[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by mr. natural:

Now that the Senatorial apple cart has been tipped over I wonder if this will cause some re-consideration of any early retirement plans they might have had?

I don't know but I don't think so. There's still too much up in the air. Torricelli's carreer looks like it's over. That's a possible pickup. Or maybe Max Cleland from Georgia. Cleland is rather liberal for his state but right now I'd expect him to be re-elected. DaveSimon and BRussell don't think Marc Racicot will run but if he does, Montana would become a strong possibility for a Republican gain. Racicot is probably getting a lot of calls from the White House these days. Even if Strom Thurmond is incapacitated and South Carolina's Democrat governor appoints his replacement my bet is that Lindsey Cunningham will beat him in 2002 anyway...

[mr. natural]

To the honorable grwjr33; was that a "I don't think so" regarding the Supremes? That is my querie.

Who knows what will happen in 2002, but i am curious as to any speculation by this esteemed senatorial forum about delayed retirement plans for Rehnquist or O'Connor now that the scales of Supreme approval have tilted. To repeat: With a republican prez and control of the senate it would of been a lot easier to retire to the golf circuit. But now that the later half of this equation has been gutter balled I suggest it ups the ante on W's options should it come to pass that one of the Supremes retires.

What say ye all?

Off topic, but seeing as it has been raised and seconded, it's worth noting that the fuel cells we are likely to see mass marketed first are so-called "Reformer-based" ones, in that they will still rely on fossil fuels (gasoline primarily for autos, or natural gas for home power generation), and although they will reduce tail-pipe emmisions of nitrous oxides and co2, these fuel cells are not the pure hydrogen based/no pollution ones that have been mentioned in the above posts.

Concentrated hydrogen as a fuel is very explosive and thus there are still a number of kinks to work out before we get to drive one of these puppies. Still, all of this is a step in the right direction as regards our reduction of climate altering co2 emmisions while stuck in gridlock. (btw, davesimon, does bozeman have any gridlock, aside from political that is. I've heard tales about a lot of hollywood types moving in. If enough of them did it could provide a new form of employment for the out of work miners or loggers; driving sight-seeing folks past their grand estates. Phew, i'm really off topic now.)

happy trails...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Who knows what will happen in 2002, but i am curious as to any speculation by this esteemed senatorial forum about delayed retirement plans for Rehnquist or O'Connor now that the scales of Supreme approval have tilted.

To the honorable gentleman from the fine state of god's stray animal farm...

Maybe I underestimate what a controlling party can do, but I think it has zero effect on Supreme Court nominees. They'll have hearings on whoever the president nominates, and then they'll vote. Jeffords is going to vote however he would have voted as a Republican.

Now, for lower court judges, the Dems are going to be thinking payback time.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
To the honorable grwjr33; was that a "I don't think so" regarding the Supremes? That is my querie.

Oh, ok, I clearly misunderstood your initial post. As for any Supreme Court justices who might be reconsidering their possible retirements, that's a very good question. And I don't have the faintest clue.

And thanx for that "honorable." This is definitely a first for me - and probably a last.

[This message has been edited by gwrjr33 (edited 05-26-2001).]

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
... There's still too much up in the air. Torricelli's carreer looks like it's over...

Here's more on Torricelli. He may be a crook but he's got style.

[mr. natural]

posted by BRussell:
Now, for lower court judges, the Dems are going to be thinking payback time.

To the right honorable BRussell, Sir, it looks like you deserve a prize!

From today's front page of the NYTimes: "Judicial nominees face a gauntlet of skeptics on the Judiciary Committee, who fear many of Mr. Bush's picks are too conservative and who are still stinging from Republican inaction on Clinton's selections."

It goes on to report how already one conservative representative from CA., has, as of yesterday, asked Bush not to nominate him out of fear that his confirmation would be too bruising a battle.

The heat is on... now, we get to see how W measures up as chief chef in the senatorial kitchen full of broilers no longer under his control.

[awaspaas]

It's an important time for South Dakotans like me, considering now, the 2nd most powerful man in the country is from here.

Nevermind, back to sheep-f*cking.

[This message has been edited by awaspaas (edited 05-27-2001).]

[apple4ever]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
In case it's never occurred to anyone, gridlock is inherent in our constitutional arrangement. If anything, this old (ancient, really) relic of parchment written by a few aristocrats has kept the many of us from truly knowing what a real democracy could be like. The all-holy framers (primarily Madison) were essentially terrified of simple majority rule, and thus the infamous checks & balances with which we are still stuck with.

That is the beauty of our system. Gridlock is the best thing. Remember, as Scottish historian, Lord Tyler said:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most from the public treasury with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."

The Founders believed the same thing. Democracy is BAD, BAD, BAD. It is the same as socialism, as both Lenin and Marx believed. that's why we are a Republic of Republics.

There is plenty that needs doing on our behalf (health insurance, campaign finance, energy & climate, etc.), but is any of it getting done? ...Nope.

Good, besides being bad, there are all state issues, and unconstitutional for the federal government to do. Look in the Constitution if you don't believe me.

So, if you're wondering why we have one of the most gerry-rigged rube goldberg-esque and inefficient forms of democratic government any critical thinking man has laid eyes upon (certainly in comparison with our European allies -- all of whom have revised and updated their constitutions), don't blame the idiots in office -- they're only following the script that was laid out for them over two hundred years ago by a small group of wealthy landowners.

And I thank them everyday for their wisdom. We are NOT a democracy, and thank God for that

Now, the whole system is so full of checks & balance bloat it inevitably insures that nothing gets done. A truly democratic and thus efficient & responsive government would do such things for us, We the People, as happens quite naturally in Europe. They spell out their program in detail and if voted in power they act on it. If the people don't like it after a while they are soon voted out of power to the next best policy seller. Not here is this possible with tweedle dum and tweddle dee checking & balancing one another left & right so We the People are cancelled right out of the equation.

But rather than tackle the heart of our problem we muddle from one calamity to the next because we are unquestioning slaves to this holy text. What a bunch of morons we are.

Tragically, for such blind faith in our all be praised constitution, we got the government we deserve.

[This message has been edited by mr. natural (edited 05-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by mr. natural (edited 05-23-2001).]

