Jeffords' change of heart

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Kelannar » Tue May 22, 2001 9:02 pm

I am so unbelievably angry right now over the thought that some liberal Republican from Vermont might actually join the Democrats, altering the balance of power in the Senate. His betrayal of his Republican Senate Collegues, with whom he has worked for years and who have given him chairmanships, is an absolute disgrace. This man is a coward of the weakest sort, a partisan whore who will stop at nothing to soothe his ego in the national spotlight while he holds the nation hostage because of his arrogant demands.<BR><BR>I think the turning point for Republicans was when Gore tried to steal the election. I remember watching the conservatives in the municipal building who almost rioted when they learned that the Democrats were going to kick out all reporters and count the votes behind closed doors. I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. No longer would the people, much less the politicians, hold back anymore when faced with a threat. I think that this act by Jeffords is a similar threat of the most severe kind which requires war-like retalitation. This act by Jeffords, which will give the Senate to the Democrats, will destroy any attempts to keep personal issues out of politics. Betrayal of one's friends and collegues is intensely personal.<BR><BR>Maybe I've been reading too much Mario Puzo, but this act of betrayal requires retribution of the most severe kind. Like the conservative Republicans on the ground in Florida who refused to let the Democrats walk all over them, I think that SOMETHING must be done. It is time to fight fire with fire. If Jeffords converts, then the Republicans should work on converting Zell Miller of Georgia, to make the balance 50-50 again. Furthermore, after they retain control, they should censure Jeffords and strip him of his position on any committees. Finally, I think that Bush should unilaterally veto any funding for Vermont that Jeffords supports, and should unliaterally veto anything that does not have the support of all of the Republicans in the Senate. That veto should be used like a sword, swiftly and with venom, to destroy any power the Democrats in the Senate might acquire.<BR><BR>Ultimately, given the fact that Republicans are no longer willing to be pushed to the wall anymore, I think this is a losing issue for the Democrats even IF they get power in the Senate. It will only embolden the conservatives, convincing them that the only way to win is to wage war, and to use all power to its utmost ends. Because ultimately, that is what the Democrats have learned to do. They will stop at nothing, so neither shall we. If the end result sorely damages American government and its institutions, that is of no consequence. I think this is not just a war of attrition - ultimately Republicans are fighting a losing battle. So better to mount casulities on the other side than to let them walk all over you.
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby legolas the elf » Tue May 22, 2001 9:14 pm

I like the Green Party, myself...<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
legolas the elf
Mariner

 
Posts: 8768
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 5:12 pm
Location: In the forest
Top

Postby peregin2k » Tue May 22, 2001 9:21 pm

Interesting...maybe his conscience can't take it anymore. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0> <BR><BR>It's been happening here in Canada, too, seven right wing Alliance MPs has left their party and demand for Stocky (Stockwell Day) to step down. (Whew, glad he didn't become Prime Minister.) The Liberals don't want to take them either, so they have to stay "independent" for now.
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby Drogo Baggins » Tue May 22, 2001 9:28 pm

Somebody's been listening to way too much Rush Limbaugh....<BR><BR><BR>I haven't heard of this change but if Mr. Jeffords feels that the Democrats better reflect his views on the issues he is free to make a change in his affiliation and more power to him. You'll remember that several Democrats became Republicans in the last Congress. And if the republicans react with the venom you suggest it will only prove that, in general, Democrats are nicer people than Republicans. <BR>(Did you hear that the stories of Clinton staffers vandalizing the White House before they left has been proven to be only lies by Clinton-haters....) <BR><BR><BR>BTW, your comment "<i>when Gore tried to steal the election</i>" should actually be "when Bush stole the election..."
User avatar
Drogo Baggins
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Land of the Indians
Top

Postby peregin2k » Tue May 22, 2001 9:34 pm

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0><BR>Hehehe... Way to go Drogo, on the elections comment! I was gonna say something but hey I'm a Canuck! What the heck am I doing on this thread anyways!
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby Gandalf'sMother » Tue May 22, 2001 9:56 pm

