SCHIP bill in 2008 when Bush vetoed it.  That vote was along with a lot of conservatives.  Did Kucinich see the light and decide that government shouldn't be in the business of health insurance?  No.  He voted against the bill because it didn't cover children of illegal immigrants.  He thought it wasn't "liberal enough" as it were.

Yet another case is when Kucinich (and Bernie Sanders) voted against the bailout.  Why?  Because they saw it as a giveaway to corporate america rather than because they were staunch supporters of the free market.

I'd dare to say someone who gets a 100% rating from any "liberal" organization isn't all that liberal.  And even if I gave any weight to these ratings (lol, I made a funny), they don't rate based on why someone voted they did -- just how.

And then we'd have to get into the whole idea that political philosophy is way too diverse to be restricted to the liberal/conservative dichotomy.  What is Ron Paul?  How about Jeff Flake?  Well, yes, they're libertarians, but where do they fit on the left/right spectrum.  The correct answer is that they don't.

Just because I don't feel Republicans are any less likely to add "pork" doesn't mean I think it's okay for Democrats to do the same.  I do not agree with the "Stimulus Package" in so far as I don't feel that the government can appropriately allocate the money.  I would, however, be perfectly willing to re-acquire my own money up to but not exceeding the total amount I pay in taxes.  And I would spend it.

I do not agree with the TARP program and I do not agree with the allocation of money to be given to GM, Ford, or Chrysler, either.  All of these things have been communicated, in writing, to my Senator and Representative.  Of the many letters I've written I have only received one response.  I've never even received an automated response.

 It's sort of like pornography -- you know it when you see it.

But one person's pork is often someone else's vital project. For instance, McCain several years ago ranted about federal money to help restore Vulcan, the world's largest cast-iron statue, which sits atop Red Mountain overlooking Birmingham, Alabama. McCain saw it as a waste. In Alabama Vulcan is viewed as the symbol of the city, much like the Statue of Liberty is to New York and the Gateway Arch is to St. Louis. 

Most of the money to restore Vulcan was raised privately but there was so much damage (cast-iron tends to rust) that it cost many millions so there was a need for government money to supplement the private money.

Likewise, some project in Arizona might look like pork to folks elsewhere. A lot of these projects get trivialized by critics and you never hear anything about why funding was sought in the first place for the project.

n/t

...so, I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.  If people were so anti-Jew, it's hard to believe that 50% of the people would vote for a ticket with a Jew as VP.  History tells us that if Gore had won, Lieberman would have stood something like a 20% chance of becoming president.

But yeah, Franken will never be president, because, well, sanity will somehow prevail one would hope and we would not be electing second-rate comedians and partisan political talk-show hacks to the most important office in the land ;-)

Americans  aren't ready to accept a Jewish President.

We came very close to having a jewish VP back in 2000. Do you think that this discrimination is only applicable to Presidents and not VP (we saw with Cheny that the VP can pretty-much run the show if he's allowed to). Also, there are plenty of Jewish politicians in high elected office (Congress, Governors, Mayors). There were even a number of people who wanted Bloomberg and Feingold to run for President in the last election.