bad nooz for Dems

Timothy Francis-Wright twright at ziplink.net
Wed Feb 6 19:09:58 PST 2002


I've wondered since last January why none of the Democratic Senators challenged the electoral votes from Florida. (I had jokingly predicted a Bush-Lieberman administration by assuming that Florida would not get to cast any votes, but I digress.)

Did the Senate Democrats agree to hold their tongues in joint session in exhange for even splits in the Senate committees? It certainly seems that way. And it also seems that the Republicans got the better of the deal: once the tax cut passed, they didn't even need a Senate majority to cripple any sort of activist government for years to come.

--Tim Francis-Wright "This presents an ethical dilemma, fraught with portent!" "What does _that_ mean?" "I dunno: I heard it on 'Meet the Press'!"

joanna bujes wrote:
> I was one of those voters -- who would not have voted had I not been
> able to vote for Nader.
>
> As for Gore. Not only did he not win in his home state BUT, most
> puzzling for the dems, this election went through uncontested at a
> time when Gore/Clinton not only had the media's attention but also
> while they had political power!!!!. I'm still scratching my head
> over that one. I mean if the dems didn't want to rock the boat,
> fuck them.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list