[apple4ever]

Originally posted by maxelson:
I'm sure I have to agree with Mr. Natural... to a point. I think the current incarnation of check and balance is manipulated to the hilt and I think the original framers would be mortified by what the system has become. I think we are all a bit too terrified (and what does THAT say about our trust in our leaders) to let go of the check and balance system.
Upon reflection (however brief), I can see promise in the "package-deal-hold-a-general-election-if-the-people-don't-like-what's-happening" form of governing you describe. I just don't think it could take hold in this country. People would have to take too much responsibility for what's going down and be well informed.
Sigh.

You're right in that the Founders would be mortified in seeing what our system is today, but not for the reasons you cite. They would be mortified because we haven't gotten farther and farther away from the idea of liberty, limited government, of the strength of Republics over Democracies, and our Constitution(which is totally ignored today). They would be horrified at the size and scope of our government, and the amount of taxes and regulation that we submit to. I pray for our country.

[mr. natural]

apple4ever: Correct me if I'm wrong, but rather than, "They would be mortified because we haven't gotten farther and farther away from the idea of liberty, limited government, of the strength of Republics over Democracies, and our Constitution(which is totally ignored today)" you actually meant have?

[mr. natural]

originally posted by apple4ever, quoting Scottish historian, Lord Tyler:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most from the public treasury with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this idea given what has just transpired in Washington?

Time will tell if such "loose fiscal policy" from the candidiate who promised the most from the public treasury leads to collapse & social anarchy, and then the dreaded "dictatorship." I would suggest that this is still a real possibility even under our all holy republican Constitution as it is presently rigged, should the right mix of circumstances arise.

And given the reality of our intensifying political gridlock, increased voter apathy, cynicism, and distrust of government in general, it wouldn't take much of a lit match from some unbidden yet vast social calamity to set in motion the fires of anarchy that bring forth a dictatorship (under the guise of a strong President and cowering legislative branch) to quell the engulfing chaos.

Don't think it's possible? You'd better think again.

I have a few more thoughts to post on this Constitutional debate, but I want to gather my thoughts together before I do. Stay tuned...

[groverat]

I think we will all rue the day that Daschle was ever given visible office.

This man is completely incapable of sticking to one viewpoint and of standing up for anything or making a courageous stance.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/578318.asp

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by groverat:
I think we will all rue the day that Daschle was ever given visible office.

This man is completely incapable of sticking to one viewpoint and of standing up for anything or making a courageous stance.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/578318.asp

Man that is too funny. Daschle stands for whatever is best for him. Some great quotes from the above.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, you�re dancing on the head of a pin right now.
....

MR. RUSSERT: It�s an evolving doctrine, I see.

....

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, first of all, the story, I�d say consider the source. Secondly, I don�t have any expectation that Senator Torricelli is going to be indicted. ...
� � � �
MR. RUSSERT: The source is federal investigators.

....

MR. RUSSERT: And you think it was irresponsible to vote for it?
� � � �
SEN. DASCHLE: Terribly irresponsible, and I�m very disappointed. And I know some of my colleagues made that decision, and I respect that decision. I just very, very strongly disagree with it.
� � � �
MR. RUSSERT: Well, but let me show you those names, because it�s rather striking. I�ll put them on the board. Baucus, Breaux, Carnahan, Cleland, Feinstein, Tim Johnson, your fellow Democratic senator from South Dakota. Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Nelson, Torricelli. Twelve Democrats voted for this tax bill. It passed 58-to-33. But for those 12, this bill would not have become law. Were they irresponsible?
� � � �
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, they certainly weren�t irresponsible. I think that this proposal was irresponsible. They were dealt a...
� � � �
MR. RUSSERT: If you vote for an irresponsible, disastrous policy, aren�t you being irresponsible?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, they had to confront the cards they were given. ...

WOW Daschle can reverse himself in one breath.

� � � �MR. RUSSERT: But why not wait for the commission to come up with something before you trash it?
� � � �
� � � �SEN. DASCHLE: Well, because there isn�t anybody on the commission. The commission, as others have reported�I don�t know if you personally reported this�others have reported every single member of that commission have already come to the conclusion that privatizing Social Security as we now know it is the thing we should do. I don�t think that...
� � � �
� � � �MR. RUSSERT: Pat Moynihan, your former Democratic colleague, is on the committee, and you have said repeatedly�and I�ll show you want you said about Pat Moynihan on a regular basis: �He knows more about Social Security than most people will ever learn.�
� � � �
� � � �SEN. DASCHLE: And I agree with that. I just disagree very respectfully with this position. He and I had the same position at one point. And in 1997, he made a decision to change his position on it.
� � � �
� � � �MR. RUSSERT: But you said that in 1999.

There's too much to quote in that. Daschle IMO reflects your typical Democrat. Against everything no matter how good it is. All you flaming rabid Bush haters will love Daschle because he's a spineless as you are.


Newsflash: Bush says sky is blue Daschle now claims that sky is green. When reminded that back in 1999 Daschle said sky was blue Daschle claims it was a different blue from what Bush says it is today.

[maxelson]

Scott, as usual- you chase any argument you have, weak or strong as it is, with an insult. Sometimes, really, you are no better than a certain Wisconson boy. You had said a while back that even though you were a mod, you were still entitled to an opinion. You are. Somehow, however, I had always thought that the mods were above this kind of insulting and flamebaiting. Huh. Guess I was wrong. You may not be getting paid (or maybe you are, I don't know), but a sense of professionalism and diplomacy might become you better and lend you greater credence as a moderator.

[BRussell]

Here's a link from what sometimes seems to be conservatives' sole source of information, the Natonal Review, about Daschle.

I think he's going to kick some Bush butt, and I can't think of anyone more in need of a good butt-kicking than our squinty-eyed friend at 1600.

"Mr. Daschle is soft-spoken, bright and articulate. He's also tough, partisan and unrelenting. The former qualities tend to obscure the latter, giving a nice new look and feel to the old fighting faith. Mr. Daschle, the choir boy who can rabbit punch, is the most effective congressional leader since the pre-1994 Newt Gingrich.