Thats the spirit Legolas! Now all we need to do is convert all the Democrats into Green's and I'll truly be a happy man!. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Now, back to the usual business of answering Kel's baseless accusations. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR><i>I am so unbelievably angry right now over the thought that some liberal Republican from Vermont might actually join the Democrats, altering the balance of power in the Senate. His betrayal of his Republican Senate Collegues, with whom he has worked for years and who have given him chairmanships, is an absolute disgrace. This man is a coward of the weakest sort, a partisan whore who will stop at nothing to soothe his ego in the national spotlight while he holds the nation hostage because of his arrogant demands.</i><BR><BR>How you can so arrogantly comdemn one's character for being brave enough to change his political philosophy rather than sheepishly conforming to his party buddies, is beyond me. Your display of disrespectful blabbering reveals your hopeless close-mindedness at its worst. Is it not possible that one could see wisdom in another philosophy greater than that of his own, and so alter his beliefs? Are you a traitor to the children of the US for no longer believing in Santa Claus? You were once of the Santa Claus-believin children's party. What happened? Did you sell out to the Knowledge crowd, who knows Santa Claus is a fictitious character? Come on Kel. The very IDEA that a Conservative could change his mind about what is right and what is wrong, in favor of a more liberal philosophy SCARES THE BE-JUMPIN-JESUS out of you doesn't it. Admit it. You are scared. <BR><BR>I have a close personal friend who once worked as a corporate lawyer. He defended Monsanto, Exxon, BP Amoco etc, against many allegations of environmental irresponsibility. He made buttloads of money while doing it too. Finally, he decided he couldn't sleep at night. He couldn't look at his kids anymore without feeling horribly guilty. He is now a passionate environmental lawyer. I like to think he had a positive revelation, that has improved his life and cleared his conscience. I would never consider him to be a traitor to the Corporate world, or to his big business friends, or to the oil industry. <BR><BR>You have absoultely no basis on which to judge Jefford's actions. I was always under the impression that switching political parties was the equivalent of political suicide. He will lose a lot of credibility for this. I hardly think it was a matter of betrayal for his own personal satisfaction. He must feel deeply about his disagreement with the Republican Party in order to make such a drastic, and risky move. Your condemnation is childish and ridiculous. Perhaps you should grow up a bit, and realize that those who do not agree with you might actually not be venomous hell-spawn. It is possible, isn't it?<BR><BR>-Mother Maiar<BR>P.S. And yes, you may be reading too much Mario Puzo. Either that, or you've watched the Godfather trilogy too often. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Gandalf'sMother
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11164
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 2:10 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Tue May 22, 2001 9:56 pm

First - in the Election, seven Supreme Court Justices agreed that the Democratic workers in Florida were violating the Constitution. What they were doing was illegal. Even better, the Florida Supreme Court's decision supporting Gore's actions was absolutely vacated - which in legal terms means that it was obliterated into the dust - by ALL NINE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, BEFORE they even decided on an argument and a remedy. That is undeniable history that cannot be ignored. Gore did everything to try to steal that election and failed, and the historical analysis of that bears it out.<BR><BR>Second, Drogo: If you actually believe that a willingness to fight fire with fire means that when the Democrats do it, they're nice, but that when the Republicans do it they're evil, then you take an extraordinarily hypocritical stance. Why should the Republicans let the Democrats walk all over them?<BR><BR>PS: I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in years, because he broadcasts from 12-3 and that's when I have classes and when I work. I don't watch TV or listen to the radio much, and when I do it's for relaxation. I read a lot, though, and I don't need some on-the-air commentator like Limbaugh or Dan Rather to influence what information I hear. This news will be on the front page of every paper in the world tomorrow.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Tue May 22, 2001 10:08 pm

