Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147864)	5/23/2001 2:36:28 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

I'm sure he is patriotic. Overall, he's a nice guy who just made a dumb choice. But patriotism has nothing to do with this choice. JLA

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147864)	5/23/2001 2:36:56 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 769670

He won't be leaving til he gets the tax cut for the wealthy passed. Yup, we need more just like him.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147864)	5/23/2001 2:41:16 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Jeffords is proof that "moderates" lack conviction. Republican one day, independent the next... Convenient, isn't it? ~SB~

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147864)	5/23/2001 3:03:32 PM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I do not think a Patriot goes back on his word. He knew of Bush's agenda when he ran for office under the Republican banner with the Republican MONEY. If he couldnt support it he should have run differently, dont you think. One thing about Bush, unlike others before him he has done EXACTLY what he said he would do while running for office. JDN

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147864)	5/23/2001 3:03:46 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

If there were anything to that, why didn't he choose the party he most agrees with before being elected? To those outraged by party changes, I sympathize, but don't agree. Party affiliation is not a creation of the Constitution. It's a development that came afterword, as an effective attempt to organize factions that can find enough common ground to be mutually supportive. What's amazing is that a pair of them have become entrenched in our institutions, and thus control such a great amount of influence in the day-to-day operation of government. Such an arrangement has both good and bad features. A good one is that Congress can be mobilized temporarily in time of consensus without leaving in its wake a power-grabbing monster that has to be brought down after the consensus has passed. A bad feature is related to the good one: Congress has INDEED become a power-grabbing monster, cementing its influence with entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, that WILL have to be brought down sooner or later. Balance that against the fact that they serve to keep the rif-raf out (Nader, Perot, Buchanan), and it's up to you... But the bottom line is that Vermont elected Jeffords, and if they don't like him changing parties, they can vote him out-or possibly recall him. But, for now, its his call...