The 53-year-old South Dakotan fits neatly into his caucus, not exactly a New Democrat, but not a liberal fire-breather either. He knows the Senate rules cold, but is adept at the outside game as well. He's a good extemporaneous speaker on the Senate floor and a soothing presence on TV. It's a tribute to his skill that Democrats have allowed him to accumulate so much power as minority leader."

[groverat]

Here's a link from what sometimes seems to be conservatives' sole source of information, the Natonal Review, about Daschle.

Yes, the conservative's sole source that no one has ever referred to.

I think it's hilarious that you're so behind someone described as "tough, partisan and unrelenting."

What makes it even funnier is how this idiot is constantly talking about bi-partisanship and how Dubs is not bi-partisan. Daschle is one of the most partisan men up there and definitely the most strictly-partisan Senate majority leaders we've had in a while.

These silver-lining Republicans are also reflecting a general GOP weariness with fending off Mr. Daschle's constant rearguard needling as minority leader: If he wants it so badly, he can have it.

I'm not a Republican, but I certainly feel this way about him. He is nothing but negativity.

That's a high compliment for any political opponent, and one that Mr. Daschle deserves.

No, it's just a testament to how stupid the American people have gotten when someone who is constantly lying (not just doing the political spin, but lying through his teeth) moves this far.

I don't know about him "failing" or not, but he will be revealed to more people now as the strictly-partisan, unwilling to compromise liar that he is. Since day 1 he has been against anything and eager to lambast anything to do with Republicans, and has been able to get away with it because he was in the minority. But now that luxury is gone along with the pretense all his thing lies were based on.

And one more thing,
Maxelson, don't lecture ScottH about manners, you aren't the board nanny and he didn't ask you how to be more effective in getting people to like him.
Some people have opinions and stick to them doggedly out in the open, not under the guise of "diplomacy" like so many others.

[This message has been edited by groverat (edited 05-29-2001).]

[BRussell]

Originally posted by groverat:
Daschle is one of the most partisan men up there and definitely the most strictly-partisan Senate majority leaders we've had in a while.

Yeah, since George Mitchell.

This is politics, not tea-time with grandma.

Republicans laid down for Dems for how many years? Dole & Michel were nice old guys, who couldn't win an election even if the voters DID like them or agree with them.

It was only when they had a tough, highly partisan a55hole like Gingrich that they actually won. And that's how Dems have to be now.

Toughen up, Repubs! Stop being such wussies! Let's have a good old-fashioned political rumble. Don't let groverat's nice-guy image fool you, either - he's a mongoose, a street fighter, a mugger. Just like Congressional Republicans failed to be for so long.

Now, get prepared to have a yummy can of whup-ass served to you for lunch, Georgie. Daschle will smile while he feeds it to ya.

[maxelson]

groverat-
I have concern and thought for his opinion and a dislike for the insults he posts alongside. I could not care less if people like him. That is not the issue here. Your opinion was not solicited on this topic. He's a big boy, he can defend himself.

[This message has been edited by maxelson (edited 05-29-2001).]

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by BRussell:

... Daschle will smile while he feeds it to ya.

Not likely. The guy looks like a mortician.

[gwrjr33]

From today's OpinionJournal.com:

Eeek! Eeek!
Hillary's in charge of health-care legislation. Thanks a lot, Jeffords!
BY PEGGY NOONAN
Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

... We have been through the Jeffords story this way, that way, inside out and upside down. We have absorbed it in the modern way: sitting in front of an electric box that gives us more pictures and factoids than we need. We have separated the wheat-news from the chaff-news and concluded: This is a story that changes everything and nothing. It's just another few bars in "The Ballad of Blue and Red," or, less gently, another chapter in "The Battle of Blue and Red." We are a divided country; it is a divided Congress; it is a divided Senate, which just tilted.

History is biography. Mr. Jeffords had things he wanted or needed and Mr. Jeffords got them. Others in his position might have experienced themselves as stuck in a frustrating reality. He is a member of the 10% of Republicans in the Senate--10%!--who are liberals. They are sometimes treated like they're a mere 10%. Sometimes they're treated as if they're key, because sometimes they are. But mostly they're just 10%. To make it worse, the Senate 10% reflects the Republican reality on the ground: Only about 10% of the base is liberal, too.

What a losing position to be in. But Mr. Jeffords didn't see the muck of reality, he saw rich opportunity. A way to move from obscurity to prominence, from powerlessness to power, from membership of a minority to majority of one, from one voice in a hundred to shaper of destiny, from representative of a silly state to king of a personal power base whose creation puffs up both his state and his standing.

Now was the time to move, before the fate of a Thurmond or Torricelli is settled, and the Senate rearranged by the powers on high. Mr. Jeffords moved, served his own interests, put himself in the history books, and did it all in such a way that those who want to, and there are many, can claim he took the high road of political conviction and not the low road of personal calculation. What a move! His public persona has, in a matter of days, morphed from boring, bland, singing senator who harmonizes with goofy Southerners to that of Lincolnesque leader, the sharp planes of whose face reflect a gritty tradition of New England moral dissent.

What a 10 strike. For Jim Jeffords. Who is in politics by the way. So no one should have been surprised. Everyone should have been calculating that he would do this.

Still, there's something refreshing when one man grabs history and shakes it up, bends it. It reminds us all of our power, our personal power to change the facts as we walk into the world each day.

But what a skievy choice. Rather than announce his desire to change parties, resign and run for the Senate again (as few, but some, have done), leaving it up to the voters to accept him or reject him under new colors, he wins office as a Republican six months ago, walks out on his base and party leadership in his state and in Washington, and announces that he had to on principle.

But what principle? His principles survived Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Couldn't they survive a George W. Bush whom Mr. Jeffords campaigned for and who has turned out to be a president who has proceeded on exactly the issues he campaigned on? If it was principle, why did Mr. Jeffords reportedly tell Mr. Bush that he is a one-termer? That sounds more like politics, an honorable profession but not a principle itself.

It changes everything and nothing. It keeps the voting lines and patterns of the Senate the same; Mr. Jeffords voted like a liberal Democrat and will continue to. (Actually it would be in his interests to confound expectations, demonstrate independence and show it's not personal against Mr. Bush by supporting the president vigorously in the first vote he can. And let's assume he'll do what is in his interests!) But it will still take 60 votes to control the Senate and neither side will have them...