GM, this is hardly principled. Jeffords wanted money for a group of Teachers Unions he promised money to, and he wanted to attend a ceremnony at the White House even after he abandoned support of Bush's education package. Jeffords is retaliating because he didn't get to share the spotlight with Bush. Reports suggest he was actively courted by liberal Democrats who are angry that a group of 10 moderate Democrtats are wielding power with the Republicans (much like business was done with conservative Democrats in the 80s), and that these liberal Democrats promised Jefforts seniority on committees if he would defect. <BR><BR>This is all about personal power. It has NOTHING to do with principles. A man doesn't decide on principle to defect from a party resulting in the change of power in the Senate because he couldn't attend a ceremony at the White House. That is ridiculious. No, what Jeffords is doing is putting the entire nation at hostage by holding up Bush's efforts to work with 10 moderate Democrats, and he is whoreing himself out to the Minority leaders in order to get a great package when he converts. He also gets the national spotlight and embarasses Bush for not inviting him to the White House. This has NOTHING to do with principles.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Tue May 22, 2001 11:19 pm

Kel,<BR><BR>Maybe HE feels betrayed by the Republican Party. I know *I* am starting to. Besides, he doesn't answer to or represent you... he represents and answers to the voters of Vermount so your ranting and raving is pretty much an infantile temper-tantrum, isn't it? As a member of a Republican family from Texas who were Republicans before there WAS a functional republican Party in Texas and a long time supporter of Bush, let me say that there WAS a mandate in the last election... and it was not for right-wing extremism... it was for moderate policies. In fact, Bush ran on a more middle of the road platform that what he is demonstrating. With things as close as they are, neither side can expect to be able to FORCE the moderates of either party to move toward or support extremist positions but Bush has been acting like he won in a landslide and with overwhelming rightwing extreme majorities in both houses. Maybe this is just the wake up call the Republican Party needs, but I have a feeling that rather than look inwards to see if the blame rest with themselves, they will place blame externally on others.<BR><BR>I said after the election that WHICHEVER side tried to exert pressure to move things towards one of the extremes or the other they would set in motion an opposing force which would cause people to move AWAY from their extreme position for years. Looks like the right-wing of the Republican Party was the first and so they are going to loose and hurt the cause of more conservative (not extreme conservative) politics in this country. If Bush and his efforts to move things backwards result in political losses and resistance, it is their fault, not the fault of the people who are resisting them. The other thing I have never understood is why people who side with a political position that does not win think that everyone should be obligated to vote with them, even when those people do not agree with them. Don't we WANT a nation where people vote their conscience instead of blindly following orders from their "masters"... isn't that what you have in totalitarian regimes?
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Wed May 23, 2001 5:17 am

LOL<BR>sorry, couldn't resist.<BR>Well, I agree with Falkeep, who is apparently a compassionate conservative contrary to some others <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR>I agree, except that I never thought that what a politician said to be elected was really what he means. As someone said during French Revolution (ROberspierre??) "Language was given to man so that he could hide his mind". This applies to Dems as well as to Reps. And other parties, of course.<BR>Kel, what you're saying isn't the first example in mankind's history. I tend to think that it's partly a consequence of the 2-parties system of USA, because in countries with more parties, there are alliances to rule the country, and depending on the result of elections, it may happen that the parties closer to the centre may ally with right to govern, and with left another time. Not to mention that in basically every country we've seen parties split into half, sometimes merge, and sometimes individuals leaving the party for another.<BR>After all, it's not like if Colin Powel moved to Democrats. And in some countries, you cannot even be sure that if the head of the party favors one vote, their members will follow them in parliament, neither can they be sure their electorate would vote like them in a referendum.<BR>And finally, since some guys on both sides are obviously sell-out, and sometimes many people seem the government and the presidency themselves are sold out to big corporations, well, who would blame a guy from their same party to act like he's sold out to Dems <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>About the balance of power, it would be more balanced, in fact, if Senate isn't Republican, since they hold Representatns Room, Supreme Court and Presidency. And after all it happened before that some Dems vote with Republican majority, or reverse.<BR>Last: this guy may well not be elected again next time. If Vermont people feel betrayed, they may vote for a more conservative Republican next time.<BR><BR>PS: and you don't want Reps to retaliate too strongly, may make them look as sore losers. Neither should Bush try to annoy Vermont, it's a problem with the guy not the electors, and Bush may need Vermont vote in 4 years; blocking funds would just alienate them.
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top

