His worst professional moment was having a guy arrested and handcuffed on the trading floor, only to drop the charges a few weeks later. He totally humiliated a guy without just cause.
His worst RL moment was calling his wife an unfit mother the day before Mother's Day weekend.
20076. rubberducky - 5/23/2001 1:10:53 PM
any word on that VT senator who was talking about switching parties?
20077. CalGal - 5/23/2001 1:15:03 PM
Yes, he has postponed the announcement until Thursday, says he wants to "be back home" with Vermonters. But he has said he'll be making a public announcement, and that it won't be to say "No, I'm not switching parties."
He will be changing to an independent, not a Democrat. I wonder if the delay is to allow passage of the tax bill?
20078. rubberducky - 5/23/2001 1:18:06 PM
CG:
according to this that's exactly why:
Republican Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont has told Democrats he intends to abandon his party and become an independent, officials said Wednesday, a switch that would end GOP control of the Senate and crimp President Bush's ability to pass his agenda.
"He's going to leave, that's all I've been told," said one Democratic senator, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A second Democratic senator, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said party leaders had told him Jeffords would align himself with Democrats for organizational purposes, thereby giving them control on a Senate now split 50-50.
Jeffords, a moderate in a party of conservatives, told reporters he would disclose his decision at mid-afternoon.
Several sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Jeffords might defer the effective date of his switch until early June. That would enable Republicans to push through Bush's income tax cut, now pending on the Senate floor.
20079. glendajean - 5/23/2001 1:34:47 PM
It's possible that Senate control will change back and forth a couple of times in the near future. Should keep the Drapery people in business.
20080. glendajean - 5/23/2001 1:36:43 PM
BTW, did Ted Olsen ever get confirmed? The Bush people will want to get that done before Chairman Leahy takes over the Judicial Committee.
20081. CalGal - 5/23/2001 1:37:58 PM
I think Bush was anxious for a limited hearing; he doesn't want this being made too public. That was the last I'd heard of it.
20082. CalGal - 5/23/2001 1:42:27 PM
Here's more: Panel Still Split
20083. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:12:35 PM
Bush took some bad advice on the Olsen nomination. He was a foolish pick. Ashcroft is bombing at the Justice Department. He's isolated and alienated himself from the permanent staffers and is holding weekly prayer sessions for the faithful.
20084. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:15:52 PM
Cap'n Dirty sez, "That there Giuliani ain't my kinder guy. He's a major league asshole, and a reglar Cap'n Queeg."
20085. robertjayb - 5/23/2001 2:25:00 PM
Stopping Olsen would be a big morale boost for us Clinton groupies. Both of us.
20086. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 2:26:14 PM
Make that three of us...
20087. CalGal - 5/23/2001 2:35:01 PM
I think he'll get in as Solicitor General, but Ihave a feeling that the Supreme Court isn't gonna happen for Teddy.
20088. Cellar Door - 5/23/2001 2:36:55 PM
I'm not a Clinton groupie. But Olson and his cokehead wife need to be stopped.
20089. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 2:37:59 PM
Oh god...I'd forgotten that Barbara comes along with the package.
20090. janjon - 5/23/2001 3:01:26 PM
Just returned from a most pleasant lunch. With people who know what is going on. (I should mention that I am in D.C., as I frequently am.)
Thank God the teacher of the year wasn't from New Hampshire. There is no question that the White House snub of Jeffords when it came to the ceremony (and, he IS the Chair of the Senate Education Committee for God's sake, let alone from Vermont) was a major element in convincing him that he really had no stomach for the GOP as it currently exists in D.C.
I love it.
Karl Rove is a naive naif. Hardball - ha.
I can only imagine the number of times we will be treated to clips of W intoning "I am a uniter, not a divider".
W's handlers couldn't even keep his own party in line.
Just hilarious.
20091. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:03:27 PM
Can anybody think of someone less compassionate than Barbara Olsen? What a pair.
20092. glendajean - 5/23/2001 3:41:50 PM
There probably isn't a Jeffords Republican equivalent in the Texas legislature. OTH, Bush found moderate to conservative Democrats in the Texas leg that did work with him and his programs.
20093. Ronski - 5/23/2001 3:44:13 PM
Regarding what janjon is saying about not being able to keep party members in line. First, there is the complaining within the GOP over the size of the tax cut. Then there is the failed brinkmanship with Jeffords over the milk bill. And last the early departure of Herbits from his post advising Rummy. The DOD denies it, but some believe Herbits left early because Lott was slowing down approvals of any personnel recommended by an openly gay Republican. (It's hard to see what frightens Senate Republicans more, actually becoming the party of downsizing government, or letting gay people into it.)
Of course, Bush may yet be the beneficiary in all this by having triangulation forced upon him.
20094. Wombat - 5/23/2001 3:50:06 PM
Janj:
You are in DC? For how long?
20095. janjon - 5/23/2001 4:00:11 PM
I somehow just don't see W's handlers succeeding with triangulation. Their collective hearts just won't be in it. Plus, they may indeed not know how to pull it off. This mess (from their perspective) with Jeffords is a real eye-opener.
I mean- just how could they piss off ONE OF THEIR OWN that badly.
More than a couple of "significant" staffers in the Senate are loudly complaining that neither W's handlers nor Lott ever really let it sink in the way it should that the Senate really is (was) 50-50, and that they didn't have a majority of four or five to bank on.
20096. janjon - 5/23/2001 4:01:01 PM
wombat - I come to D.C. frequently, must usually (as today) for the day. Early train down, late afternoon train back.
20097. Wombat - 5/23/2001 4:14:29 PM
Janjon:
Next time you are in town call me at: 202-305-1294
20098. glendajean - 5/23/2001 4:18:04 PM
Howard Kurtz: Journalists are in Seventh Heaven
20100. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/23/2001 4:24:57 PM
20101. jexster - 5/23/2001 4:48:43 PM
Its nice that journalists are "in 7th heaven" but I wish they'd come back to earth for a few days at least and do their jobs - report the corporate krapola that's going down in DC.
20102. Indiana Jones - 5/23/2001 4:56:34 PM
gj: I don't listen to Rush, but the person I had lunch with today does. Yep--all the usual suspects needed new fodder for the grist mill and, regardless of how they act, are delighted.
20103. janjon - 5/23/2001 4:58:07 PM
jex - oh rest assured, more than one journalist is quite aware of how all those happy fat cats have been acting and operating since Jan. 20.
give 'em more rope, it will make the denouement that much more fun.
20104. OhioSTOPAS - 5/23/2001 5:05:39 PM
It's been a good day for us Democrats, huh?
Oh, wait a minute, I spoke too soon . . .
This just in:
By 5-4 vote, Supreme Court enters order prohibiting the counting of Senators.
20105. wonkers2 - 5/24/2001 8:20:20 AM
First, Jeffords. Second, Lincoln Chaffee.
20106. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/24/2001 8:21:34 AM
20107. msgreer - 5/24/2001 9:59:27 AM
wonkers
I though Chafee too but heard him on CNN yesterday and he did not sound like he was planning to make the move. However, he did show compassion toward Jefford. You remember compassion, wonkers, that's what the new Washington is all about..or is that just what bush ran on and then when he got to 1600 Pennsylvania he let his real side out.
Majority Leader Tom Daschale. Good by Jesse, hello Joe.
20108. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:01:45 AM
MsGreer - Politics is politics. None of them are worth the time of day.
20109. rubberducky - 5/24/2001 10:02:07 AM
i'm tickled, of course, about this, but i have a sense of dread that the Dems will fuck this opportunity up like they did with Clinton's 1st couple of years.
20110. msgreer - 5/24/2001 10:05:29 AM
JJ
Nice to see you too. No one is going to take this day away from me. I will deal with reality tomorrow, JJ, as I hope you will too. heehee.
20111. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:09:27 AM
MsGreer - Actually, I couldn't be happier about Jeffords move. I have come to believe that neither party can be trusted with power. Let's keep government divided and let them fight it out amongst themselves and leave us alone.
Cynical, aint I?
20112. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 10:11:32 AM
No J.J., you're pragmatic.
20113. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:12:28 AM
I predict the Jeffords decision will help the GOP in the 2002 election. Two days ago, it looked likely they would lose both houses. I think their prospects have improved.
20114. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 10:16:16 AM
Dusty: Possibly. I think rather it's a challenge that also represents opportunity, as the Chinese say.
20115. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:16:28 AM
Dusty, why do you feel that way?
20116. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:17:01 AM
Now the Libertarians have to learn how to flex their muscles (I predict we will fail.) After all, two days ago the Libertarian could only claim that we were responsible for a closely divided Senate; now we can take credit for shifting the control to the Dems.
20117. msgreer - 5/24/2001 10:23:10 AM
Dusty
I don't understand your reasoning when you say the 2002 elections will be good for the Repubs. I don't think so. I believe the American people are getting a clearer picture of who gw is...and they don't like it. I predict a one term presidency for gw..unless he can change his feathers and govern for all the people. Not holding my breath on that one. You don't think what Jeffords had to say is true? The Repubs are out of touch, Dusty.
20118. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:25:06 AM
glendajean
If the GOP is smart (a questionable assumption, to be sure), they will be able to campaign in 2002 on the following message:
The only thing of substance passed during the last two years is the largest tax cut in history, leading to a continuation of economic growth. But since the first hundred days of the present administration, when the control of the Senate passed to the Dems, almost nothing has happened. Every proposal has been bottled up, shot down or watered down to ineffectiveness by the Dems (some, including me, may consider this a good thing, but it may still sell.) The only way for government to deliver X,Y, and Z is to put the Dems in control of the Senate,a nd strengthen control in the House, to enact our plans.
Skilled political leaders can improve the prose, but the alternative (if Jeffords hadn't switched) is that the GOP would have no excuses.
People with better political sense than me (FU for example) will probably retort that people don't react positively to excuses, but I still think that the prospects for the GOP are better today than they were two days ago.
20119. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:26:05 AM
Given nobody could have predicted the outcome of the past two elections, I doubt if anybody has a good idea how the next one will turn out.
The Democrats will get committee chairmanships (new offices, pick of staff, make certain procedural decisions). But the total number is so close that there won't be much change. Either Party can gum up the works to kingdom come, but I doubt if either would want to do that.
The last time the Republicans were in the minority, they played a strong game, but it was against Senate Dems and President Clinton. It could be trickier for them this time because the President is on their side.
Gotta love Vermont this time of year.
20120. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:28:19 AM
MsGreer - Sure the GOP is out of touch. But the alternative is the Dems. They are just as out of touch if not more so.
Lincoln said a house divided against itself cannot stand. I am not sure a House united is any bargain either.
20121. msgreer - 5/24/2001 10:28:24 AM
Dusty
The American people are smarter than that.
They're not going to buy the lies anymore. If things don't get done it will not only be the Dems but the Repubs too..and of course their leader, gw.
I predict people will come out and vote en masse in 2002. Hopefully, every vote will count this time.
20122. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:29:04 AM
msgreer
I believe Jeffords when he decides to change the balance of power in this country in order to ensure higher milk prices. I just don't happen to agree with the goal. But it is better suited to a Democrat. If he thinks it is important to hurt the consumer, then I'd rather he announce that he isn't in the GOP.
Do you think higher milk prices is what the American people want? If so, I'm happy to be out of touch with the American people. I have more faith in the American people, even if my faith is misplaced.
20123. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 10:31:32 AM
Clearly the Jeffords move directly helps the Democrats only slightly if at all. It does damage the Republicans, so the Democrats may profit by that, but the fact that it affects the Republicans more than the Democrats also means the Republicans have more control over the situation. (What I mean is, Democratic ability to be obstructive is enhanced, but their ability to do is not.)
