It's amusing but not true.  It depends on what the issues are here also.
The Democrats would not be planning to drill in the Arctic or to privatize
social security or to put more Scalia/Thomas types on the Supreme Court
or to make the tax cuts for billionaires permanent or to remove Civil
Service rules for the Homeland Security workers--as a sample.  Jim
Jeffords knew perfectly well why he became an independent, and so do
those who support the Republican right wing.  Unfortunately (in my view)
the very far right now controls the Republican party, and so senators like
both of Maine's may be genuinely moderate, but the power in Washington
is party based, not individual.

The perpetuation of the notion that they are simply the same helps
maintain that power.  But it cannot hold up under any examination even if
the Democrats did a lousy job of explaining any difference in the campaign.


Date sent:              Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:02:47 -0600
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: OT British politics (was Thatcher)
To:                     [log in to unmask]

Nancy Gish wrote:
> It would be ironic if the Democrats learned from Blair as Blair very
> intentionally learned from Clinton's campaign and from Clinton to move
> to the center in some key ways and appropriate the conservative's
> issues. I don't think that would be possible for Democrats now as they
> already did it.

There's an old epigram: The U.S. is ruled by one party with two right