Postby Gamgee Wench » Wed May 23, 2001 5:46 am

<BR>Well, I'm not that upset by this, and I'm pretty conservative. Maybe age has mellowed me but this is just politics as usual. Yes, I realize that this definitely shifts things for some, but I like a balance of power, not letting one side get too much power, kinda how it was designed. This guy didn't vote conservative on most issues anyway. And Bush has really disappointed me in a few areas, so maybe this will be the wake up call he needs, and it is early in his term. I know I'm simplifying things greatly, but its my two cents. Besides Kel, if your keeping track, this is the first switch by a Repulican in a long time, decades if I have heard correct. Alot more Democrats have switched to Repulican over the years.....and he isn't going Democrat, just independent.<BR><BR>GM, he is definitely not shooting himself in the foot politically by doing this, in fact, he will probably gain alot of respect in Vermont, who tends to go for independents. As far as alot of Vermonters are concerned, he just became their King for doing this..<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR>This was not a stupid move by any means....
User avatar
Gamgee Wench
Mariner

 
Posts: 6123
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby InnocentEvil » Wed May 23, 2001 6:34 am

It's already been brought up, but I'll give a specific example of a highly respected senator switching horses midstream the OTHER way and everyone hailed him as a hero for doing so. A number of years ago Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched his allegiance from Dem to Rep. He was welcomed w/ open arms and while the Dems were sorry to see him go, but there was never the huge reaction that's come up over just the POSSIBILITY of Jeffords' switch. <BR><BR>Bush lied to the niave voter. He called himself a compassionate conservative when it was convenient. Those of us who were paying attention knew his REAL stand on the issues(basesd on his track record) and we knew that a leapoard cannot change his spots THAT MUCH. We knew he'd get the votes of those people disgusted by the Clinton administration and he did. I believe Bush won the election fairly(according to our current laws) but I don't believe he wont it TRUTHFULLY. He stood for big business, big industry and against the environment and the little guy all along. He just has excellent handlers who taught him very well how to win this election.<BR><BR>So what's new? Are we really surprised? As GamgeeWench said, it's politics as usual. Every candidate tries to portray himself in such a way as to appeal to the highest percentage of voters. That's why they pay thousands of dollars to consultants and spin doctors who teach each candidate what to say to whom. Those of us who were paying attention knew exactly what Mr.Bush would do if and when he got elected, and he's done just that. <BR><BR>The Dems lost the election because they did not have a strong candidate and they ran a race based on ignoring the last 8 yrs. Gore ran a campaign where he let his fear of Clinton's shadow rule him. In doing so, he made the same mistake the Nixon made when he ran against Kennedy. Ike begged Nixon to let him campaign, but Nixon insisted Ike stay in the background. Nixon was convinced that Ike would over-shadow him. Gore told Clinton to stay out of his campaign and that cost him the election. <BR><BR>Screwed up as he is, Bill Clinton is hugely enigmatic. He's extremely convincing and charming and his power over the voters(and all important FUNDRAISERS) is nothing short of miraculous. The reaction he recieved at the Dem National Convention should have told Gore how valuable an ally he could have been. Every pundit commented on Gore's lack of self confidence in this matter. Everyone said, way back in August that he had to quit running from Clinton and embrace him or he'd lose the voters. He did.<BR><BR>As if that wasn't bad enough, Gore COULD have bowed out gracefully once the situation in Florida became difficult. Had he done so, the majority of Americans, or at least Dems would have believed in some part of thier minds that the election was stolen from him. He would have been a shoe-in to run in 2004. Instead, he came out looking like spoiled and immature; a sore loser. I can't think of a single Dem I know personally who will even consider voting for him in '04, much less a Rep.<BR><BR><BR>Ok.. I got a little off topic(alright a LOT off topic)... <BR><BR>Back to Jeffords' defection(or POSSIBLE defection)<BR><BR>Personally, I think a small shift in the balance of power is a healthy thing. The idea of two branches and most of the third of our government controlled by ultra-conservatives terrifies me. If the Senate moves back the other way, I for one will be more than relieved.
User avatar
InnocentEvil
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 2:30 pm
Location: Colorado
Top