[gwrjr33]

oops, double post

[This message has been edited by gwrjr33 (edited 05-29-2001).]

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
Not likely. The guy looks like a mortician.

Yep! Death chewin' on a cracker!

[gwrjr33]

Back to that Northeast Dairy Compact. This was in a local paper recently. (I really like this paper but their website's not so hot.)

Cows are not sacred here

May 09, 2001

A study by the University of Connecticut's Food Marketing Policy Center says supermarkets and milk processors have exploited the Northeast Dairy Compact to drive milk prices up even more than the compact was meant to do. The compact intended to subsidize dairy farms by setting a minimum wholesale price for milk, but according to the UConn study, under the compact the milk processors and retailers have gained 11 cents per gallon in profit, while farmers, the intended beneficiaries, have gained only 4.5 cents.

The study pinpoints the problem as the control over milk distribution in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island by a Dallas-based milk processor, Suiza Foods Corp. In some areas Suiza is said to provide 85 percent of supermarket milk.

Prompted by the UConn study, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is promising to take antitrust action, and it may not come a moment too soon. But the study is also a reminder that even without the suppression of competition by the milk processors, the Northeast Dairy Compact is legal price fixing against consumers. It defeats competition in the milk business and forces consumers to pay more for milk to keep uneconomical New England dairies in business.

Dairy farms are often pretty, but they have no more moral claim on consumers in New England than, say, uneconomical car dealerships and movie theaters do.

The Northeast Dairy Compact will expire this year unless Congress, under the influence of special interests, renews it. It should not be renewed, because the best milk prices, like the best prices for anything else, are the lowest and most competitive prices.

[apple4ever]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
apple4ever: Correct me if I'm wrong, but rather than, "They would be mortified because we haven't gotten farther and farther away from the idea of liberty, limited government, of the strength of Republics over Democracies, and our Constitution(which is totally ignored today)" you actually meant have?

Whoops!! Yeah that's what I meant.

[mr. natural]

The IRONY of the replies to my suggestion that our constitution is out-dated amazes me.

The basic lament stated here and heartily seconded, is that we've strayed far from the original intent of limited federal powers, state sovereignty, etc., and now (apparently due to "progressives," whomever & whatever this means?) our federal government has gotten out of hand in breaking the infinitely wise boundries laid down 200+ years ago.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged, by davesimon at least, that "We HAVE made changes to the Constitution," and even "There are times when the Feds has to step in " (i.e., slavery). And although they don't explicitly say I suppose to count gwrjr33 & apple4ever as co-consenters to this train of thought, based on their posted remarks.

But rather than consider my suggestion about our present day predicament, the messenger gets shot with ironic arrows of defense; in that, overall, your approval of our Constitution is practically iron-clad.

Well, my point worth repeating is this: We are where we are precisely because of our Constitution. Hence the irony of your government disapproval while bowing down on bended knee before the holy writ which makes it so.

As I said before, this horse has long escaped the barn and is never going to be reigned in. We can not unravel what has been done to alter the constitution from what the founder's originally thought was wise. The bloat of laws adopted & changed, legal precedents set and revised, bricks of bureaucracy laid, and all the willy-nilly political gerrymandering stitched onto this constitutional garment, on top of it's inherent formula for gridlock, for all practical intent ensures against a return to some never-never land of what any of us wish it was.

And where would any of you propose we go back in time to get back on track? And if you can think of such an ideal time, what simple amendment or set of them would you propose to get us there?

I suggest it can't be done (certainly not by amendments alone can we fix this mess without scrapping much of the meat -- and if that's the case why not start anew?). To even try amounts to an exercise in futility, whereby one adds more ballast to a leaking ship already overburdened and listing badly.

The amending clause, Article V, stipulates that any Constitutional amendment has to be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, plus a simple majority in three-forths of the states. (A constitutional convention has to be approved by 3/4ths of the states as well.) The reality is this: Any constitutional change has to approved by a super-majority of anywhere between sixty-seven and seventy-five percent or more of the governing bodies.

Baring some feel-good amendment, or in response (usually well after the fact) to some long festering social crisis, where is there today such a majority in anything we do? The plain truth is that our founding fathers (primarily Madison) rigged the ship of state too damn tight to make course corrections easy -- overly fearful in their time of simple majority rule -- and the amendment key has proven too unwieldly to make effective use when necessary and in a timely fashion.

Instead of trusting us, We the People, with straight forward simple majority power to alter our government as we might devise today, they created this rube-goldberg contraption in which power to enact change for our own good was instead dispersed to wizened washington insiders, and supreme court wizards, etc., where the buck never stops. And the constitutionally inherent fear of us citizens has bred, ironically enough, a vast resevoir of distrust, cynicism, apathy and fear on our part against our government. Not only is this ludicrous, it is ultimately dangerous.

But this is the reality of 200 years of Constitutional dumbing us down.

At the heart of it all, we can't even see that our Constitution is our biggest encumbrance to quality of government. Nope, as much as we dislike what we got now it can not be the fault of our Constitution. Nooo, we can't even think this! Better to stick with the devil we know than to trust in one unknown -- which is to say ourselves, we the people.

Well, I for one think this is a form of constitutional slavery as insidious as the old kind was.

But why is this so? Because we can't be entrusted with our own affairs? Because we are too stupid to think well for ourselves? This is ridiculous -- it amounts to an intellectual catch 22 -- and it also suggests how corrosive such unquestioning blind faith in our Constitution has caused us to mistrust anything to do with politics and ourselves. In hating what our government has become our animosity taints everything and everybody with distrust, even our own abilitiy as a civil society, we the people, to sensibly govern itself.

This disease is not inherent in us. It is however inherent in our Constitution, and the dumbing us down in this way is apparent to anyone with eyes that aren't closed.

If we ever dared to do the unthinkable (as the Founding Father's did in their time) and re-wrote our Constitution, would it be perfect? Of course not. But the western europeans (as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand), have re-written & updated theirs, and managed to do so without much fuss or loss of essential freedoms. In fact, their governments are more responsive (both time wise and in efficiency of action) to simple majority will of the people; Nor have they suffered from plundering of the public treasury due to loose fiscal policy sold to them by some snake oil politician (unlike us!).