Plus, when it comes to PR as the Republicans found out during the Clinton era, in a divided government the presidency has most of the advantages. Whether Bush is adept as the Clinton machine was at making full use of those advantages remains to be seen.
Moreover, the nature of conservatism is to resist change. Few conservatives (despite what liberals think or at least say they think about conservatives) really want to roll back change (after all, that is in itself change). Hence, the more divided the government, the more likely status quo conservatives will be happy.
The big prize remains the tax cut. If as in all likelihood it passes, the Jeffords' defection will be miniscule in comparison as to the future direction of this country. As far as the 2002 and 2004 elections, the Republicans will largely determine how big a role their loss of the Senate plays. The Democrats perhaps can use this to their advantage in that realm, but they have a much trickier hand to play.
20124. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:32:51 AM
MsGreer - I will bet you that turnout in 2002 is the lowest in history. There is too much disenchantment with the system. If a political junkie like me is debating whether to vote, I can only imagine what the average voter is feeling.
20125. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:34:59 AM
Dusty, so far your milk price supports angle is not getting much traction.
Clinton threatened to close down a base in Alabama or some kind of government facility. Shelby quit the Party and didn't look back.
True believers will chew on this traitorous bone but probably not the public at large.
William Safire had a funny column today, including dire warnings about the ultra-partisan Tom Daschle. I guess Trent was a statesman.
20126. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 10:48:27 AM
How does Jeffords' switch affect the composition of the senate side of the conference committee on the tax bill?
20127. jexster - 5/24/2001 10:50:18 AM
Sen. James M. Jeffords of Vermont said today he will quit the Republican Party, giving Democrats control of the Senate for the first time since 1994 and greatly enhancing their ability to challenge President Bush's legislative agenda.
God Damn right....stop this corporate polluter railroad train AND CAP CA ELECTRICITY!
20128. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 10:51:06 AM
Jay: Dunno the latest, but what I knew yesterday was that this wasn't going to affect the tax cut because Jeffords was giving a 30-day grace period before switching. Plus, the current version of the cut passed the Senate by more than 60 votes, so I doubt either way his switch can stop it.
The biggest obstacle, if any, IMO is for House Republicans to try to get much more than they're getting.
20129. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:52:24 AM
In his statement this morning Jeffords said that he has assured the president he would hold off until the Senate had voted on the tax bill conference report. He had no desire to derail the tax cut.
20130. jexster - 5/24/2001 10:52:59 AM
That's a very good question Jay...
There's a lotta payback....Since 1994 the Grand Old Poopstain has played fast and loose with the conference process. The latest incident the missing pages scam on the Budget conference.
What has pissed Demos off even more, Lott had a way of starting conferences and not telling the Democratic members of the committee....
Daschle though will probably play this one straight and in fact I hope he plays them all straight. What the GOP has done to the Senate procedures needs to be undone.
20131. jexster - 5/24/2001 10:56:31 AM
I hear Strom wasn't looking to well during the late night session earlier this week. Look for a long and grueling agenda.
hehehe
20132. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 11:01:11 AM
Reich-wing radio is in meltdown over Jeffords. They're claiming that this has come about because Vermont is now "a gay state."
TODAY VERMONT --TOMORROW THE WORLD!
20133. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 11:02:03 AM
I don't think there's any question that we'll get a tax bill within the broad outlines passed by both houses. However, the devil is in the details, and a senate conference committee headed by democrats with a democratic majority may affect those details.
If that's what's gonna happen, of course.
20134. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:07:50 AM
Jay, Jeffords said he has assured the president that he is witholding his support of the Democrats until the Senate votes on the tax cut conference committee report.
20135. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 11:08:45 AM
Jay: Not a chance (of its being substantially different). Besides, "within the broad outlines" is sufficient, given that the House passed $1.6 trillion and the Senate version is IIRC $1.3 trillion. Take $1.3 trillion of surplus out and give it back to the taxpayers and you've done the deed AFAIC:
20136. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:11:06 AM
20137. Fielding - 5/24/2001 11:11:21 AM
US Supreme Court declares Jeffords' defection unconstitutional!
20138. Fielding - 5/24/2001 11:11:43 AM
Heh, heh
20139. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:12:29 AM
The tax cut is a crock of shit...most of that 2 trillion+ doesn't come for four years.
Just like the Raygun first cuts, they won't ever go into effect
20140. MsIvoryTower - 5/24/2001 11:13:31 AM
William Safire had a funny column today, including dire warnings about the ultra-partisan Tom Daschle. I guess Trent was a statesman.
On this note, I draw your attention to the deluge of national funds that have flowed down to Mississippi, Louisanna and Alabama since Lott has been Majority Leader. Anyone driving along I-10 in those states will be privileged to see the signs: construction projects galore and all funded by our lucky US tax dollars.
I wouldn't be so snide except for the fact that I've been driving that stretch of highway for the last 10 years, and can attest that the roads being worked on were in quite good shape compared to other places I've seen.
Nothing like a little feeding at the trough to keep the minions happy.
20141. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:20:07 AM
Morning IT...say did you know that 62% of San Francisco Filipinos trusted City Hall to do what is right most of the time or just about always yet 64% were not registered to vote.
2x2 crosstabs uber alles!!!
20142. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:21:43 AM
Contribute $1 to Jeffords!
. Send a $1 bill in an envelope to:
Jeffords For Vermont Committee Inc.
P.O. Box 246
Montpelier, VT 05601.
2. Call his office (202-224-5141) to tell him.
3. Sign an e-petition to tell the world.
Fuck Bush!
20143. Dusty - 5/24/2001 11:21:44 AM
glendajean
Dusty, so far your milk price supports angle is not getting much traction.
20144. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:24:54 AM
I heard that Mississippi has done well since Lott has been Majority Leader.
For years, Tarrant County (Fort Worth) got more federal dollars than any other county in the country, thanks to Jim Wright. Austin received much largess during the LBJ years. And if you take the highway from Austin to Stonewall (the LBJ Ranch), you will drive on a divided highway.
As Mel Brooks says repeatedly, it's good to be the king. I am sure that several people in West Virginia are whistling a happy tune this morning now that Byrd will be chair of Appropriations again.
20145. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:26:27 AM
If you mean there has been little outrage that such major steps would occur over trivial and idiotic positions, I agree that such outrage is missing.
Of course, that is what I was referring to.
20146. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:27:07 AM
54% of Californians think that Bush has done a poor job handling the energy crisis compared to 38% for Governor Davis....
That low? Considering that Davis is the ONLY one doing ANYTHING!
Watch for Bush to cap prices or Daschle will call up Feinstein's Bill
20147. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:27:07 AM
glenda,
The milk angle is the only angle that matters. No politician who has been successful for a quarter of a century is going to proclaim that he changed the balance of power in the Senate in order to ensure higher prices for farmers at the expense of the consumer. But look at what committee chair he's supposed to get: Not Education, which is what his platitudes were about, but Environment and Public Works. As William Safire points out today, that gives Jeffords power over the Alaska drilling debate, and a shield to protect the dairy compact.
20148. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:28:12 AM
No shit..Ingalls Shipyard is boomin....no mo...
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of!
20149. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:29:39 AM
The milk angle is not the only angle that matters...Jeffords is also opposed to Bush's education flim flam....
20150. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:32:19 AM
jexster,
And what chairmanship is he getting, again? It ain't Education.
20151. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:32:40 AM
Ronski, you really think the Dems were going to push Ed Kennedy aside on Education?
It is the only angle that matters to you or Dusty. Harry Reid has been pushing Jeffords to switch parties since 1996 (according today's W. Post). Harry Reid is giving up Public Words to Jeffords. And for what it is worth, Jeffords has some record as being interested and concerned about the environment.
I don't deny that milk had something to do with this. But it's not the whole story.
Having witnessed numerous party switchers going over to the GOP, I don't get teary eyed or sentimental about the one time it went the other way. They all have their reasons. And I note that no church has yet put a member of Congress on their list of Saints.
20152. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:33:06 AM
Ronski be careful to wash your hands after touching shit talk from the ConIntern....
EPW with or without Jeffords won't approve ANWR drilling...the Senate with or without the defection wasn't going to approve it either...
You can bet your Vermont wedding ring that we won't be drillin ANWR to protect NE dairy farmers.
20153. Dusty - 5/24/2001 11:33:27 AM
glendajean
OK,
On that point I'll have to suffer being Cassandra.
20154. Dusty - 5/24/2001 11:35:43 AM
jexster
well, duh, there is probably a long list of issue where Jeffords disagrees with Bush. But he isn't going to get his wish on education. Expensive milk is the only bennie he will get for his decision. I hope Vermonters thank him every time they pay too much for milk.
20155. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:38:56 AM
Dusty is correct, still.
20156. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 11:42:26 AM
As far as putting the blame for this at Bush's door, well, somewhat, but Trent Lott is where the buck should really stop regarding keeping everyone on the reservation. One angle re Bush vs. Jeffords I haven't heard brought up is the carbon dioxide flipflop. Didn't Jeffords also express dismay over that?
20157. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:45:07 AM
And Environment and Public Works plays into the milk compact business in a signficant way. The reason there's quite a bit of support for higher milk prices in Vermont is due to the fact that it is directly linked to the environment. The wealthy tree huggers, the 70s-era hippies, and most areas of the extremely important tourist industry support the milk bill because it will help preserve Vermont's rural scenery. As chair of EPW, Jeffords ranks as champion of the environment, a concern that in Vermont is directly tied to milk.
20158. stostosto - 5/24/2001 11:45:41 AM
jex
I always wonder why it is you post opinion polls. Indeed, that anyone does. What's the point?
20159. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:46:59 AM
Funny, but somehow I am not going to miss Trent Lott, should he be replaced by Frist or somebody.
I think it has something to do with his comparing gay people to kleptomaniacs and alcoholics a while back.
20160. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:47:27 AM
Here's the fun part (I say this out of memory of liberal Democrats self-destructing over tolerating conservative Democrats).
In the long run, best to get rid of them - because they are a treacherous breed who largely want to get rid of principled conservatives. And better to get rid of them before they try and get rid of you. Are you listening, Senator Chafee? --Andrew Sullivan
Howard Kurtz notes nasty reactions in his media column.
And then there is this story in today's W Post:
Conservatives Twist At Unexpected Turn
20161. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:47:32 AM
JJ
Well, I can't speak for every voter but I'll bet on Florida. I think you will see the State of Florida voters come out big time in 2001. You have the luxury to beyond the 2000 election. We don't have that luxury in Florida. People are angry down here, JJ. There are alot of unresolved issues relating to the election in Florida and we live with it everyday.
Having said that, I am willing to sit back and see if the Dems do the right thing. And if they don't, well, you know me well..I'll say something.
20162. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:49:28 AM
Winning in politics, like Survivor, is based on addition, not subtraction.
20163. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:49:34 AM
sto...
keep wonderin
20164. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:50:10 AM
Dusty
No, I do not think Americans want higher milk costs. Nor do they want higher gas prices or a President screaming the sky is falling..we have an energy crisis. Nor do they get off on CEO's of big petroleum getting fat bonus checks while they lay off workers.
Jeffords is representing the folks of Vermont and for that he is no different than anyother Senator.
20165. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:51:09 AM
I wonder why sto wonders....this is a DEMOCRACY after all
but then again after the Great Coup of 2000, maybe not
maybe sto is right to wonder after all....
20166. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:52:33 AM
JJ
Don't know what happen to my post. Look, I am willing to sit back and see what the Dems do and if I don't like it you know me well enough..I will say something. As for voter turn out,I can't speak for the country but I can for Florida. I believe you will see a huge turnout in 2002. You have the luxury of getting beyond the 2000 election. We in Florida live with it everyday. There are many unresolved issues for us. And it is on television and in the papers everyday.