Postby The_Grey_Pilgrim » Wed May 23, 2001 7:40 am

Kel,<BR><BR>Calm down. Jeffords is a liberal democrat hiding in Republicans clothing anyway. I say good riddance. And if he jumps ship that is fine with me as history has shown that the party in power during off-year (non-presidential elections years) losses seats.<BR><BR><BR>As for who really stole the election, only those who are blind to the facts and are ruled by their emotions will say that Bush stole the election when every single indication not only shows that Gore tried to steal the election but that his camp had plans before the election for just such a scenario.<BR><BR><BR>I am not affiliated with any party but vote Republican more times than not. But Jeffords actions, if he does indeed jump, is highly personal and does not, NOT, take into account who he represents. Let him leave and let him take any others like him too. Good riddance.
User avatar
The_Grey_Pilgrim
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4620
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:03 am
Top

Postby AsGoot » Wed May 23, 2001 9:23 am

<i>This news will be on the front page of every paper in the world tomorrow.</i><BR><BR>Not in this world. Maybe in Keluverse <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
AsGoot
Servant of the Secret Fire

 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 3:31 am
Top

Postby Drogo Baggins » Wed May 23, 2001 10:49 am

Kel, when Clinton was elected (and for all 8 years of his term) the Republican Clinton-haters came out of the woodwork and worked hard to make life difficult for him at every turn. Noone can deny that they got very nasty and there is even proof that the events around Monica were orchestrated. It's too early in his term but it appears that Dubya is getting the respect of the office from the Democrats and willingness to work, that the Republicans didn't give Clinton. Hence, my statement that Democrats are nicer people.<BR><BR>You yell that the Supreme Court justices supported Bush. The fact that Bush went running to the Supreme Court to stop the recount of a very questionable situation says "stole the election" to me. Gore still won the popular vote, and if Bush had said "Go ahead and count, let's agree on the rules" he probably would have still won, but would have more respect for the win.
User avatar
Drogo Baggins
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Land of the Indians
Top

Postby The_Grey_Pilgrim » Wed May 23, 2001 11:08 am

Isn't it funny how when people bring up the fact that Bush appealed to the Supreme Court (which was his legal right) that those same people seem to conveniently forget about the activist nature of the Florida Supreme Court? They don't seem to remember that right before the election was to be certified by Katharine Harris the FSC jumped in with not even an appeal from anyone and issued their own rulings and postoned the certification.<BR><BR><BR>Memories are indeed fleeting.<BR><BR><BR>AsGoot, I love Kel for wearing his heart on his sleeve and agree with him more times than not. However, KELUVERSE was very funny indeed!
User avatar
The_Grey_Pilgrim
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4620
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:03 am
Top

Postby GoodSam » Wed May 23, 2001 12:30 pm

I side with GamgeeWench and TGP on this one. Jefford's affiliation change is simply politics as usual. I wholeheartedly agree that the reps should work hard to convert a conservative dem, but I don't think censure or any kind of action by the republican party against Jefrords would be wise. IE was correct in pointing out that Ben Campbell did indeed change parties a while back. The difference there is that his change did not change the balance of power, and he did not have any committee chairmanships. All the same, I would hate to see a spirit of vengeful titt-for-tat to catch hold in Congress.<BR><BR>I wouldn't say that this change scares me, but I am concerned that the chair of the Senate Education and Welfare Committee could end up going to Ted Kennedy. (HORROR!!!) This is terribly disappointing to me because I feel the main strength of Dubya's platform was his stand on education reform. Now it looks like his most constructive reforms will be quashed before they even begin.<BR><BR>Oh, and IE: I knew exactly how Bush would do once he got into office. That's why I was and still am a strong bush supporter. My only complaint is that he is not acting fast enough against the closing of public lands to suit me.
User avatar
GoodSam
Mariner


 
Posts: 8336
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2000 12:20 am
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 12:59 pm

