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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (20556)	6/15/2007 12:30:45 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

But they are both associated with a major party. In this case both Democrats. One of them rose to prominence as a Democrat, and in an unusual circumstance didn't win the primary, but won the election with the support of Democrats. The other reached his station with the support on one major party, and then essentially switched to the other, with "independent" being more of a fig leaf than something really meaningful. I would agree that in one case it was simply a flaw of our system that forced the incumbent Senator to run as an independent. In the other it was a clear violation of ethics and precedent. There have been other Senators who switched parties. The last one before the forgettable weasel from Vermont immediately stood for reelection. Can you find any current or recent senator that was truly independent? Never running for office as a member of each major party, and not "caucusing" with either party? I seem to remember that the former clansmman Senator used to claim to be an Independent while caucusing with the democrats. The experience of the flaws of our government gave others the wisdom to make multiple parties more possible. In certain circumstances that has been taken to the extreme, but might be a nice change from the crooks de jour.