20167. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:52:45 AM
Jeffords can fuck Lott, Shelby and a few other fine representatives of Fly Over Country when they have to go to EPW for their annual pork allotment!
20168. stostosto - 5/24/2001 11:53:10 AM
ok, jex
polls matter. But you seem to use them as a political argument. It's not every poll you reference, is it? Only the ones that support your positions. But why not just argue that position?
20169. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:54:59 AM
Jesus. What does it take to get a post to post. My third and last try.
JJ, I am willing to sit back and see what the Dems do and if they screw up..well, you know me well enough, I will say something. You have the luxury to put the 2000 election behind you. We don't in Florida. There are too many unresolved issues. I can't speak for the country but I bet you will see the folks in Florida coming up in huge numbers to vote in 2002.
20170. RosettaStone - 5/24/2001 11:56:58 AM
I think it's a good thing for Sen. Jeffords to leave the Republican party and, hopefully, it will cause a rebellion in the Senate over getting rid of that asshole, Trent Lott.
20171. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:58:25 AM
sorry.
Dusty
No, I do not want to see higher milk prices. Neither do I want to see gas prices increase. Nor do I want a President who screams the sky is falling when he refers to an energy crisis we don't have.And I resent the CEO's of big petroleum getting fat bonus checks when they're laying off workers.
So, Jeffords is representing the folks in his home state. So does every Senator. If the folks in Vermont don't like what he did, they can let him know at the ballot box.
20172. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:12:59 PM
Message # 20135
No, a tax cut does not give Washington less money to play around with. A tax cut matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts gives Washington less money to play with. Republicans and Democrats alike favor a large government that grows annually. This argument is how it is going to be funded, by borrowing money and therefore increasing government spending to pay interest on the debt of the growing budget versus matching tax dollars to spending, while reducing the deficit. The second route is clearly the more fiscally conservative course. In the short run, it may be ill-advised, if we really are in the recession, but as a long term strategy, it both imprudent and fiscally liberal.
Someone was quoted in the NYTimes today saying that there is nowhere for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person to go. There is a choice between social conservativism and social liberalism. But both parties are committed to filling the trough with your money.
20173. Stumbo - 5/24/2001 12:14:55 PM
MSG:
"I resent the CEO's of big petroleum getting fat bonus checks when they're laying off workers."
Are you in favor of legislation banning this practice?
20174. JudithAtHome - 5/24/2001 12:15:55 PM
This is from Jonah Goldberg about Jeffords:
"The White House and the GOP generally will be guilty of professional malpractice if they don't punish Jeffords for pulling the rug out from under them. I know that it's illegal to sew a half-starved weasel into his small intestine, but there are some other options."
Would this idiot have a column if it weren't for his mom?
20175. Stumbo - 5/24/2001 12:21:13 PM
MSG:
... or an executive order, perhaps?
20176. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:22:49 PM
And my favorite quote on the Jeffords topic is in today's NYT.
Lowell Weicker said that he visited with former Senator Barry Goldwater shortly before his death and that "he was bemoaning the fact that even someone like him would be considered too liberal for the Republican Party."
20177. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 12:31:56 PM
No, a tax cut does not give Washington less money to play around with. A tax cut matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts gives Washington less money to play with.
Jay: Don't you think that's being a bit semantic, especially given that we're talking about a surplus (i.e., revenue the government would be collecting otherwise that it's no longer collecting).
But if you want to talk about cutting spending, I'm all for that, too.
Someone was quoted in the NYTimes today saying that there is nowhere for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person to go.
Drop the "socially liberal" part and it's still every bit as accurate at the federal level.
20178. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:40:48 PM
The surplus is offset by the debt, Indy. If we fully commit the surplus to paying down the debt, and reduce spending, then we're being conservative fiscally. And have you noticed the spate of vanishing state surpluses? This may all be moot, and as someone pointed out upthread, reversed before the big numbers hit.
And yes, the point of that quote is that both parties favor a large and growing government.
20179. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:43:45 PM
Both Jay and Indy are correct. There is nowhere to go for the socially liberal and truly fiscally conservative, or just the fiscally conservative. Except of course, the Libertarian Party, which, because it says what it means, languishes at one percent in the polls, wherever it manages to run a candidate.
I've been seeing references to a "rightward drift" in the country's governance. This is nonsense. The only thing that happens when the GOP gets elected is that it -- sometimes -- slows down the continuing leftward drift.
The way most people use "right" and "left" most of the time, the only way the government could move to the right is by shrinking its size. It never does so. It's not doing so under Bush.
And government size does not refer only to number of workers relative to the population. It inlcudes the scope of regulations, power over individuals that is transferred to unelected agencies, and so on.
20180. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:46:02 PM
On the other hand, Ashcroft has had nice words to say about the Second Amendment, and Bush's faith-based initiative seems to be going nowhere, so all is not bleak.
20181. CalGal - 5/24/2001 12:48:33 PM
That's so funny, Ronski, I was about to post that.
Did anyone read about the slap Bush gave to Powell yesterday on his UN director pick?
20182. Dusty - 5/24/2001 12:49:10 PM
JayAckroyd Someone was quoted in the NYTimes today saying that there is nowhere for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person to go.
Proof that the Libertarians need marketing help.
20183. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:52:30 PM
Dusty,
It's proof that -- other than John Tierney's column -- the word Libertarian is usually excised by Times' editors.
And if that sounds entirely ludicrous, there is a case in Libertarian annals of a Carolina newspaper which actually has a policy of forbidding that word. Seriously.
20184. CalGal - 5/24/2001 12:53:09 PM
That's simply untrue, Dusty. Libertarians want far less government--and believe it should disappear almost entirely in certain areas. One can be fiscally conservative and still find that a ludicrous notion.
20185. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:53:25 PM
You know how I feel about Libertarians, Dusty.
20186. CalGal - 5/24/2001 12:54:49 PM
It's funny. This time last year, I really thought that the Republican party was going to change, moving back towards moderation. Instead, Bush's win sent it in the other direction. I wonder where this will all end up.
20187. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:55:46 PM
I depends on the definition of the word, and whether we're talking "L" or "l."
I consider that if you want to lessen (but not necessarily eliminate) the role of government in both economic and social matters, that is a distinctly libertarian impulse. Or Classical-Liberal.
20188. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 12:56:23 PM
Jay:
Have you noticed the spate of vanishing state surpluses?
Yes. Even so, if governments have to spend more, I'd rather it be at the state as at the federal.
As far as the tax cut ever really happening, of course that's true--but you win your battles one at a time and at least now the onus will be on those wanting to grow government to raise taxes.
I also favor reducing the debt, but I think that would be an even harder course to stick to over the years than the tax cut. And paying it off too quickly has its drawbacks as well.
20189. OhioSTOPAS - 5/24/2001 12:59:21 PM
" . . . if governments have to spend more, I'd rather it be at the state as at the federal."
Why?
20190. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 1:01:43 PM
I consider that if you want to lessen (but not necessarily eliminate) the role of government in both economic and social matters, that is a distinctly libertarian impulse. Or Classical-Liberal.
But your seeing a policy position as having a libertarian motivation or not has no impact on its value. Classical Liberalism has its roots in utilitarianism, not an arbitrary commitment to a given right. That means that a liberal will concede a need for intervention if the case can be made the intervention serves the overall good. He is skeptical that such interventions exist, but does not deny them out of hand.
You might want to take a look at the link to the Fray archive that CalGal posted a while ago. There is an extensive discussion of this question.
20191. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:09:25 PM
JayAckroyd
I amy well share your opinions about Libertarians more than you realize. If we could get rid of the libertarians and replace them with libertarians, we would be in much better shape. I am sure this is impossible in my lifetime, and I fear that it is structurally impossible.
20192. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 1:14:17 PM
That means that a liberal will concede a need for intervention if the case can be made the intervention serves the overall good. He is skeptical that such interventions exist, but does not deny them out of hand.
With some caution about "overall good," I think this is my philosophy as well. It's not just that I'm skeptical that such interventions exist, but that I'm skeptical whether they're best discovered by "philosopher kings" or through a myriad of individuals trying out all possible interventions in small scale "pilots" until the best solution becomes self-evident. Moreover, I strongly believe in limits to what the majority can do to the minority, regardless of whether the "overall good" is maximized by violating the minority's right to be left alone. That is, I'm not a majoritarian.
Ohio: I think it self-evident that most problems are best addressed by those closest to them.
20193. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 1:18:39 PM
If that last proviso held, education would be the most effectively addressed social intervention in America.
20194. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 1:27:23 PM
Jay: I assume you meant that as a quip, and not as a conditional hypothesis.
20195. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:28:49 PM
Archives
Jay, you can add this to the butterscotch bar if you like.
20196. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 1:39:00 PM
Well, well... Much as I worry that a Democrat Senate may be tempted to spend away what surplus is left after the tax cut, and much as I realize that the Dems are no better on issues like foreign policy and the Drug War than the Republicans, I must say that I am relieved that there will be some brakes applied to the steamrolling Bush agenda.
The problem is whether it will be the right kind of "brakes." If Jeffords' defection prevents Bush and Cheney's planned massive subsidization of the energy industry from taking effect, then I'm all for it. But the populist impulses among Dems may take up the Bush plan as a good idea. In that case, Jefford's defection will have had no discernible effect in one important policy arena.
More interesting is the judiciary committee aspect. The right-wing judiciary has been methodically destroying the bill of rights for years, now, so having the chance to temper Bush's judicial nominations will be a good thing.
20197. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:42:26 PM
Indy and others are being a tad cavalier about the loss of the Senate--as is the President. A whole bunch of senior Republicans just lost their committee chairmanships, and that has to hurt. Even overlooking the power involved, it is a severe smack in career and job enjoyment considerations. A lot of moderate Republicans who will be affected by this can't be too happy.
Also, this really does seem to be a Bush failure. The White House apparently ignored all rumors about Jeffords leaving. Hardly a sensible reaction in a split Senate.
20198. Raskolnikov - 5/24/2001 1:47:14 PM
Quick. Turn on CNN. The US Supreme Court is overturning the Jeffords' defection.
20199. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:47:24 PM
Cal,
Thanks for that link.
20200. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:48:00 PM
Rask,
;-)
20201. Raskolnikov - 5/24/2001 1:49:26 PM
sorry. couldn't resist.
20202. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:50:36 PM
Hey, Rask. Nice to see you.
It's also kind of fun to watch energy stocks take a hit today, even if it's only temporary.
20203. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:52:08 PM
Are the caribou partying, yet?
20204. vonKreedon - 5/24/2001 1:53:01 PM
The Jeffords defection really puts the lie to Bush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider." line. The man can't even keep from dividing within his own party!
I particularly like that Jeffords is becoming an Independent rather than joining the Dems, just because the Democratic Party pisses me off so much. It would be nice if a bunch of fiscally conservative/socially and environmentally progressive members from both parties became Independent.
20205. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:53:18 PM
Raskolnikov
Nice try, but it's been done
20206. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 1:54:39 PM
Don't think the Jeffords defection will have much of a braking effect. His vote isn't really lost to the Republicans, since they didn't have it to count on before. Committee chairs are important for agenda control, but the Senate isn't the authoritarian body the House is (see Lott's recent concession on the campaign finance bill), and a razor this majority doesn't have the same impact on agenda control.
20207. vonKreedon - 5/24/2001 1:55:34 PM
Caribou are noted partyers. My understanding is that their preferred food is Amanita Muscaria. Of course, one of their other forms of nutrition is Lichen, so go figure.
20208. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:56:18 PM
Raskolnikov
See Message # 20137 by Fielding
and in the same spirit
Message # 20104 by Ohio
20209. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:57:50 PM
Well, on my regional cable news channel last night, there was a discussion led by a breathless young Chris Matthews-wannabee on Should Senators be ALLOWED (emphasis added) to switch parties?