One VERY notable partyswitcher that no one has brought up was our (Texas') own Phil Graham. When the Democratic Party was abusive to him for voting the ways he and his constituents wanted, when it became obvious that what he believed in and supported were not the same things as what the Democratic Party advocated and worked for, he left their Party. Of course, one thing that Phil did that NO ONE else has had the courage or moral integrity to do when THEY have switched sides is he resigned his seat, since his constituents elected him as a Democrat, and ran in a special election to re-fill his seat. That way his constituents (including me) could choose whether they wanted to be represented by him or by someone who was a Democrat. He was elected by an overwhelming margin... and I was one of the ones who voted for him. THAT tooks guts for him to do and I have always admired him for it.<BR><BR>I still don't understand, though, why it is wrong for Jeffords to consider switching from a Republican to a Democrat but it was ok for all of the Democrats who have switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party (including Strom Thurmun and many of the other senior members from the deep south) to have done so. Tell me again, Kel, why that isn't a hypocritical position? Just curious.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 5:11 pm

Hey Kel,<BR><BR>As I understand it, it is now official. Isn't it about time for you to climb back up on the table and start dancing your Raging Rag again? It obvious made a big impact on preventing Jeffords from following his conscious, didn't it?
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby InnocentEvil » Wed May 23, 2001 7:15 pm

GoodSam, the public lands thing is just one issue that friends can disagree about. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR>After the last presidential election(which, didn't it seem like people started running for like 3 yrs in advance?), I've had enough of the whole thing. People are what they are. Bush is exactly what his record shows he's been all along. Anyone who fell for the whole "compassionate conservatism" spiel deserves whatever disillusionment they're feeling.
User avatar
InnocentEvil
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 2:30 pm
Location: Colorado
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 7:55 pm

IE, what he is doing now is NOT how he governed Texas. In a state where the governor has NO real power, he actual got things done. He accomplished things no other governor in our history has ever done... and he did it with Dem majorities in the State legislatures. he was probably the best governor this state ever had.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Saint » Wed May 23, 2001 8:02 pm

DEATH TO THE TRAITOR! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-devil.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Saint
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:32 pm
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Wed May 23, 2001 8:19 pm

Hey, it's simple. Both parties tried to screw each other(hope i can say that) in election 2000. Yes Gore used the Florida Supreme Court and yes Bush used the US Supreme Court. Both courts were politically influenced and both candidates had a constitutional right to use them. It's just wrong to say that all the facts so obviously point to Gore trying to steal it.<BR><BR>As for Jefferds, i think he has a perfect right to do so. His people in Vermont support him. That was talked about on CNN this morning. And for those of you that write it off by saying good riddance, i don't think Bush thinks that if he's trying so hard now to keep Jefferds.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Wed May 23, 2001 8:20 pm

I hope we didn't scare Kel away.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby mandos » Wed May 23, 2001 8:40 pm

Kel,<BR>Isn't 'how he votes' more important than the subtitle below his name?<BR><BR>If he botches thing up, to the dismay of his constituents, his political career is electoral toast. Crispy around the edges.<BR><BR>If a majority of the voters give him a re-pop, they get what they play for.<BR><BR>If they are really tweeked they can do a recall.<BR><BR>The beltway crowd are all a bunch of slimeballs anyway.<BR><BR>Speaking from a Californian's point of view, I can say that my support of the Republican Party is evaporating with my gas and electric bill money.<BR><BR>So ganking Vermont, for Jeffers quick two step shuffle, would only add another whole state to Bush's enemy list.<BR><BR>But, Falkeep, how does getting half a million less votes translate into a mandate? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif"border=0><BR>I wasn't aware that the Electoral College was the bestower of such.
User avatar
mandos
Mariner

 
Posts: 7816
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 6:34 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 8:55 pm

Mandos wrote:<BR><BR>"<i>But, Falkeep, how does getting half a million less votes translate into a mandate?<BR><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif"border=0><BR>I wasn't aware that the Electoral College was the bestower of such.</i>"<BR><BR>You misunderstood my point. I was saying that Bush and the far rightwing conservatives did NOT have a mandate, nor do the leftwing liberal extremists. The "mandate" was for moderation and balance. What the people overall were saying was that no one had endeared enough confidence that they could try to push though what they wanted against those who opposed them. What Bush and the far right have been doing is acting as if they DID have a mandate and it is now coming back to bite them in the a**. If Bush had paid attention to the message of the election it was that NEITHER extreme was wanted or would be tolerated.<BR>
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Gandalf'sMother » Wed May 23, 2001 10:30 pm