I've attempted to point out how we are caught in a political straight-jacket not of our own making. And for the effort I get pie-creamed with dogmatic responses full of unseen irony, and finality of thought about such an idea in this way: "We haven't upheld our praised Constitution enough and we've lost freedoms because of it," and "Amen," and equally poignant, "I pray for us."

For the capable and bright young men that I otherwise imagine you all to be, if this is the extent of thought mustered in defense of our chains, I am made all the more aware of how badly served we are under our yoke of Constitutional tyranny.

Yes, indeed, we are tyrannized by our immutable constitution, which is itself predicated on the misguided belief that individual rights are at odds with majority rule. Well, I beg to disagree with this formula handed down to us by the Founders, and I offer western european forms of governance (who have it so much more readily within their grasp to do harm upon the liberties of their citizens, and yet they don't do so as readily as we do -- another irony) as examples based in reality; whereby power which rests more firmly in the hands of the people is more often than not used well and not abused.

Finally, rather than end in supplication or prayer, I offer a more practical suggestion for anyone who is interested in having their constitutional assumptions challenged, certainly in more detail than I can do justice thru these posts. Buy a copy of "The Frozen Republic -- How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy," by Daniel Lazare.

And last but not least this tid-bit of irony. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan; "We're still Jefferson's children."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a note: The western european form of governace is also one of representative democracy, or rather they are republics too. I meant the same when I used the term "democracy," albeit one which meant a more direct and unencumbered idea than we have got. To insist "We are a Republic and not a democracy" explains little about our current plight, although it is convienent to trot it out as if it did.

The only pure democracy that I know of was last practiced in ancient Greece, and it stood them in good stead for a longer period of time than I'm betting on our system lasting.

Sweet dreams America...

[edit: left out the "un" in "unwieldly"]

[This message has been edited by mr. natural (edited 06-01-2001).]

[groverat]

Daschle will smile while he feeds it to ya.

All while lying through his teeth. But he'll speak in a soothing voice so the idiot soccer mom masses will still love him.

[tie]

It is odd that people take the Constitution as the perfect government specification. For example, if I suggest gun control, some people will just recoil automatically and say, but that's unconstitutional! Whether or not gun control is unconstitutional is another matter. But even if it is, I do not feel that that's a very strong argument against gun control. The Constitution was written for the good of our country, and our laws should also be for the good of our country. There have been enough changes that perhaps it is time to reevaluate whether gun control would be helpful.

That's just one example -- I'm not advocating gun control here -- but there are probably others. I think this is somewhat different from, say, an amendment against flag burning, because it changes the Constitution instead of (arguably) just adding to it. I guess some people would disagree with me there, saying that the Constitution is sort of a symbolic foundation for the country; changing it, even for practical reasons, goes against our moral heritage, whereas a ban on flag burning is an appropriate way to prevent moral erosion. It's true that the Constitution has both very practical and moral/symbolic aspects, which work together: its practical side has very immediate effects, while the symbolic side has a more long-term benefit.

However, I do feel like the Constitution has done pretty well (with a few exceptions of course). We should be very careful changing it and not make changes haphazardly (like, e.g., the California constitution). Maybe, though, we are too careful. The founding fathers sure made a lot of changes.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by mr. natural:

The IRONY of the replies to my suggestion that our constitution is out-dated amazes me.

I was punting. Still am in fact. Your posts (and your good manners) deserve more of a reply than this but this will have to do for now: irony is an over-used word.

[gwrjr33]

SPECIAL REPORTS

May 28, 2001

Jeffords takes his marbles home

Mark Steyn
National Post

... The press has roundly castigated Bush for his "meanness" and "pettiness" over the Teacher Of The Year guest list, and they may have a point, though not the one they think they have. I only wish the right were as tough as the other crowd. A week ago, the Dems were keeping 98-year-old Republican Strom Thurmond on the Senate floor hour after hour in one frivolous roll call after another: It was as if Tom Daschle & Co. had decided they'd waited long enough for ol' Strom to kick off, and it was time to hasten the process. There's a party that knows how to play hardball: They don't just tear up your Teacher Of The Year invite, they measure you up for the Casket Of The Year competition.

... It was a nifty idea to come home to abandon ship, and no doubt the pictures looked terrific on TV. But it wasn't what you'd call a typical Vermont crowd. If he'd given his speech in Barre or St. Johnsbury he'd have go a rougher ride. And, even in Burlington, Jim wasn't taking any chances. "He came here to talk to real Vermonters, but we're not allowed in!" yelled one female dissident in those broad North Country vowels you hear less and less, as the doors closed on the Senator's no-public-admittance press conference. He'd flown from Washington to Burlington so he could announce his defection in front of a hometown crowd of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN crews.

They used to talk about British administrators on remote islands "going native." Jim Jeffords has made the journey in reverse: He's a Vermont native who's gone flatlander. The old-time Yankee virtues that enabled his forebears to carve out a home in these hills 200 years ago were long ago abandoned by Jeffords: He favours the Federalization of education, big-time entitlements, a heavy regulatory hand on almost everything. The pundits say, ah, well, but that just demonstrates how in tune Jim is with the new, "liberal" Vermont. But even Vermont isn't that liberal. In 1980 and '84, Vermonters voted for Reagan, which you'd think might have stiffened even a jellyfish like Jeffords into supporting his President's budget. And just last year the Vermont GOP won the State House, and not wussy Ben & Jerrified Republicans either, but cranky, angry white male-type Republicans steamed about gay marriage and logging rights. Not that their victory owed anything to Jeffords. He "declined to endorse" Republican State House candidates, State Senate candidates, the Gubernatorial candidate or the Congressional candidate. Even so, his Democratic opponent called on Jeffords to distance himself from the divisive rhetoric of others in his party. Jim was flummoxed. Distance himself? If he were to distance himself any further, he'd be campaigning from Bermuda.

Like I said, he wasn't a Republican.

That the least surprising self-outing since George Michael declared he was gay should cause such havoc is principally the fault of Republican leaders going back 15 years. Not for the first time, the GOP's Senate backslappers called it wrong, and the fellows on the ground got it right. On April 24, 1984, the Republican Town Caucus of Kirby, Vt. (population 347) unanimously adopted the following resolution:

"Whereas Congressman James M. Jeffords has compiled a voting record of the sort one would expect from a fellow who can't pour maple sap out of a boot, even with the instructions printed on the heel," they began, "therefore be it resolved by the Kirby Town Caucus, that the true Republicans of this town would cross hell on a rotten rail before they would vote for him again."

But clubby Washington knew better. In 1988, when Congressman Jeffords decided to run for the Senate, Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch endorsed him in the primary, even though it was already clear that Jeffords was no Republican, and never would be. And, as no incumbent Senator has ever been defeated in Vermont, that's all the more reason for not letting in an obvious Trojan horse who'll become one of the biggest nags in the stable.

Last year, the GOP establishment assured disgusted party volunteers that no matter how offensive Jim's votes were - he supported Clinton 80% of the time - the only vote that mattered was the one he cast to keep the Republicans in the leadership. In the last of many disservices to the Vermont GOP, Jeffords last week nullified that vote, too. "A POLITICIAN WITH A CONSCIENCE," read one sign in Burlington. "HONOR IS NOT DEAD," said another. A vain, pliable boob who repudiated even his last residual pledge to his party for the most frivolous reasons is hailed as a giant of political integrity. God help America if that's true.

[gwrjr33]

Apropos to your posts, Mr. Natural, HR Res #48.

[gwrjr33]

The Politics of Personal Obstruction

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 31, 2001; Page A25

... even before Jeffords jumped ship, much of the business of Bush's first-term agenda was done. He had achieved about 95 percent of his first priority, the tax cut. Missile defense had been affirmed and now awaits the maturation of the requisite technology. About the education bill, conservatives are disappointed. However, the bill, which substantially increases education spending and which passed the House 384 to 45, makes ludicrous Jeffords's lament that Bush ignores the middle while appeasing the right.

Education is supposed to be Jeffords's preoccupation. Consider what was occurring as he defected.

Most conservative Republicans in the House voted against final passage of the education bill, complaining that Bush had worked too closely with liberal Democrats (e.g., Rep. George Miller and Sen. Ted Kennedy). Indeed, more House Democrats than Republicans voted for final passage...

Given the modern use of Senate rules - filibusters and threats of them - nothing important happens if 41 senators strenuously object. So most Bush objectives were not going to be accomplished even if Jeffords had remained - or, as some would tartly say, had become - a Republican.

Gridlock is the Democrats' delight, given the agenda of today's reactionary liberalism - preventing tax cuts, preventing school choice, preventing partial privatization of Social Security, preventing tort reform, preventing any limits on abortion, preventing any curtailment of racial preferences, preventing the traditional exercise of presidential discretion in making judicial nominations, preventing increased energy production by drilling here or putting power plants there...

[apple4ever]

Originally posted by mr. natural:

The IRONY of the replies to my suggestion that our constitution is out-dated amazes me.

Why? How is it outdated. If it is, there is process to change it. By amendment, not by "interpreting" what it means.

The basic lament stated here and heartily seconded, is that we've strayed far from the original intent of limited federal powers, state sovereignty, etc., and now (apparently due to "progressives," whomever & whatever this means?) our federal government has gotten out of hand in breaking the infinitely wise boundries laid down 200+ years ago.

Yep. A fact. A truth

Furthermore, it is acknowledged, by davesimon at least, that "We HAVE made changes to the Constitution," and even "There are times when the Feds has to step in " (i.e., slavery). And although they don't explicitly say I suppose to count gwrjr33 & apple4ever as co-consenters to this train of thought, based on their posted remarks.

Well, the feds illegal and unconstitutional invading a country(ie the CSA). It wasn't just about slavery. It was about the Constitution, and liberty, and self governance. Slavery was apart, and the South was racist(not as much as the North though), I'll admit that. But even as D'Toqueville said, the South treated blacks better than the North. And slavery was a dying institution. It was inefficient(about as efficient as socialism). I used to be a die hard Union supporter, but my eyes have been opened. And don't start with the racist name calling. I take that as an offence. I have known more a-hole whites than blacks. I know and am friends with blacks. Skin color has nothing to do with anything, only character.

But rather than consider my suggestion about our present day predicament, the messenger gets shot with ironic arrows of defense; in that, overall, your approval of our Constitution is practically iron-clad.

Well, I wouldn't say iron clad. I'd get rid of the 16th, 17th, 14th amendments. Plus a few other changes I'd like to see. But the men who created it were very wise. I am very apprehensive about changing it.

Well, my point worth repeating is this: We are where we are precisely because of our Constitution. Hence the irony of your government disapproval while bowing down on bended knee before the holy writ which makes it so.

But why are we where we are because of it? you never explained this. I said that this is false, because we aren't close to near what our Constitution says.

As I said before, this horse has long escaped the barn and is never going to be reigned in. We can not unravel what has been done to alter the constitution from what the founder's originally thought was wise. The bloat of laws adopted & changed, legal precedents set and revised, bricks of bureaucracy laid, and all the willy-nilly political gerrymandering stitched onto this constitutional garment, on top of it's inherent formula for gridlock, for all practical intent ensures against a return to some never-never land of what any of us wish it was.

And where would any of you propose we go back in time to get back on track? And if you can think of such an ideal time, what simple amendment or set of them would you propose to get us there?

I don't know of a better time. 1789, the moment it was adopted would probably be the best. But I know that can't happen. I have an amendment(called the Government Reform Amendment) which would hopefully fix the major problems with our governments. Among the fixes(most of which are just clarifications of the current Constitution) are: Strengthening the 2nd Amendment, ridding the income tax, repealing the 17th amendment, Strengthening the Militia of the Several States, eliminating the doctrine of eminent domain(seizing of land by the state), eliminating grants and transfer of money to the states, eliminating welfare, eliminating idea that the General Welfare and interstate commerce should be broadly interpreted, eliminating abortion(leaving the states to enforce that provision), eliminating campaign finance laws, eliminating the Federal Reserve and putting the dollar back on a precious metal standard, limiting the judicial power, creating a Union Court consisting of 25 state judges and 25 federal ones to review cases of federal-state and Constitutional disputes, recognizing the power of state to secede from the Union, strengthening the 4th amendment and property rights, allowing suits for violations of the Constitution against any individual official of the government, declaring that the United States shall have no authority or power over education, travel, vehicles, welfare, firearms and related items, housing, health care, policing, poverty, energy, workplace safety, food safety, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, the environment, the economy; clearing up the amendment process, allowing juries to judge law and fact. That is just what I have thought of so far. There is a lot more to go

I suggest it can't be done (certainly not by amendments alone can we fix this mess without scrapping much of the meat -- and if that's the case why not start anew?). To even try amounts to an exercise in futility, whereby one adds more ballast to a leaking ship already overburdened and listing badly.