20210. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:58:17 PM
Are the caribou partying, yet?
Ha. I liked that.
Slack,
Any matters that stall in committee due to a tie vote will not be able to be called to the floor for a full vote. Ask Ted Olsen whether that's a big difference.
20211. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:59:15 PM
Did anyone watch Lehrer's discussion on it last night?
20212. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:59:33 PM
JayAckroyd
If that last proviso held, education would be the most effectively addressed social intervention in America.
20213. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:00:47 PM
Yes Cal, they can be called to the floor. That's what discharge is for. No committee can ever really force the floor to do anything.
Olsen's vote got into its current situation because people knew what would happen if it got called out.
20214. Fielding - 5/24/2001 2:01:30 PM
Fair disclosure: My post came from Rask's idea, expressed off-line.
20215. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:02:31 PM
Ronski
Mathews must have been reading the Mote—Ace waxed on about that subject yesterday.
20216. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:02:35 PM
Of course, government has closer to a monpoply at this level.
Our education is not the envy of, say, Europe. Does Europe have a monopoly on schools below the college level?
In fact, our education is perfectly okay with governent "monopoly"--if you can call something a monopoly when anyone can go to private or home school whenever they like. It's poverty that fucks with our statistics, not the government.
20217. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:03:48 PM
Fielding
Oh sure, now you fess up.
And if Rask had never shown up, you would have taken credit for that bon mot to the grave.
20218. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:05:42 PM
Slack,
So how is it, then, that the Republicans were able to stall so many votes on judicial nominees?
In the case of Olson,the vote was tied and the papers said that because of the powersharing agreement, Lott had the ability to call a full vote without the committee's approval. The vote was cancelled because Bush wanted to make nice, but the papers said that without Lott's ability to do so,the nomination would have been stalled.
It is possible that the papers are incorrect on this, obviously. But both the Post and the Times? Or possibly you are talking of some other procedure.
20219. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:09:02 PM
Lichen suffers from poor marketing.
I propose a new slogan:
Lichen—what's not to like?
OR
Try lichen—you'll lichen it.
20220. Raskolnikov - 5/24/2001 2:09:13 PM
Dusty: damn, they beat me to it. Serves me right for being slow on the draw.
20221. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:12:59 PM
After reading Jeffords' statement, I retract what I said about its being largely Trent Lott's fault. Even though I think it was Lott's job to keep him home, it's evident that the guy was pissed at Bush.
Don't know what he sounded like in person, but the text doesn't do much for my opinion of him.
20222. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:16:00 PM
Slackjaw
House bills can be called to the floor over the objections of the committee using a discharge petition, but not in the Senate.
Enacting Laws
Reforming the discharge petition was one of the high profile issues of Gingrich.
20223. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:17:49 PM
Slackjaw
There are procedures to get around the committee action in the Senate, but I don't know what they are called. So you are correct, but it isn't called a discharge petitition in the Senate.
20224. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:18:18 PM
Indy,
Yes, it's pretty clear that the problem was Bush. But I don't see why you say he comes off badly.
20225. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 2:20:09 PM
Message # 20209,
A law making it illegal for congressmen to switch parties during a term in office would probably be unconstitutional.
Of course, "strict constructionists" like Ace don't believe that the Constitution should matter much, just as long as Congress has passed a law.
20226. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:21:28 PM
A discharge motion, Senate rule 27...anyone can move that a bill or resolution in committee be brought to consideration in the chamber. If the papers used "would have" as a prediction, they were probably right. If they used it as a statement of procedure, they were wrong.
Using a discharge motion requires a certain level of agreement on the floor. If that agreement is not present, it will be possible for a committee to tie up the motion. But then even if the motion were considered on the floor, it would lack the agreement necessary to stop gutting amendments, a filibuster, or just an outright loss.
20227. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:23:57 PM
wait...it can't be rule 27. It must be in the teens. I'll check.
20228. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:24:10 PM
Cal:
You almost have to see a speech to judge it fairly, but what bugs me is the "Vermont is so wonderfully great because it's so independent and has such a tremendous social conscience. BTW, what I'm doing demonstrates independence and social conscience."
At least he did admit that this moment was of "much smaller consequence" than Vermont's being the first state to outlaw slavery.
Independent-minded people usually have a hefty dose of ego. I should know. (smirk)
20229. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:27:24 PM
Indy,
I did see the speech. I took all of that as contextual and introductory (as well as a nod to his home team), certainly not his reason for leaving. The meat of his reason was here:
In the past, without the presidency, the various wings of the Republican Party in Congress have had some freedom to argue and ultimately to shape the party's agenda. The election of President Bush changed that dramatically. We don't live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to expect that people such as myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the president's agenda.
And yet, more and more, I find I cannot. Those who don't know me may have thought I took pleasure in resisting the president's budget, or that I enjoyed the limelight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had serious, substantive reservations about that budget, and the decisions it sets in place for today and the future.
Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I will disagree with the President on very fundamental issues: the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small.
20230. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:28:13 PM
Indiana Jones
You don't see references to the Sedition Act in the opening paragraphs of speechs all that often these days. (He must be taking a slap at Adams.)
20231. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:29:57 PM
But then even if the motion were considered on the floor, it would lack the agreement necessary to stop gutting amendments, a filibuster, or just an outright loss.
Not true, really. There are all sorts of things voted on that many senators would rather oppose or ignore altogether--but if it comes to a vote they will have to support it. So the power to stifle a bill is not insignificant.
20232. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:31:11 PM
Dusty: The only Sedition Act(s) I knew about was WWI, but after your comment I looked it up and saw there was an earlier one from 1798. I assume (John) Adams was involved with that one?
20233. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:31:54 PM
An unimpressive speech.
But this sentence is intriguing:
Three of these four men disagreed with my decision, but I hope each understood my reasons. And it is entirely possible that the fourth[Daschle] may well have second thoughts down the road.
Wonder if we will have reasons to reference it in the future.
20234. Stumbo - 5/24/2001 2:33:13 PM
Anyone who uses the word "choice" to mean "choice as to whether to have an abortion" in a non-abortion-specific context is a moron.
But then, Jeffords is hardly the only sinner in that regard.
20235. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:33:43 PM
He's not joining the Democrats, after all. And I doubt Daschle will take him lightly.
20236. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:36:13 PM
From the House web site:
It is easier to circumvent committees in the Senate than in the House, primarily because Senators generally have the right to offer non-germane amendments (commonly known as "riders") to measures being considered on the floor.(6) For example, a Senator could offer an amendment containing the text of a bill blocked in committee. A Senator also could use Rule XIV (discussed earlier) to bypass a committee that has not reported a particular measure. In this situation, the Senator would reintroduce the bill, demand two readings, and then object to the second reading. Under Rule XIV, the measure would be placed directly on the Calendar of Business. Other Senate procedures for bypassing committees, such as the motion to discharge a committee and the motion to suspend the rules, are employed so infrequently they are not discussed here. Senate committees are sometimes discharged by unanimous consent.
Rule 17 covers discharge in the Senate.
20237. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:37:31 PM
Cal: Yes, I conceded in post 20221 that he certainly had a hard-on for Bush--though whether it was all policy or not, you have to read tea leaves and not just the speech. But it's never sufficient for politicians to say, "You know these people I was part of for umpteen years? I don't much agree with them anymore and want to change uniforms. Mostly because the new manager pissed me off."
20238. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:37:35 PM
LadyChaos
FTR, I disagree with Ace. I think it behooves Senators to think very hard about this decision, and there are good reasons that Senators should decide to make the switch at the time of the next election, but I wouldn't favor any law prohibiting a change.
{Of course, I'm biased. I have a secret plan to get a majority of Congresscritters to join the libertarian [note small "l"] party midterm.)
20239. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:38:58 PM
There are all sorts of things voted on that many senators would rather oppose or ignore altogether--but if it comes to a vote they will have to support it.
Of course they wouldn't. They abstain. Then they deal with the rare electoral fallout by inserting irrelevant supportive remarks in the record, so they can say they really did report it without doing so in a vote.
20240. Fielding - 5/24/2001 2:38:58 PM
Dusty:
"Oh sure, now you fess up.
And if Rask had never shown up, you would have taken credit for that bon mot to the grave."
Well, nobody had commented, so I didn't want to blame Rask for something that wasn't well received.
Also, it was my idea to add the fake link.
But, in essence, you got me.
20241. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:39:58 PM
Indiana Jones
I liked the (implicit) admission that he comes from a long line of undistinguished Senators.
20242. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:40:18 PM
"really did report" should be "really did support."
Anyway, so the Senate does have discharge, but they don't have to use it because it's so easy for the floor to circumvent uncooperative committees.
20243. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:40:39 PM
Hahaha, Dusty. Thanks for pointing that out.
20244. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:42:50 PM
They abstain. Then they deal with the rare electoral fallout by inserting irrelevant supportive remarks in the record, so they can say they really did report it without doing so in a vote.
They can't always abstain. For example, a fair amount of Dems voted for the marriage tax repeal and something else that I can't remember right now last year, secure in the knowledge that Clinton would veto it. It gave them cover during an election year.
20245. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:44:07 PM
Indiana Jones
Yes.
The Alien and Sedition Acts. Until today, I thought it was a single law with a compound title. I just learned (or re-learned) today that it was two separate laws. (The "s" should have tipped me off.)
Adams didn't use the Alien Act, but he did use the Sedition Act, partly to help crush the Republicans.
What goes around, comes around.
20246. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 2:45:43 PM
I suggest that Lott, McConnell, Bush and the rest of the Freepers who are now attacking Jeffords sit down and read Yertle the Turtle.
Dusty,
The Libertarians have been so bad at getting out their message, I'm afraid that a coup might be the only hope for them.
20247. Ronski - 5/24/2001 2:48:26 PM
Pani,
And we expressly forbid initiating coups in our oath of allegiance to the Party.
20248. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:48:37 PM
Roundtable discussion in Lehrer Newshour
Good analysis all round.
20249. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:50:46 PM
Yes, true enough Cal. So they do something with an equivalent outcome. They hand off to avoid the fallout, knowing full well what's about to happen.
And that outcome is the same, policy wise, as: if there's not enough floor agreement, the motion fails. If there is enough, it passes.
20250. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:50:47 PM
A coup requires a modicum of organization.
Either that, or really, really big guns.
20251. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:52:18 PM
In any case some of them certainly could have abstained. Not just in the metaphysical sense of "could," but in the real electoral sense. But why cross the street if you don't have to?
20252. Ronski - 5/24/2001 2:54:10 PM
Indy,
Yes, as you suspected, Jeffords does have an ego. He has his advance staff pass out "Thank You, Jim" buttons in front of his entourage as he (1) campaigns through the streets, (2) shows up at the annual blessings of the chairlifts, and (3) crowns the local Maple Syrup Queen at sugarbushes around the state every April.
(Okay, they don't actually do the last two.)
20253. glendajean - 5/24/2001 3:01:03 PM
A US Senator with an ego ... that's a new one. But I like the blessing of the chairlifts.
If Adams was crushing Republicans, it was of the Democratic variety (i.e., Jefferson's party).
20254. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 3:01:30 PM
He has his advance staff pass out "Thank You, Jim" buttons in front of his entourage
Maybe he should send one to Daschle.
20255. Ronski - 5/24/2001 3:02:51 PM
Indy,
:-) !
20256. glendajean - 5/24/2001 3:05:04 PM
Cokie Roberts said this morning on NPR that one effect of this could be retirement of men who liked being chairmen but who are getting close to retirement age: she listed Helms and Domenici as potential retirees.
20257. Dusty - 5/24/2001 3:10:57 PM
And we expressly forbid initiating coups in our oath of allegiance to the Party.
Curses, foiled again.
20258. glendajean - 5/24/2001 3:17:44 PM
Good link, Cal, from the NewsHour.
20259. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 3:27:40 PM
20215. Dusty - 5/24/01 7:02:31 PM
Ronski
Mathews must have been reading the Mote—Ace waxed on about that subject yesterday.
20225. LadyChaos - 5/24/01 7:20:09 PM
Message # 20209,
A law making it illegal for congressmen to switch parties during a term in office would probably be unconstitutional.
I did not say party-switching should be illegal. Ever. You are confusing me with someone else.
Party-switching has to be legal, for several reasons. One, because no law could restrain someone from simply voting with the opposite party on every issue, including organization and control of Congress, even if a law made it illegal to nominally switch parties (Jeffords had voted almost straight-Democratic long before this). Two, because the Constiution doesn't make party loyalty a criteria for service in Congress. The US Supreme Court has been very vigilant about striking down any additional requirements not mentioned in the Constitution.
That said, I wouldn't mind if a law were passed which required party-switchers to stand for re-election within a year. Seems reasonable to me. But this would probably be unconstitutional without an amendment.
I make enough arguments here. There is no need to attribute arguments to me that I didn't make.
20260. Dusty - 5/24/2001 3:37:19 PM
Ace,
Geez Louise, take it easy.
I was trying to give you credit for raising the issue, ahead of the news media.
20261. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 3:41:43 PM
Take it easy? I am simply correcting an error.
And I don't want "credit" for an obvious proposal, and an unconstitutional one at that.
20262. glendajean - 5/24/2001 4:08:07 PM
From washingtonpost.com:
Lott Seeks Quick Olson Vote
20263. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 4:44:13 PM
Ace,
Sorry. Someone mentioned your name in conjunction with that issue, and I realize that I jumped to the wrong conclusion about your position on it.
20264. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:03:46 PM
AP reports that Lincoln Chafee has requested a meeting with the White House "to improve his relationship" with President Bush.
He will get the meeting, and more.
20265. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:06:59 PM
Its kind of cool that the moderate Republican Senators are dragging Bush, kicking and screamin, back to the mainstream.
20266. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 5:31:09 PM
Jeffords is not really a moderate. Breaux, Democrat from Louisiana (?), is a "moderate." Jeffords is a liberal.
Jeffords actually only agreed to support the compromise tax cut after fifteen Democrats had crossed party lines to support it.
He may not be as liberal as Daschle or Wellstone, but he's liberal. He is only "moderate" in the sense that liberals mean it, i.e., a liberal.
20267. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:31:46 PM
Consider this quote from today's W. Post Op-ed page, a column by Bill Kristol:
A couple of weeks ago, one senior Republican explained to the Weekly Standard that "there's a one- or two-year plan to punish him [Jeffords] for his behavior. And it's stuff that may hurt him, but stuff that's not going to draw a significant amount of attention. So they're going to get him." Who got whom? But if the Bush White House comes to appreciate the utility of humility, the Jeffords departure could be a valuable learning experience.
As they used to say in Texas, a come to Jesus moment. I bet Chafee gets some consideration for his concerns.
20268. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:33:09 PM
20269. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:33:10 PM
Ace:
"Jeffords is not really a moderate. Breaux, Democrat from Louisiana (?), is a "moderate." Jeffords is a liberal."
You think Jesse Helms is a liberal.
20270. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 5:33:12 PM
AP reports that Lincoln Chafee has requested a meeting with the White House "to improve his relationship" with President Bush.
He will get the meeting, and more.
I doubt it. There is no reason to mollify him anymore. The R's have lost (nominal) control of the Senate; there isn't any particular reason to make all sorts of liberal concessions to keep a single liberal vote.
If you're going to lose his vote, you're going to lose his vote. Why make additional concessions?
20271. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:34:47 PM
Ace,
Because, I think, there is still the possibility of regaining the Senate through a Miller or even a Baucus defection. A small but real possibility.
20272. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:35:18 PM
"If you're going to lose his vote, you're going to lose his vote. Why make additional concessions?"
A second defection would be a devastating blow to Bush's image.
20273. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:36:45 PM
A second defefection would certain clash with "uniter, not divider" mantle.
20274. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:36:47 PM
And, you have the other two members of the Gang of Four to worry about, who are not quite as liberal as Chafee, but nearly so. Freepers and others may be telling them all to go, but I don't think the White House wants to see the Republican numbers in the Senate decreased even more.
20275. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:42:35 PM
"A second defefection would certain clash with "uniter, not divider" mantle."
I think "uniter, not divider" has been completely discredited by now. It has the same level of credibility as "Read my lips -- no new taxes" and "I did not have sex with that woman!"
20276. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:46:28 PM
I read somewhere recently that the Democrats have 14 Senators up for reelection next year and the Republicans have 20. If that is true, neither Bush or Lott would want to see the D side of the aisle increase prior to the election.
20277. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:49:14 PM
Jeffords was the chief Republican co-sponsor of ENDA (The Employment Non-Discrimination Act) -- makes employment discrimination based on orientation illegal. With a new majority leader, ENDA may get another floor vote this year. The last one was in 1996 when it passed the Senate along with DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act).
20278. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:59:07 PM
Speaking of which, the New York State Senate leadership (GOP) may allow a vote on the gay rights bill that passed the Democratic Assembly as usual earlier this year. If Joe Bruno, the majority leader, does so, it will be because he knows it will pass (we have this system where nothing gets voted on in the Senate unless the GOP has already determined for certain what the outcome will be, kind of like a lawyer never asking a question he does not already know the answer to). But if it happens this year, the main reason is that the GOP wants to seem more liberal and socially tolerant, as they did when they passed a hate crimes bill last year they had previously held up for I dunno how long.
I have mixed feelings about all of this, as usual.
20279. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 6:16:18 PM
gj: Jeffords did vote for DOMA, however. (Pretty sure I read that today.)
20280. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 6:17:45 PM
Ronski: Good link in 20268 (though I think Rockwell's site is usually considered nutty).
20281. glendajean - 5/24/2001 6:19:32 PM
I think that he did. I used to know the entire list (it was short), but no longer retain the names.
Daschle became a co-sponsor a couple of years ago. Interesting to see if it gets another floor vote.
20282. glendajean - 5/24/2001 6:20:20 PM
That is, the list of those who voted against DOMA (that was the short list).
20283. Ronski - 5/24/2001 6:21:28 PM
It is a little nutty, even I will admit.
And just about everybody voted for DOMA. The utter and complete federalization of marriage seemed like a politically wise move at the time, to many.
20284. Ronski - 5/24/2001 6:22:55 PM
glenda,
With Daschle, you mean ENDA, right?
20285. glendajean - 5/24/2001 6:24:03 PM
Ronski -- yes. Sadly, DOMA is already the law of the land.
Good night. I'm off to my homeland for the weekend.
20286. Ronski - 5/24/2001 6:26:19 PM
Nothing stands forever.
20287. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 10:35:43 PM
Slavery was the law of the land too, once.
So was segregation.
And women didn't get the vote until -- when was that again?
20288. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:43:17 PM
Cellar - And women didn't get the vote until -- when was that again?
When the Republicans pushed it the amendment through Congress and got it ratified by the states. If we had waited for Democrats, we'd still be waiting.
20289. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:24:46 PM
JJ
PLEASSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE.
20290. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 11:53:48 PM
So we can count on the Republican party to repeal DOMA and sign ENDA ?
20291. jexster - 5/25/2001 8:02:15 AM
It was described yesterday as the agonizing culmination of a slowly building process in which a lifelong Republican examined his own place in the modern GOP and concluded that he no longer belonged
20292. jexster - 5/25/2001 8:10:05 AM
Fuzzy Math
"I respect Senator Jeffords, but respectfully, I couldn't disagree more." Bush added, "I was elected to get things done on behalf of the American people, and to work with both Republicans and Democrats, and we're doing just that."
20293. jexster - 5/25/2001 8:23:54 AM
On the eve of Bush's visit to the Golden State and his meeting with The Governor, Houston's Reliant energy has promised to cut its prices...IF California and the Feds give it air pollution breaks....
Now we see why Houston is the nation's most polluted city or at best fighting with LA for the honor
20294. jexster - 5/25/2001 9:45:52 AM
ASHINGTON, May 24 — Senator James M. Jeffords's defection from the Republican Party cannot be dismissed as the isolated case of an exasperated lawmaker who felt that he was not getting proper attention from the White House.
Many influential Democrats and Republicans agree that Mr. Jeffords's decision to become an independent is a striking example of the perils of President Bush's strategy of governing from the right
NYT
20295. jexster - 5/25/2001 10:27:50 AM
What Ken Lay Wants, His Moron Gives
Like I've said countless times...California has sent 13 Billion bucks to these scumbags in less than a year via their manipulated market
Curtis Hébert Jr., Washington's top electricity regulator, said he had barely settled into his new job this year when he had an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth L. Lay, the head of the nation's largest electricity trader, the Enron Corporation.
Corruption
20296. Fielding - 5/25/2001 10:29:02 AM
JJ:
"When the Republicans pushed it the amendment through Congress and got it ratified by the states. If we had waited for Democrats, we'd still be waiting."
This is true. But that was 80 years ago, before the realignment of the political parties in 1932. Surely you do not see today's Republican party as the champion of equal rights, do you?
20297. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 11:02:53 AM
Fielding - There is no major party now which champions equal rights. Democrats try to get preferences for their constituents and Republicans try to stop them. Both parties are more concerned with pointing fingers and scoring points than solving problems.
20298. jexster - 5/25/2001 11:05:08 AM
Democrats try to get preferences for their constituents and Republicans try to stop them. Though the accounts of the discussion differ, that it took place at all illustrates Enron's considerable influence in Washington, especially at the commission, the agency authorized to ensure fair prices in the nation's wholesale electricity and natural gas markets, Enron's main business.
Mr. Lay has been one of Mr. Bush's largest campaign contributors, and no other energy company gave more money to Republican causes last year than Enron
20299. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/25/2001 11:12:13 AM
jj- "Both parties are more concerned with pointing fingers and scoring points than solving problems."
That's untrue JJ--the R's have solved their "problems" with the Fat-Cat tax cuts, and by usurping the DOD, DOJ, EPA, DOE et al -- now it's time to address their global fear and paranoia with Star Wars.
20300. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 11:13:00 AM
Jex - We were talking about civil rights, not constituents in general. Both parties dance with who brung 'em.
20301. jexster - 5/25/2001 11:16:12 AM
and the democrats dance with latinos, gays, asians and blacks
Bush dances with Lay...and DeLay
20302. Fielding - 5/25/2001 11:17:00 AM
JJ:
"There is no major party now which champions equal rights. Democrats try to get preferences for their constituents and Republicans try to stop them. Both parties are more concerned with pointing fingers and scoring points than solving problems."
It is amusing to watch you go into contortions to avoid saying anything good about the Democrats, or anything bad about the Republicans.
Most Republicans would acknowledge that the Democrats are more interested in equal rights, although many disagree with the means by which the Democrats would achieve such an end (higher taxes on the rich, affirmative action, social programs, more funding for education, etc.). Surely you must have noticed this in your travels.
20303. jexster - 5/25/2001 11:18:47 AM
One of our problems is that we do not have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage activities of a company like Enron," he said, adding, "we're trying to do it now, and we may have some results soon."
Well I hope Hebert's boyz and girlz work fast, very fast...Krusty the Klown is about to shit can him
20304. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 11:31:46 AM
Fielding - It is amusing to watch you go into contortions to avoid saying anything good about the Democrats, or anything bad about the Republicans.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Neither party right now is worth a shit.