<i>he was probably the best governor this state ever had.</i> <BR><BR>I disagree. If the allowance of serious public health hazards is the sign of good governing, then we could do with a whole lot more bad governing.<BR><BR>Children in certain elementary schools in Texas are required to wear facemasks due to burst emissions from nearby power plants. This atrocious disregard for health safety and environmental concern, amongst many others, was occurring throughout the entirety of Bush's Governorship without a single utterance of condemnation from him. Being a Governor in a State that favors as little government as possible is no excuse for such blatant indifference. Actually, I should correct myself. Bush was far from indifferent. He indeed chose a side through supporting the fossil fuel industry in all their reckless endeavors. Are we sure his nickname isn't Sharkey?<BR><BR>-Mother Maiar
User avatar
Gandalf'sMother
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11164
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 2:10 pm
Top

Postby InnocentEvil » Wed May 23, 2001 10:43 pm

What about his record on the C.H.I.P. program? He was one of the only governors to come out against low cost health insurance for low income children. <BR><BR><BR>So... he accomplished a lot during his tenure as governor, does that mean it was all good?
User avatar
InnocentEvil
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 2:30 pm
Location: Colorado
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 10:50 pm

GM wrote:<BR><BR>"<i>Children in certain elementary schools in Texas are required to wear facemasks due to burst emissions from nearby power plants. This atrocious disregard for health safety and environmental concern was occurring throughout the entirety of Bush's Governorship without a single utterance of condemnation from him. Being a Governor in a State that favors as little government as possible is no excuse for such blatant indifference. Actually, Bush was far from indifferent. He indeed chose a side through supporting the fossil fuel industry in all their reckless endeavors. Are we sure his nickname isn't Sharkey?</i>"<BR><BR>A couple of things:<BR><BR>1.) It isn't that Texas favors as little government as possible, it is that, when Texas managed to kick out our federally imposed Reconstruction Governor (E. G. Davis... I won't go into everything he and his people did), Texans wrote a new constitution. Unfortunately, the only organized group in the state was The Grange... a farmers organization... and so they, with their limited education and understanding of goverment, were the primary authors of the Texas Constitution, universally recognized as one of the worst governing documents ever written. In it, all real power and authority pretty much rests with the Lt. Governor (in case the feds should try to impose a governor of their choice on the state again, that person would not be able to do anything) AND pretty much any changes in what is done by the state government have to be done by a Constitutional Admendment... which is why we have had well over 200 Amendments to our Consitution since 1876, when it was passed.<BR><BR>2.) You are judging him on the basis of an issue that you support and he doesn't, but ANY governing official has MANY issues they have to deal with. No one will agree with that official's stance on every issue. Nieither Bush (nor any other governing official) is under an obligation to give the same priorty to and belief in issues that you or I or anyone else give them... their obligation is to do their best on those issues they do belief in and support. You have to weigh the pros and the cons and make judgements overall, not on individual issues. Bush was not a perfect governor, but then no one is or can be but considering the lunatics, buffoons and creeps who have lived in our Governor's Mansion, Bush is pretty much the best of the bunch... challenged only by John Connelly, possibly.<BR><BR>Bush was a great governor for our state which is why he was overwhelming re-elected in 1998 with over 70\% of the vote and majorities in pretty much every traditional Democratic constituency. Geez, even our Democratic Lt. Governor and the most powerful ,influencial and respected Democrat in the state (Bob Bullock) supported Bush over the pathetic Democratic candidate.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 23, 2001 11:00 pm

From a socialist's perspective (*takes a bow*), what the two major parties do doesn't amount to a hill of beans in my book. We really have a de facto one-party system in the U.S. That is, the Capitalist Party. All Democrats want to do is slap bandages over a rotten system, while Republicans strive to tear the bandages off. They can all go hang.<BR><BR>And anyway I voted for the Green Party in the last election.<BR><BR>And yes, lil' coke-snorter Georgie Junior DID steal the election, and he can go hang from the highest bough of the highest tree.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron