The senator goes independent

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 24, 2001 7:46 pm

I don't know how many international folks in our august throng are aware of this, but we've had a major political upset in the US, today. Both of our legislative houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, have been in Republican (read: very conservative) hands for some time, now. Our current president (the one who was appointed by the judiciary, rather than elected), Bush, campaigned as a nice, cooperative moderate, and immediately came out as a diehard ideological conservative as soon as he took control.

Unfortunately for him, this continuous swing in the Republican party to the political right over the last 20 years hasn't pleased the moderates in the same party, and today, one of them jumped ship. As it happens, the Senate was evenly divided, 50/50, between Republicans and Democrats, meaning that the Vice President, who chairs the Senate, would cast a 51st vote for the Republicans. With this particular senator declaring himself an independent, the vote is now 49/50/1, and the Democrats (read: pretty conservative) have taken over all the committe chairs, in effect, setting the agenda for the Senate.

Any opinions on this?

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 25, 2001 6:55 am

Gridlock.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 25, 2001 8:00 am

Two words:
Yip Pee!

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 25, 2001 10:05 am

Originally posted by Anatres:
Gridlock.

Yes....now we pay them to do nothing. And it will be because of Republicans and Democrats both.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 25, 2001 10:10 am

I would rather see an administration that wasn't elected by a majority of the people do nothing than do something wrong. IMHO

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 25, 2001 10:29 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I would rather see an administration that wasn't elected by a majority of the people do nothing than do something wrong. IMHO

It will be the Senate who do nothing and get paid for it. Both sides will get on TV and claim it's the otherside. I'm glad this particular senator declaring himself an independent, I wish they would do away with all the parties and get something done for a change.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 25, 2001 10:45 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I would rather see an administration that wasn't elected by a majority of the people do nothing than do something wrong. IMHO

We do not have a government that elects the Executive Branch by majority vote. If we did then the heartland states (citizens) would not have a say in who became President/Vice President - the greatest amount of the population lives along the seaboards and in large urban areas. These people, in a majority of cases, hold a left of center view where the more rural citizens hold a general right of center view. So without the Electoral College the left of center view would always prevail.

Of the six recounts conducted in the state of Florida since the election the Gore/Lieberman ticket only prevailed in one. The other five clearly showed that the result of the election was correctly decided. These recounts, in every case were conducted by left of center groups. So regardless of your personal view, the current administration was duly elected by the standards set forth in the Constitution. Deal with it.

KramoR · Post by **KramoR** » Fri May 25, 2001 10:46 am

They all should be fired.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 25, 2001 10:54 am

Originally posted by Anatres:
We do not have a government that elects the Executive Branch by majority vote.

I try to explain this to my wife. It's strange....a state can vote 60% for a party...and then one person can take and decide for the whole state that the one with 40% wins the state.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri May 25, 2001 11:23 am

Good riddance.

Senator Jeffords was quite simply, a Liberal.
I know that if you call yourself a Republican these days, it automatically means, to some people, that you are a closet racist or fascist. But Jeffords was Republican in name only.

At the very least, his departure will expose the falsity that most of the Media and all of the Democrats were unwilling to admit, and that is that the Senate has never been split along 50-50 ideological lines. The Senate majority (with VP Cheney's vote), has been nominally Republican but operationally liberal. When you count Senators Jeffords, Collins, Chafee, Snowe and Specter, you realize conservatives form the minority in the Senate. Even supposedly conservative Democrats can only be relied upon for very narrow legislative endeavors.

By the way, I disagree that President Bush was elected by judicial fiat. The Supreme Court ruled an end to the vote counting in Florida, when it became apparent that there was no uniform standard of validating a ballot. In any case, a study released in April by USA Today and friends has affirmed Bush' victory by a small but significant margin.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 25, 2001 11:24 am

@Antares: Regardless of the system by which politicians get their jobs, it would have been nice if both the majority of individuals, the system, and the supreme court had agreed.

I tend to agree with the good Senator from Vermont. Things were getting a bit too right-wing. Now, maybe a more moderate agenda will prevail.

"Deal with it"? What part of IMHO don't you understand?

