Well, not twins, just symmetrical.
There is a tendency amongst Democrats, especially on this blog to decry Lieberman as 'not a real Democrat', as a Republican who masqueraded as a Democrat for years to hide his true agenda, while at the same time decrying John McCain as 'John McSame', a 'conservative Republican', a 'phony maverick'. In parallel to this, conservatives called McCain a 'Republican in Name Only', a collaborator, and considered Lieberman a representative of the dying traditions of the Democratic party.
The reason for this is because we're all stupid. The two exhibit surprising parallels in their voting behaviours. Both vote the party line, dissenting only on 'pet issues'. At his most 'maverick', in 2001, McCain voted with the Republicans on three of every four votes. Lieberman hasn't fallen below 85% party loyalty since 1996. You cannot argue that McCain is a Republican and that Lieberman is not a Democrat in his voting patterns. The implications of this are below the fold.
John McCain has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82. Joe Lieberman's is 16. If we adopt a simplistic 'if you're not a conservative you're a liberal' analysis (and let's; the ACU treat it that way), then Lieberman is about as much a Democrat as McCain is a Republican. McCain has a lifetime average from Americans for Democratic Action of 14.5; Lieberman has an average of 77. Again: McCain is about as liberal as Lieberman is conservative -- which is to say, not very much.
Even if you assume both underwent 'radical transformations' in the last decade, with their earlier records skewing the score, it doesn't hold up. From 1997-2007, McCain's average ACU rating was 75; that's quite low for a Republican, but he's certainly not a liberal, or even much of a moderate. In the same period Lieberman's ADA rating was 80, boosted dramatically by his 95 score in 2001 (abnormal, for him); again, that's quite low for a Democrat, but he's not a Republican.
So what does this mean, now that the election is over? Well, it shows how silly much of our political discourse is. In 2001, McCain was seriously said to be considering becoming a Democrat, despite voting with the Republicans 75% of the time and holding conservative positions on most issues. The Republicans say they'll welcome Lieberman to their caucus, despite the fact that he voted with Democrats nearly 90% of the time this Congress. Yes, Lieberman's a prick and McCain's insufferable, but their voting records are well, well within the folds of acceptable party dissent.
I don't accept the view that the parties should try to stick firmly to 'the centre', and run candidates who'll stay as far away from their party as possible. But we can't have these double standards -- the main point of this post. If John McCain's a party-line Republican, then Joe Lieberman's a Democrat, and vice versa.
Of course, this actually STRENGTHENS the argument for Lieberman to lose his committee chair! Because, as the above records show, Lieberman and McCain agree on the war, and nothing else. On domestic policy, they share absolutely no goals, except in terms so broad that nearly every senator shares the same goals. That means one or both of the following:
--The war is so important to Lieberman, so overwhelmingly huge as an issue, that he's prepared to endorse a man he disagrees with 90% of the time just because he would have continued our policies in Iraq.
--Lieberman is so angry, so absolutely consumed with vengeance over his treatment by the Democrats, that he endorsed a man who he knows would take the country in the wrong direction on social and economic policy just to say 'screw you' to his tormentors.
If it's option one, then Lieberman shouldn't be given an oversight portfolio, given that he's so fanatically opposed to the foreign policies of the President. If it's option two, then Lieberman shouldn't be trusted with an oversight portfolio, because of such obvious and glaring character faults.