Your right of course. It really can't be fixed. I say that all the liberals go to the east and the west, will take the middle, it will be a peacefull secession. Then you can implement all of your socialist ideas, and we can have true freedom. But that won't happen, because your ideas MUST be forced upon us, despite our objections

The amending clause, Article V, stipulates that any Constitutional amendment has to be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, plus a simple majority in three-forths of the states. (A constitutional convention has to be approved by 3/4ths of the states as well.) The reality is this: Any constitutional change has to approved by a super-majority of anywhere between sixty-seven and seventy-five percent or more of the governing bodies.

Baring some feel-good amendment, or in response (usually well after the fact) to some long festering social crisis, where is there today such a majority in anything we do? The plain truth is that our founding fathers (primarily Madison) rigged the ship of state too damn tight to make course corrections easy -- overly fearful in their time of simple majority rule -- and the amendment key has proven too wieldly to make effective use when necessary and in a timely fashion.

Your right, they feared democracy and the people. they are too easily fooled, and the believe what is "popular" at the time. As history as shown, which they even knew back than, democracies fail quickly

Instead of trusting us, We the People, with straight forward simple majority power to alter our government as we might devise today, they created this rube-goldberg contraption in which power to enact change for our own good was instead dispersed to wizened washington insiders, and supreme court wizards, etc., where the buck never stops. And the constitutionally inherent fear of us citizens has bred, ironically enough, a vast resevoir of distrust, cynicism, apathy and fear on our part against our government. Not only is this ludicrous, it is ultimately dangerous.

they never trusted the people. They were well versed in history(unlike you and a majority of the population), and they saw what happened to democracies, like greece and Britain. they didn't like, and this is the best man can come up with. And You don't like it? Either change it, or have your state secede from the Union. A separation is the only thing that can really solve it, minus a violent revolution(which I think is the course we are heading for anyway)

But this is the reality of 200 years of Constitutional dumbing us down.

No, this is the reality of life. It was no different 200 years ago. the average person could never really understand government without devouting a substantial amount of time and money, and probably their entire life to it. That is why we have what we have, so the people can devout their life to pursue happiness and still have a voice in gov't.

At the heart of it all, we can't even see that our Constitution is our biggest encumbrance to quality of government. Nope, as much as we dislike what we got now it can not be the fault of our Constitution. Nooo, we can't even think this! Better to stick with the devil we know than to trust in one unknown -- which is to say our ourselves, we the people.

No, the problem is that we have gotten to far away from our Constitution, and we can't see it.

Well, I for one think this is a form of constitutional slavery as insidious as the old kind was.

But why is this so? Because we can't be entrusted with our own affairs? Because we are too stupid to think well for ourselves? This is ridiculous -- it amounts to an intellectual catch 22 -- and it also suggests how corrosive such unquestioning blind faith in our Constitution has caused us to mistrust anything to do with politics and ourselves. In hating what our government has become our animosity taints everything and everybody with distrust, even our own abilitiy as a civil society, we the people, to sensibly govern itself. [/B][/QUOTE]
That was the whole point of constructing our constitution like this. There is no way every single person could know enough about everything to run the government, without devouting their life to it. It is just impossible. It is not about being to stupid, we just don't have the time to learn what we need to know to run government right. Instead, what will happen, we'll do thing because we heard somebody on the TV said it is good, because it "feels" good, because of fleeting feelings, not because of an intelligent thought or debate. We need to delegate it to the people who do have time, and can debate yet, yet we still need to choose who debates it for us.

This disease is not inherent in us. It is however inherent in our Constitution, and the dumbing us down in this way is apparent to anyone with eyes that aren't closed.

If we ever dared to do the unthinkable (as the Founding Father's did in their time) and re-wrote our Constitution, would it be perfect? Of course not. But the western europeans (as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand), have re-written & updated theirs, and managed to do so without much fuss or loss of essential freedoms. In fact, their governments are more responsive (both time wise and in efficiency of action) to simple majority will of the people; Nor have they suffered from plundering of the public treasury due to loose fiscal policy sold to them by some snake oil politician (unlike us!).

HAA! "without much fuss or loss of essential freedoms." Are you kidding me? If anything, they have lost a substantial amount of freedom, both economic and civil.

I've attempted to point out how we are caught in a political straight-jacket not of our own making. And for the effort I get pie-creamed with dogmatic responses full of unseen irony, and finality of thought about such an idea in this way: "We haven't upheld our praised Constitution enough and we've lost freedoms because of it," and "Amen," and equally poignant, "I pray for us."

For the capable and bright young men that I otherwise imagine you all to be, if this is the extent of thought mustered in defense of our chains, I am made all the more aware of how badly served we are under our yoke of Constitutional tyranny.

Yes, indeed, we are tyrannized by our immutable constitution, which is itself predicated on the misguided belief that individual rights are at odds with majority rule. Well, I beg to disagree with this formula handed down to us by the Founders, and I offer western european forms of governance (who have it so much more readily within their grasp to do harm upon the liberties of their citizens, and yet they don't do so as readily as we do -- another irony) as examples based in reality; whereby power which rests more firmly in the hands of the people is more often than not used well and not abused.

The European model of government is predicating on collectivism, and majority rule, which is opposite to liberty. they are one of the last places to look for freedom.

Finally, rather than end in supplication or prayer, I offer a more practical suggestion for anyone who is interested in having their constitutional assumptions challenged, certainly in more detail than I can do justice thru these posts. Buy a copy of "The Frozen Republic -- How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy," by Daniel Lazare.

And last but not least this tid-bit of irony. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan; "We're still Jefferson's children."