Most Republicans would acknowledge that the Democrats are more interested in equal rights
Affirmative action programs favored by Democrats like quotas, preferences and set-asides are not about equal rights, they are about giving preferences to their constituents. Redistributing income is simply buying votes.
Republicans aren't any better. They oppose things that can actually do some good like ENDA and hate crimes legislation.
20305. Fielding - 5/25/2001 11:49:21 AM
JJ:
"Maybe I wasn't clear. Neither party right now is worth a shit."
Well, that's true, but for different reasons. The Republicans have no heart, and the Democrats have no brain. And both are whores. But they are not evil in the same way.
20306. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 12:00:11 PM
Fielding - I don't think there is a heart or brain left in either party. They are both obsessed with political power as an end in itself. They appeal to different constiuencies in order to gain that power, but it is the power they are interested in. You may like what the Democrats say. I may like what the Republicans say. Their actions however betray them both.
20307. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:07:11 PM
JJ:
"You may like what the Democrats say. I may like what the Republicans say."
This bothers me a little bit. Although people like Ace view anyone to the left of Jesse Helms as a liberal, I'm really a centrist.
I usually split my ticket, and in the last election I voted for exactly one Democrat and one Republican, both of whom lost (I didn't vote local races because I had just moved). I will generally vote for Republicans if they aren't too conservative on social issues, or Democrats if they are not too liberal on spending issues. I also factor in character and ability to govern, so I would never vote for somebody like Ted Kennedy (character) or Jerry Browne (ability to govern).
20308. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:09:46 PM
Kausfiles:
Politics and the Rainesian language:
"The House voted to approve ... the legislation, which calls for a 29 percent increase in spending to $24 billion for next year. The measure was written by Republicans and Democrats using President Bush's plan as a blueprint. ..." --NYT, page A1, 5/24/01.
"Mr. Bush's rejection of increased education spending in the budget has made a mockery of his pledge to 'leave no child behind' ...". -- Howell Raines' NYT editorial page, same day.
It's lucky the guy who produces that sort of unthinking hackneyed propaganda isn't taking over the whole paper! ... (5/24)
20309. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:11:57 PM
FROM THE RIGHT?: The Democratic Party line, faithfully repeated as "news" by Rick Berke in the New York Times, is that Jim Jeffords' defection is a result of Bush foolishly governing "from the right." Huh? The only hard evidence of conservatism is the budget deal and tax cut, which Jeffords supported. The other major legislative achievements poised for passage are the Education Bill - a deeply bipartisan measure crafted by Ted Kennedy and boosting federal education spending by 30 percent - and the campaign Finance Reform Bill, crafted by John McCain. Ashcroft's tenure at Justice has been moderate, bordering on liberal. Environmental policy is barely distinguishable from Clinton's, except for terrible p.r., and a belated recognition that we need more energy sources. On abortion, which Berke dutifully cites, the administration has been completely AWOL. There hasn't even been an attempt at a partial birth abortion ban, perhaps the minimum measure sought by the religious right. The administration is strikingly diverse on racial and gender matters and has reached out to gay Americans. Berke hauls out all the usual blowhards - from Bill Kristol to Bob Strauss (remember him?) to make what is a completely unsubstantiated case. Is this a sign of what Howell Raines has in store for the whole paper? Propaganda disguised as news? At the very least, this is over-interpreting Jeffords. If he hadn't been able to tip the balance of the Senate, this would be a non-story, a quirky little regional piece on a fickle leftie trapped in a Republican Party were he clearly hasn't belonged for twenty years. Jeffords was fine with the Gingrich revolution but balks at Bush? Give me a break.
-- Andrew Sullivan
Just thought I'd throw a bucket of cold reality on Jexster's liberal-rag spam.
20310. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:19:32 PM
Fielding:
I consider George Pataki, John Breaux, and Olympia Snowe to be "moderates."
I believe that moderates exist in Congress --but there aren't many of them, due to the fact that political parties naturally pull their candidates to their respective political poles.
But you are the type of Stalinist-doublespeaking liberal who insists that anyone to left of Ralph Nader is a "moderate" because YOU are to the left of Ralph Nader.
The "political center" is NOT defined by YOU.
I have no problem acknowledging I am right-of-center and conservative (this despite the fact that I've voted for -- get this -- Dukakis and Clinton). Why is it that every liberal insists he is a "moderate"?
Jeffords was the SIXTY-SECOND Senator to support the watered down tax cut compromise; he only supported it after all true moderates all supported it. He voted against Clarence Thomas (while many true moderates, like Sam Nunn, voted for him.) He voted against impeachment. He voted against Reagan's tax cuts.
He is, in other words, a liberal.
I understand that many moderate Republicans are pro-choice. I'm pro-choice as a policy question myself, though I'm not a moderate.
But if someone is liberal on social issues and liberal on the issue of goverment spending/government growth/tax cuts, by precisely what lights should such a person be judged a "moderate"?
Christ. Bill Bradley supported the Reagan tax cuts. Jeffords didn't.
20311. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 12:20:03 PM
Fielding - I'm really a centrist.
I am aware of where you stand politically. That is why I used the word "may". It was just a point of contrast.
20312. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:20:37 PM
"The only hard evidence of conservatism is the budget deal and tax cut, which Jeffords supported."
Ace, how could you quote something so utterly stupid? Jeffords did not support Bush's tax plan, that's what caused the rift in the first place.
20313. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:21:04 PM
JJ:
Cool.
20314. rubberducky - 5/25/2001 12:21:48 PM
Bush has 'has reached out to gay Americans'?
please.
what a fuckin' joke.
20315. rubberducky - 5/25/2001 12:22:02 PM
20316. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 12:22:12 PM
Toys
20317. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:23:28 PM
One of those think-tanks that rates politicians as far as conservative/liberal bent rated Jeffords as 24 points (on a 100 point scale) less conservative than an actual moderate -- Olympia Snowe -- and 25 points more liberal than Snowe.
I grant that Snowe is a "moderate." She is socially liberal and a split-the-difference moderate on government growth and tax cuts/government spending.
But I cannot accept the principle that someone who is 24 points LESS conservative/25 points MORE liberal than Snowe (who scores somewhere around a 55 on "conserativeness") is a "moderate."
If that's a "moderate," then there are no liberals other than Barry Sanders. But then, that's what liberals -- forever running from the term "liberal" -- actually believe, I guess.
20318. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:25:40 PM
"Ace, how could you quote something so utterly stupid? Jeffords did not support Bush's tax plan, that's what caused the rift in the first place."
Jeffords supported the $1.35 T compromise (though the 62d and last Senator to do so) and joined the Republicans in defeating poison-pill amendments to the bill.
20319. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:25:54 PM
Ace:
I don't know why you are trying to argue with me about Jeffords.
My views are more or less typical of the median third of American spectrum of political thought. If that makes me a liberal, than most Americans are liberal, which makes the term pretty meaningless.
20320. jexster - 5/25/2001 12:26:17 PM
One Down, Three To Go
And the Grand Old Poopstain will be purged!
Free at last...free at last!
20321. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:28:47 PM
"My views are more or less typical of the median third of American spectrum of political thought. If that makes me a liberal, than most Americans are liberal, which makes the term pretty meaningless. "
Incorrect. Your views are more or less typical of the "moderate" segment of extremely liberal areas of the country.
This is another thing that annoys me about liberals -- they define, Soviet-Style, half the country as "non persons."
I would be considered a flaming liberal in the South. But that is hardly the relevant criterion; the South is not America.
Liberals, however, believe that "America" consists only of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Greenwhich Village, Providencetown and San Fransisco.
20322. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:30:24 PM
"My views are more or less typical of the median third of American spectrum of political thought. If that makes me a liberal, than most Americans are liberal, which makes the term pretty meaningless. "
-- Fielding
"How did Nixon get elected? No one I know voted for him." -- Liberal Manhattanite Pauline Kael expressing bewilderment on the election of Nixon, who carried 46+ states in 1972
20323. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:30:58 PM
Was it 49 states? I think it was 49 states.
20324. jexster - 5/25/2001 12:33:00 PM
Bush promised Jeffords that he'd go with the Senate and fully fund Special Education programs for disabled kids...
Then DeLay got into the act...and the rest is history
When I asked an aide to one of the moderates what the Republicans could have said to dissuade Jeffords, he replied: "What, 'We're going to be nice to you now'? How could he believe that after the last four years? Would he have to get it in writing? ...
20325. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:36:28 PM
Fielding:
As a general rule, if you find yourself always on the opposite side of an argument from a conservative, that's a pretty good hint that you're a liberal.
Unless you think that "moderates" and conservatives are such natural enemies. Which only liberals believe.
You know who the moderates are? They're the ones happy about getting a tax cut.
Not the ones whining about how the Democrats "rolled over" for the tax cut. Those folks would be liberals -- you know, the one third of the Senate (approximately) that voted against the tax cut, and the one third of the country (less than that, actually) who is opposed to the tax cut.
20326. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:39:02 PM
PS: Moderates also support restrictions on abortion, from the ban on partial birth abortion to parental-notification.
It is, indeed, a "moderate" position to support abortion rights, in that 55%+ of the country supports such right. To be against certain restrictions, however, casts you as a liberal -- moderates favor such restrictions.
I can provide the polling date to prove this, if you're going to be an idiot about it. But I trust you've actually seen such polling data before.
20327. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:41:19 PM
"Was it 49 states? I think it was 49 states."
49 states plus DC. Only Massachusetts went to McGovern. The Upper West Side voted for McGovern.
20328. Indiana Jones - 5/25/2001 12:44:44 PM
I think Jeffords also voted for HRC's failed health care plan. Now that's pretty liberal.
20329. rubberducky - 5/25/2001 12:44:51 PM
in other news...
After months of wrangling, the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday passed watered-down legislation to address the pesky issue of spam.
The legislation merely makes it illegal for companies or individuals to use fake return addresses when sending unsolicited email. While there's also a new provision that would require pornographic messages to be appropriately labeled, the final bill was stripped of any of the more hard-hitting requirements, such as allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) and consumers to sue companies that continue sending spam after they have been asked to stop.
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who authored the original bill with the more stringent requirements, said she was disappointed that the committee voted to pare down her legislation. However, she noted that there are still a few legislative steps between now and when the bill could get passed into law, and she says she will work to get the enforcement provisions back into the bill.
"You have a right to stop telemarketers from calling you," Wilson said in a statement. "There is an outright federal ban on junk faxes. You even have a right to stop junk mail from coming to your regular mailbox. You should have the right to tell a company to stop sending junk email to your in-box and the in-boxes of your children."
what a waste of time. technology will find ways around this silliness. just delete it for christ's sake. spam is maddening, but it is all part-n-parcel to having an e-mail account. surely there are more important things to worry with.
20330. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:45:52 PM
Ace:
"As a general rule, if you find yourself always on the opposite side of an argument from a conservative, that's a pretty good hint that you're a liberal."
I fight with liberals far more than conservatives. Of course, I know more liberals than conservative. Also, most of the people I discuss politics with are very intelligent, and the highly intelligent are less likely to be rabid conservatives than moderate conservatives.
BTW, true conservatives don't want a tax cut the size that Bush wants. True conservatives prefer a smaller tax cut, with more of the national debt being paid down. Liberals want to spend more of the surplus. So I'm probably more conservative than you in this instance.
20331. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:46:22 PM
I think Jeffords also voted for HRC's failed health care plan.
He did. That was the one I was trying to remember, but it escaped me.
Hee, hee, hee. "Moderate" Jeffords voted for HillaryCare, while 60+ Democrats didn't.
20332. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:50:06 PM
BTW, true conservatives don't want a tax cut the size that Bush wants.
Laugh. Riiiiiiiight. Let us not take the word of hundreds of conservative think-tankers, who want a BIGGER tax cut; let us take Fielding's word for what "true conservatives" want.
True conservatives prefer a smaller tax cut, with more of the national debt being paid down.
Incorrect. Some people may want that in a "best of all possible worlds" sort of way, but in the real world, in the likely world, all surplus money will be spent on new government programs, as Daschle and Company have explicitly proposed.
In the last 50 years, government spending was only restrained for one brief period -- from 1991-1996. This was due to the growing deficit, and increasing public concern about it.
Without the deficit to restrain spending, government growth has exploded anew.
20333. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:50:07 PM
Ace:
"PS: Moderates also support restrictions on abortion, from the ban on partial birth abortion to parental-notification.
It is, indeed, a "moderate" position to support abortion rights, in that 55%+ of the country supports such right. To be against certain restrictions, however, casts you as a liberal -- moderates favor such restrictions."
I didn't say that I followed every moderate position in lockstep. Only an idiot that can't think for him/herself follows every position in a movement in lockstep. (You, for example). I'm motre liberal than the median on abortion, I'm more conservative than the median on free trade. I'm more liberal than the median on gay rights, I'm more conservative than the median on rent control.
20334. Wombat - 5/25/2001 12:55:23 PM
These days, Nixon would be considered a "liberal"
Liberal=Anyone who Ace disagrees with.
20335. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:57:30 PM
Ace:
"Laugh. Riiiiiiiight. Let us not take the word of hundreds of conservative think-tankers, who want a BIGGER tax cut; let us take Fielding's word for what "true conservatives" want."
Those "conservative" think tanks are not taking a true "conservative" position. They are taking an ideological position.
True conservatism calls for fiscal restraint. A deficit inflicting tax-cut is not a conservative value, it is a right wing value.
This is similar to Reagan, a conservative, whose policies caused huge deficits. To call Reagan a fiscal conservative makes a mockery of the word conservative.
Another example is the Supreme Court, where so called conservative justices will occassionally take an activist position to reach the result they want. Those positions are not conservative in the judicial sense, but rather in the political sense.
But these words are really just convenient labels for you.
20336. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:59:31 PM
I didn't say that I followed every moderate position in lockstep.
Youi don't follow any important moderate position in lockstep. On all seriously contested issues -- abortion, military, government spending/social programs, tax cuts, gay rights, death penalty -- you are a fairly left liberal, usually holding a position that only 25%-40% of the country holds. And this you define as "moderate."
I'm motre liberal than the median on abortion, I'm more conservative than the median on free trade.
Laugh. Again, idiots like you -- so determined to call yourself a "moderate" -- claim that free trade is a "conservative" issue, when in fact the parties equally agree on the issue and have dissenting factions of approximately the same size and power. Free trade does not split the country according to ideology, it splits the country according of class (professional vs. factory worker/farmer) and geography (post-industrial city/suburbs vs. rural and industrial cities).
"I'm more liberal than the median on gay rights, I'm more conservative than the median on rent control. "
Wow.
Fielding has TWO minor issues on which he makes his "moderate" stand -- Free Trade (supported by most liberals, as well as most conservatives, and hence neither a conservative/liberal issue) and -- get this -- the pressing national problem of rent control.
Abortion, gay rights, death penalty, social spending, welfare reform, the military, SDI, tax cuts, government spending -- on all these issues he's far to the left.
But he's "conservative" on Free trade and rent control, or at least slightly conservative, and that makes him a "moderate."
Well, douchebag, I'm pro-choice as a matter of policy. I'm conservative on almost everything else, but using your idiotic calculus, that makes me a "moderate" too.
20337. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:01:39 PM
Ace:
What is my position on the death penalty?
You just pulled a CalGal, you fool.
20338. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:02:12 PM
Ace:
What is my position on welfare reform?
20339. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:04:28 PM
You tell me.
I have a feeling your position on the death penalty will soon be shown to be "pulling a CalGal."
You are against it, but you claim you are against it for non-liberal reasons ("How can we ever be SURE?*") and therefore your allegedly non-liberal reasons for opposing it make it into a non-liberal position.
Uh-huh. Geeze, no liberals ever ponder the "How can we be SURE?" question, Fielding.
20340. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:07:16 PM
Ace:
I see the problem here. You see that I am pro choice and pro gay rights, so you naturally assume that I am a liberal and ascribe to me every other position that you view as liberal. This says a lot more about you than it does about me.
20341. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:09:53 PM
Fielding,
60% of the country approves of GWB as a person and also in his job performance.
You don't.
That puts you in the minority right there.
On just about every significant issue, you're liberal, and within the minority.
One can be in the liberal minority on a few issues and be a moderate; but one can hardly claim to be a moderate when one is in the liberal minority on almost all significant issues.
Free trade isn't a significant issue, because the near-entirety of the political class supports it. You wouldn't claim that my oppostion to Jim Crow segregation makes me a moderate, would you? Of course not; who DOESN'T oppose enforced racial segregation? And yet you think it shows some sort of maverick (and yet moderate) political thinking to support free trade, which every fucking politician from Dianne Feinstein to Barbara Boxer to Phil Gramm supports.
We have a name for people who don't support free trade. Or rather, liberals have a name: They call such people "nativist isolationists crazies" (if Republican) and "misguided union voters" (if Democrats).
20342. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:13:12 PM
Ace:
I'm not opposed to the death penalty, provided that it is enforced fairly. I am opposed to the death penalty against children and the mentally retarded. I believe that there should be more safeguards against executing the innocent, and I would like to see more uniformity in the sentencing process. I also think the electric chair and the gas chamber are barbaric. I have no problem with the state putting criminals to death.
In other words, my position on the death penalty is typical of most Americans.
20343. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:14:22 PM
In other words, you're against it.
20344. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:17:05 PM
"I have no problem with putting people to death, so long as no blacks or Hispanics are put to death (this is racist), and so long as no one with less than a 90 IQ is put to death, and so long as we can guarantee that no mistake will ever be made, and so long as the death penatly is imposed in a "uniform" manner (and yet we don't want to put too many people to death, which sort of militates against uniformity of punishment!), and so long as we kill people in non-barbaric ways.
"With those minor caveats, I have no problem with the death penalty. That is, so long as it is only enforced on Planet Xenon, where all my liberal concerns can be fully addresed."
20345. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:19:54 PM
Ace:
"Abortion, gay rights, death penalty, social spending, welfare reform, the military, SDI, tax cuts, government spending -- on all these issues he's far to the left."
You listed nine positions. I am indeed a liberal with regard to four of them. On the others I range from moderate to conservative.
I will grant that I am most passionate about the two which I am most liberal on, abortion, and gay rights.
Also, your choice of positions for this test is pretty silly. The death penalty is about as minor a political issue as I can think of.
In any case, you are dead wrong, and look silly as well.
20346. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:22:07 PM
"In other words, you're against it."
If that's true, than most Americans are against it. Most Americans want to see the Death Penalty enforced in a fair manner with some safeguards to prevent the execution of people who are innocent. Even you want that.
20347. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:23:04 PM
Actually, I am not against the death penalty for the "How Can We Be Sure?" reason--which is, in fact, a "liberal" reason.
But then, so is my real reason for opposing it.
Ace's list of "seriously contested" issues is silly:
abortion, military, government spending/social programs, tax cuts, gay rights, death penalty
Government spending/social programs and tax cuts are all of the same, actually. So that's one category. Defense is two.
Gay rights, death penalty, and abortion are all incredibly minor political issues and have very little to do with ideology. As with gun control, they are also issues that could easily switch sides if it ever became politically expedient.
Political ideology issues are labor, social spending, trade, and defense. Ace largely ignores thoses because, except for social spending, it ruins his case for turning everyone into a liberal. That's because, as Cellar points out, the "liberal" agenda in these areas is a non-issue--off the table completely.
20348. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:26:11 PM
"You listed nine positions. I am indeed a liberal with regard to four of them. On the others I range from moderate to conservative. "
Hah, hah. Name these positions on which you believe you are "moderate to conservative."
here's the list:
Military Spending (weapons, NOT salaries; just about everyone thinks our fighting men should be paid more, if only due to the fact that we can't recruit enough at current pay levels):
Military Spending (SDI):
Welfare Reform:
Affirmative Action:
Abortion:
Gay Rights (generally):
Gay Marriage:
Tax cuts:
Social Spending:
Death Penalty:
Federal Role in Education Spending:
Vouchers:
Church/State (nondenominational prayers at graduations or football games; noncoercive praying at work or school):
20349. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:31:18 PM
Note how Ace asks the questions.
Tax Cuts: for who?
Do you support a tax cut for the top bracket only?
Do you support expanding the people who don't pay taxes at all?
Do you support a payroll tax cut for lower income workers?
Do you support removing the ceiling on payroll tax?
Do you support reinstating the cap on the Medicare tax?
Do you support the AMT?
Do you support increasing the estate tax protection from 4 million to a higher number?
But no. Ace just says, "Tax cut".
The church/state is another minor non-issue that has nothing to do with ideology.
20350. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:32:03 PM
"Ace largely ignores thoses because, except for social spending, it ruins his case for turning everyone into a liberal. That's because, as Cellar points out, the "liberal" agenda in these areas is a non-issue--off the table completely."
Anything that's "off the table completely," such as a Communist form of government, is outside the mainstream and not a relevant consideration.
You're an idiot. If I were as determined to call myself a "moderate" as you are, I could claim that REAL conservative solutions are all "off the table." Eliminating the Education Department, for example, is "off the table." So is executing every murderer (except those who can prove they are redeemable). So is eliminating the IRS, as several "True Conservatives" propose.
Since these "real conservative" solutions are "off the table," what I am left with is moderate pablum. Since I only support such moderate pablum (given that the "real conservative solutions" are presently unpopular and hardly worth fighting for), I must be a moderate.
Cal is making the ingenious claim that she must be a "moderate," because the "real liberal soultions" (socialism, etc.) aren't seriously considered.
In other words, she's a "moderate" as compared to a Communist, socialist, or anarchist.
What. A fucking. Moron.
20351. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:35:02 PM
Social Spending:
Do you support giving social security benefits to stay at home moms?
Do you support giving a tax credit to stay at home moms?
Do you support increasing the day care tax credit?
Do you support block grants for cities?
Do you support ending all welfare payments?
Do you support school vouchers? (which is, after all, social spending--not its own separate issue).
Do you support increased business investment?
20352. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 1:38:03 PM
60% of the country approves of GWB as a person and also in his job performance.
Probably not today....
And that just proves you can fool 60% of the people most of the time.
20353. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:39:57 PM
Anything that's "off the table completely," such as a Communist form of government, is outside the mainstream and not a relevant consideration.
Communist? Hardly. There are people in this country who want the minimum wage to be $15/hour at least. There are people who think that CEO salaries should be severely limited to a certain number of times the lowest paid person in the company. There are people who want socialized medicine. There are people who think that employers should provide a year paid leave for having children, as well as five or six weeks of vacation a year. There are people who think all daycare should be free.
Just for starters. And all paid for by a progressive tax rate that goes up to 60 or 70% at the highest.
None of that is "Communist". It's barely even Socialist.
20354. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:42:10 PM
"Liberal" simply can't be used for a position that most of the country agrees with. But then, that assumes that Ace actually came up with truly ideological issues, rather than penny ante bullshit that barely matters to the underlying politics.
20355. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:44:24 PM
60% of the country approves of GWB as a person and also in his job performance.
60% of the country does not approve of GWB in terms of his association with big business, his position on abortion, and his position on the environment.
That puts you in the minority, right there. Not that it matters, since these are stupid and non-political issues.
BTW, just fifty years ago, increased defense spending was a Democrat agenda item. Republicans were against the military, being isolationists.