(J/K)

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: Gwalchmai ]

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 25, 2001 11:38 am

@Gwalchmai; sorry

. I didn't mean to jump your case. My political views mostly fall right of center although I do hold to some left of center views also. My belief in the the Rule of Law though tends to make me a Constitutionalist more than conservative or liberal by label.

I'm just a bit defensive when it comes to the whiners (not aimed at you in particular) who cannot understand that regardless of political perception our current president and vice president were elected in the manner prescribed by constitutional law. My admonition to deal with it was a wry attempt to point out that anyone that takes fault with our current executive can exercise their constitutional right in three-and-a-half years and vote to change it.

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

EDIT2: Actually, the courts didn't decide the election - see my comments on the recounts - they just stopped the Democrat's fillibuster.

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri May 25, 2001 12:07 pm

@Antares: No problem. I deal with it as best as anyone can. US politics can so easily become way too polemic and heated. I usually try to find the humor in the situation, and try to never discuss it with my father in law. But, I do lean moderate to left, and recent developments make me relax a bit. We've had gridlock in Congress for so long now, why change the status quo?

BTW, nice excessive use of italics!! Don't forget to use bold and CAPITALS.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 25, 2001 12:11 pm

What do you MEAN by

BTW, nice excessive use of italics!! Don't forget to use bold and CAPITALS.

.

It's so you can see, I say SEE just exactly what I MEAN!!

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 25, 2001 12:20 pm

We do not have a government that elects the Executive Branch by majority vote.

True, but the electoral vote was never meant to be a corrective for a majority vote; in fact, the only reason the electoral system was kept around was because it was never foreseen that the two would collide.

The electoral system was developed as a means of controlling the presidential election. The governors of the states chose the electors, and the governors were chosen by white, relatively wealthy American males who owned land. This meant that should the broad population who voted make "mistakes," the representatives of the landed class could still pull the strings that determined who got into office.

Over time, the electors ceased to be chosen by governors, and the same thing happened to senators (who remained a gubenatorial choice until the turn of the 20th century).

For what it's worth, IMO, the electoral college should have been done away with long ago. It's only differed twice from the popular vote, and in the first instance, there were four years of distrust between the public and their "elected" president. I'm not inclined to think the second instance is going to fare any better.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri May 25, 2001 12:31 pm

Given that I live very close to a nation that likes to trumpet loudly with a small stick........Whoopeeee!

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Fri May 25, 2001 1:09 pm

Sweet,
More power to the intellgient people and less to the dumb.
Poor M&M.
Bush is messing up the country and republicans are losing power.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 25, 2001 1:17 pm

@fable; sorry but I must disagree. Read Jefferson (not intended to cast aspersions if you have).

Regardless, under present-day practice the Electoral College's purpose is to give equal representation to less populus states. Something I'm sure the people of most Midwestern states appreciate.

IMO, the past administration deserved the derision of the majority of the people but didn't get it. The only reason there is any distrust of the current administration is because the mainstream media promotes it. As does the left of center members of Congress. If you doubt my observations, just listen to the rethoric that is used when the media or the Democrats in Congress refer to conservatives, conservative agendas or conservative ideals. Compare that to the same sources' language when they speak of their own. I will admit that there is much of that from the conservative side also (when the conservatives find their cojones and do speak up). I know it takes some effort but it is well worth it. It is one of the reasons I try to read as many diverse publications as I can (from the 'New Republic' to the 'Washington Post'). I do not take as gospel either side but try to glean the middle ground, so to speak. And then make up my own mind.

EDIT: But let's face it, the vast majority of Americans get all their news from the mainstream media. And most of them don't want to think for themselves. That would mean they would have to take personal responsibility for themselves and most would rather the government do that for them. I hold this beleif due to the percentage (less that 50) of the eligible public that did vote.

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 25, 2001 1:26 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
Bush is messing up the country and republicans are losing power.

How do you figure? Especially since he's only been in office just over 100 days. Remember, it's Congress that makes law, not the President.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 25, 2001 2:52 pm

Regardless, under present-day practice the Electoral College's purpose is to give equal representation to less populus states. Something I'm sure the people of most Midwestern states appreciate.

But @Anatres,how can this be, since the number of electoral votes are determined in exact proportion to the census of each state? California's electoral representatives are a far larger number than Nebraska, for example.

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: fable ]