WOW, your responses amaze me. the product of a socialist education system, most likely. Since we are not a republic, I am glad the Constitution is paralyzing democracy. As Marx(or lenin) said:"The road to socialism is through democracy."

[mr. natural]

To the honorable gwrjr33: I checked out your link to HR Res.#48.
Oh geez, this will really improve matters.

<In some re-indoctrination class soon coming to your neighborhood:

Now class, for those of you who believe we live in a democracy, please get out your note books and write 100 times: We live in a republic. We live in a Republic. We live in a republic...

And please remember class, "democracy" is bad. Yes, it's "evil," "wicked," and "the work of the devil." Now that you have all got that straight, let us pray for salvation of all the lost souls who are still under the spell of this devil.

"Oh blessed & all powerful founding fathers, who are in Heaven, please forgive us our grievious sin of misunderstanding as to the great and wonderous Republic you've bestowed upon us lesser folks. Forgive us our stupidity to dare think any other thoughts about how we might better govern ourselves and improve our lot. Woe unto us, the democracy devil has poisoned our mind. We forgot, but now we've remembered and found redemption -- We live in a Republic. We live in a Republic. We live in a Republic...

End of re-indoctrination lesson, "USA 101; Land of the Free & Home of the Brave.">

I guess the bozo who is promoting this has nothing better to do while on the public dole, eh?

Of course, "Democracy" once meant ot implied "direct rule by the people." Today, however, the terms "republic" & "democracy" are virtually indistinguishable (unless it's a vast conspiracy by the editors of any dictionary one looks in); in that it means a form of government in which the power to rule is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives.

In any event, what I can't fathom is this unshakable belief that a democracy (in a more unemcumbered fashion than we have) is such a terribly bad proposition. Where are all these failed democracies which prove this?

The only true democracy that I am certain as having existed in historical fact are the democracies which arose in ancient greece. I say "democracies" because in fact there were several types or manifestations (including representative) over the 4+ centuries that they ran their course.

And given the circumstances of the times (a lot of wars) and that this was a first for mankind (to exercise self-government), I'd say that 400+ years of democracy was a stunning achievement. Of course, it wasn't perfect at all times either; nonetheless, democracy happened or else world history & politics would be vastly different. My point remains -- where are the relevant contemporary examples which prove it unworkable today?

Britain? Germany? How about Canada, Australia, or New Zealand? All of whom have parlimentary democracies/republics in which they grant the majority party (equivalent to a majority party in our house of Congress) for all practical intent all the reigns of power to do as they wish. But do we see them abuse this power? Nope. (But rather than spell out why this might be so, it is at least worth noting and pondering.)

The real point is this, their governments, whatever one may think about the policies enacted, at least get to ACT! And if the people decide they've had enough of the party in power they have it within their means to shift power rapidly to a party more in tune with their liking. This in and of itself offers relief from the politics of gridlock we are stuck with.

What is so horrible about this? We whine and moan about our government and the people running it but absolutely refuse to consider it the fault of our Constitution as presently rigged. That is all I am trying to point out, but for some folks, all that they can seem to consider is some never-never land of original intent!

Our Constitution was never so well thought out as to not contain inherent faults of inconsistency and ill-logic (begining with it's tacit approval of slavery), and the desire to re-interpret /re-enact our founding father's ideas condemns us to living in the past rather than even trying to think for ourselves given the realities of our present.

I find this ludicrous, and so have many other thoughtful people, some of whom have dedicated their lives to public service from both sides of our political divide. And none of whom consider themselves radicals -- all they've wanted was a government that functioned effectively & effeciently but realized that our Constitution inhibits such good government from being relaized.

This idea that unemcumbered democratic government in action is "BAD" is itself a manifestation of our warped Constitutional perspective. And yet as someone (tie?) mentioned above about the power of symbolism, we carry within us the symbolic weight of The Declaration of Independence (in which it is said, that among the liberties of free people is this right: "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed;" and more powerfully symbolic the following concluding idea, "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.") as well as the Preamble to our Constitution (in which "We the People" are symbolically granted the power of rulership), and although the Declaration of Independance as well as the constitutional preamble may hold absolutely no weight of legal authority -- certainly as far as our Supreme Court might rule -- I certainly feel these sentiments carry all the weight in the world if "We the People" is to ever mean a damn thing vis-a-vis our government.

The Declaration of Independance had no legal authority. Nor in fact did the Constitution under the pre-existing Articles of Confederation. But in both instances this didn't stop our founding fathers from breaking from the past to institute new legal and at the time more logical precedents of the rights we grant ourselves as free people.

In essence, what I'm suggesting is not more lawlessness, but more thoughtfulness about our plight. And as I've thought about it one of the ideas which occurs to me is the conflict of our homegrown symbolism with our stark reality. The Constitution as presently rigged and which carries all the weight of law conflicts badly with our in-bred symbolic weight & logic of all our hopes and aspirations as self-determing indidviduals gathered under one national roof.

And just as the Constitutional provisions which allowed for slavery to be legal couldn't stand the test of time, neither can the underlying constitutional formula which makes a mockery of the power of the people to even think to rule themselves in any other fashion than the one handed down to us.

It is not a matter of if, only when and how the bridge burning with our past occurs. And in this day and age whereby our public discourse has sunk to such abominable lows of decency and thoughtlessness, one can be fairly sure that this fire won't be one any of us will want to personally get burnt by if we can avoid it. Who knows if we'll be so lucky.

[gwrjr33]

Article June 11, 2001/Vol 6, Number 37
Thank You, Mr. Jeffords
The party-hopping senator may have done Bush a big favor.
By Noemie Emery

Don't look now, but Senator James M. Jeffords, denounced in some circles as a cad and a turncoat, may have secured a second term for George W. Bush. He has saved Bush from his friends; taken key issues away from the Democrats; and given Bush the chance to focus on long-term objectives, instead of short-term and partisan gains. Just as the rightward pressure of a Republican Congress kept Democrat Bill Clinton safely in channel, somewhat to the left of center, which is where most of the country wanted to see him, so the leftward pressure of a Democratic Senate will keep George W. Bush safely in channel, somewhere to the right of center, which is where most of the country wants him...