20356. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:46:59 PM
Cal,
You're a fucking moron. "Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. What is liberal and what is conservative depends on how far you deviate from the real political center.
You are claiming, stupidly, that it matters not that, say, only 30% of the nation supports a certain position; you claim that the 30% minority can still be "moderate" if we would only call "liberal" a position an even smaller minority (around 5-10%) holds.
I can do this "on my side," too, Dipshit. If you want to claim that only Chiapas-style socialists are "liberals," then I can claim (with equal justification) that only people who want to eliminate the IRS completely and/or implement a nonprogressive "flat tax" are REAL conservatives. Ergo, I'm a moderate like you.
But such stupidity would define 80-90% of the country as "moderate," while reserving the terms "liberal" and "conservative" only for the extreme, extreme ends of the bell-curve.
Again, if that's the way you wish to define it -- if your badge of "moderate" is so important you seek to ignore the way words are conventionally defined, and use the word to describe the middle 80-90% of the country, fine.
I don't think you're getting this. You are playing a retarded semantic game where you deem only the very leftmost 10% of the country as "liberal," making you a "moderate." There is nothing in principle that keeps me from similarly defining the ONLY the 10% most rightward of the public as "conservative," making me (and Concerned, and JJ, and Dusty, and FU) moderates as well.
It's an idiotic definition, but I expect nothing else from you.
20357. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:52:58 PM
"BTW, just fifty years ago, increased defense spending was a Democrat agenda item. Republicans were against the military, being isolationists."
Yes*, and just thirty years ago Democrats were against the Civil Rights Act. Four hundred years ago Oliver Cromwell supported a semi-fascist theocratic state. And two thosuand years ago, the Populares of Rome supported the confiscation of the estates of political rivals, while the Optimates contested this. And five hundred years before that, Athens was very, very pissed off at Sparta.
Sometime before this God and Satan had a political dispute as well.
*Not really "yes," by the way. CalGal is forever ignorant. She likes pretending to be well-read and informed so she can play with the boys.
20358. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:58:43 PM
Continuing:
Meanwhile, ten thousand years ago, mongooses and cobras first realized they had intractable differences which could never be papered-over through political compromise.
Twenty thousand years ago, Homo Sapiens sapens decided they would not give political rights to homo sapiens neanderthals; they also decided they would bash their brains in with clubs.
Sixty million years ago, small mammals had a political dispute with dinosaurs; it seems small mammals felt htey had the "right" to eat the eggs of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs were not able to stop this "mammalian genocide" through legislation. At approximately the same time, a large comet had a dispute with the Yucatan.
20359. CalGal - 5/25/2001 2:31:18 PM
Ergo, I'm a moderate like you.
Pretty much. You aren't conservative, Ace, and while your squawkings aren't moderate your politics are certainly barely right of center, if that.
There is nothing in principle that keeps me from similarly defining the ONLY the 10% most rightward of the public as "conservative," making me (and Concerned, and JJ, and Dusty, and FU) moderates as well.
You, JJ, and FU are moderates--slightly right of center. Concerned isn't, and Dusty is a libertarian. You and he might agree on positions, but he wants an end to most government whereas you do not. Dusty isn't moderate.
Again, if that's the way you wish to define it -- if your badge of "moderate" is so important you seek to ignore the way words are conventionally defined, and use the word to describe the middle 80-90% of the country, fine.
Closer to 50-60%, but yes. That is what I'm saying, and have been all along. I believe that Jay has made a similar point as well.
20360. CalGal - 5/25/2001 2:33:19 PM
"Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. What is liberal and what is conservative depends on how far you deviate from the real political center.
This is exactly backwards, btw. Liberal and conservate are reasonably absolute. The "real" political center is what is relative.
20361. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 2:33:51 PM
Ace:
I loved your history lesson...very humorous!
20362. Indiana Jones - 5/25/2001 2:41:42 PM
Lonely Dissenter
Clinton (D-N.Y.), accusing Republicans of "raw political partisanship" in bringing the Olson nomination up so quickly, said she would vote against Olson because she didn't "believe he meets the standards that we should expect for someone nominated to be solicitor general." Clinton was the target of a scathing book, "Hell to Pay," written by Olson's wife, Barbara.
The Senate also voted in favor of the other two nominees Clinton opposed: Michael Chertoff, former counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee, to head the criminal division, and Georgetown law professor Viet Dinh, who worked on the Whitewater independent counsel investigation, to head the office of legal policy, on votes of 95 to 1 and 96 to 1, respectively. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved both unanimously.
20363. Cellar Door - 5/25/2001 2:43:51 PM
Michelangelo just e-mailed me his Andrew Sullivan piece which will be on the LGNY website this evening and handed out in the streets of New York, Washington D.C. and the dunes at Fire Island, tomorrow.
I have posted it in its entirety on the Andrew Sullivan thread in "News and the Media" in "Table Talk" in "Salon," and in the "Gossip" forum in "Datalounge."
I also forwarded it to Lloyd Grove at the Washington Post.
20364. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:00:46 PM
Cal,
Whether you want to define "moderate" as the middle 40% (as is typically done) or the goofily broad and difference-eliding 50%-60% chunk you favor, you're still a liberal.
20365. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:02:07 PM
CD,
I hope "Michaelangelo" never made a responsible statement about safe sex, and yet took a load in his ass or mouth, for then he's a "hypocrite" whose private sexual behavior needs to be breathlessly exposed in idiotic gay hook-up mags.
20366. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:03:19 PM
Gee... I've cautioned my gay friend against promiscuous sex, and yet I've never avoided the opportunity to go "bareback" when it presented itself.
I guess I'm a "hypocrite" too, and I need some bedroom investigation.
20367. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:10:56 PM
Ace,
You spend a whole post saying "If you're not a liberal, then I'm not a conservative!"
When I agree that you're not a conservative, pretty much undercuts your whole case, you respond "Well, you're still a liberal."
Not according to your own conclusion.
Again, if that's the way you wish to define it -- if your badge of "moderate" is so important you seek to ignore the way words are conventionally defined, and use the word to describe the middle 80-90% of the country, fine.
I note you drop your definition of loopy from 80-90 to 50-60. At 50%, I'm only 10% off your own estimate of the "center".
But in any event, "Fine" it is. I'm not a liberal. You're not a conservative. You yourself set up the if then. I've granted the if. You're stuck with the then.
20368. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 3:18:54 PM
Uh, you've got that backwards, CG. You've granted the then; that neither proves nor disproves the if.
20369. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:27:53 PM
Cal gets most things wrong. Because, you know, she's an idiot.
20370. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:31:22 PM
Stumbo,
No, I don't have it backwards. Ace made a very clear "if-then" statement.
20371. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:33:51 PM
Cal's supremely idiotic vision consists of "extremists" (15% of the public on either side of the spectrum) and everyone else a "moderate."
You can't call her a liberal. Oh no no no no. She, and I, are both "moderates." We're in the exact same category, as are Stumbo, MsIT, JJ, FU, Dusty, Ronski, Concerned... even Jexster, really, when you think about it. Jexster agrees with CalGal almost 100%, except on gun control; ergo, Jexster, too, must be a "moderate."
Why categorize any further? To do so would only accomplish one goal -- to deny the gay-marriage supporting, partisan Bush-sniping, "Sistahs are doin' it for themselves" singing, supply-and-demand relationship denying, Clinton cocksucking feminist hag from San Fransisco her coveted title of "moderate."
20372. Cellar Door - 5/25/2001 3:35:09 PM
Gee... I've cautioned my gay friend against promiscuous sex, and yet I've never avoided the opportunity to go "bareback" when it presented itself.
What kind of music would you like played at your funeral? The Faure Requiem is Da Bomb!
20373. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:36:36 PM
"Ace made a very clear "if-then" statement. "
Ace did not. Ace said he could play the same game, if he so chose, based on the same loosey-goosey "rules" you'd established.
Ace never said that his own political identification (conservative) was based on yours in any way. Whether I'm a moderate or conservative, you're still a liberal. I have more claim to the title "moderate," but I don't take it, because it would be dishonest. And just incorrect.
Further, idiot that you are, you don't realize that an if-then statement cannot be reversed. If the window is broken then I must have thrown the baseball does not imply that if I throw the baseball the window must break.
20374. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:40:21 PM
"You spend a whole post saying "If you're not a liberal, then I'm not a conservative!"
This isn't what I said at all; this is your own shoot-from-the-retarded-hag reinterpretation.
What I said was I could, if I wanted, play the ludicrous word-games you do to define myself, or ANYONE here, as a "moderate." Is Concerned a moderate? He sure is, given that the "real conservative solutions" such as radically cutting the welfare state, eliminating the IRS, instituting a flat tax or no tax at all, etc., are "off the table" and thus he can only choose from "moderate" positions which are left on the table.
20375. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:43:01 PM
Cal's supremely idiotic vision consists of "extremists" (15% of the public on either side of the spectrum) and everyone else a "moderate."
Close enough. The majority of the public is generally pretty moderate in their views. It doesn't mean that you can't be moderately on the right or moderately on the left.
As I've mentioned before, you think that Democrat and liberal is synonomous--likewise, Republican and conservative. But they aren't. Liberal and conservatives are further out on the end of the spectrum--and they are assessed in a variety of different arenas: social, economic, international, etc.
to deny the gay-marriage supporting, partisan Bush-sniping, "Sistahs are doin' it for themselves" singing, supply-and-demand relationship denying, Clinton cocksucking feminist hag from San Fransisco
I'm not from San Francisco. And as has been mentioned before now, your notion of what defines "liberal" is a tad self-centered.
And you're a moderate too, remember? Most of us here are moderates, frankly. Some are also partisan hacks. But devout partisanship does not mean one is a political extremist.
20376. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:45:30 PM
"As I've mentioned before, you think that Democrat and liberal is synonomous--likewise, Republican and conservative"
No. Christ, you're a stupid used-up hag.
I think that LIBERALS are liberal. I do not define "Democrat" as liberal; there are Democratic moderates (about half the party registration), but you're not one of them.
I think that that most very partisan Democratic hacks are liberals because, go figure, they are.
You can keep bleating this over and over in your shrill whore way, but it won't make it any more true.
20377. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:46:26 PM
Thou should have gotten wise
before thou got old.
--The Fool to King Lear
20378. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:50:16 PM
Ace did not.
Yes, Ace did.
What I said was I could, if I wanted, play the ludicrous word-games you do to define myself, or ANYONE here, as a "moderate."
Yes, that's true. And as I've said numerous times, most people here are moderates. Not Concerned--well, maybe Concerned. It's so hard to read his rantings I always forget what he actually believes. Libertarians aren't really moderates in that they want the government to pretty much go away. But even then the ones who are here are basically mild in the policies they support until The Great Day arrives.
He sure is, given that the "real conservative solutions" such as radically cutting the welfare state, eliminating the IRS, instituting a flat tax or no tax at all, etc., are "off the table" and thus he can only choose from "moderate" positions which are left on the table.
You can't eliminate the IRS and institute a tax, can you? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.
In any event, this is dishonest. If someone honestly supports those positions then they are a conservative. Just as someone who thinks the minimum wage should be $12 or more an hour, supports a 60% tax for income over $200K, and supports single payer health care is a liberal.
20379. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:50:54 PM
"As I've mentioned before, you think that Democrat and liberal is synonomous--likewise, Republican and conservative"
How can it be, then, that I call Jeffords a "liberal," and I call Breaux, Pataki, and Snowe "moderates"?
Geeze... I guess I am one confused individual. I seem to think (according to Hag) that Republican=conservative, and yet I call Jeffords a liberal. I think Democrat=liberal, and yet I call Breaux a moderate.
20380. CalGal - 5/2