SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (64161)8/25/2004 8:22:38 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 793939
 
Well, one question I would have to ask is why Cleland voted against Bush's bill "that wasn't radically different" than the bill he was willing to support?

If there is a reason of substance, fine. But voting against Bush's bill because it was Bush's bill seems petty.



To: Rambi who wrote (64161)8/25/2004 8:38:03 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793939
 
It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.


Just different enough that you couldn't fire anybody under the union rules the Dems wanted. The Republicans didn't want our Homeland security run like the Post Office. You don't see any unions in the Military. Cleland has no legitimate gripe. It was tough politics in a state that was not going to send a Democratic Senator back anyway.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News