Bush Cabal Gives Cannon Fodder/Military the Finger by ARMY TIMES

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...&contentid=886 Bush Cabal Gives Cannon Fodder/Military the Finger

by ARMY TIMES

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled
Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military.

But talk is cheap -- and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.

For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary -- including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to
roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.

Then there?s military tax relief -- or the lack thereof.


As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can?t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.

Incredibly, one of those tax provisions -- easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home -- has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.

The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush?s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.

The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.

All of which brings us to the latest indignity -- Bush?s $9.2 billion
military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5
billion below this year?s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.

But Bush?s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal
budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.

The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military
construction panel accepted Bush?s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it
voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush?s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn
more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.

The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel
quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.

Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale -- especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a
resolution in March pledging ?unequivocal support? to service members and their families, puts it this way: ?American military men and women don?t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.?

Translation: Money talks -- and we all know what walks.

Army Times, 30 June 2003
http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f...ER-1954515.php

[the humper]

Wonder what kind of services they would have WITHOUT the E-O1's,2', etc???????? Some Yahoo up there better start thinking about it!!!!!!!
SF
NC

[Gimpy]

What did I tell everyone??? Maybe NOW folks will start payin attention to what I've been saying all along----That George W. Bush and the current bunch of Republicans in Congress are NOT---REPEAT----are NOT supportive of military personnel or military Veterans!

I said this YEARS ago and it's STILL true today.

:cd:

[MORTARDUDE]

Look Gimpster...All of the motherf**king politicians could give a shit less about the military and veterans..Look at history from 1918 - 2003....I can name 101 ways they have fuc*ed us, lied to us, cheated us...no matter WHICH party was in power.....You are falling into the same DAMNED trap that has us ALL doomed. DIVIDE AND CONQUER....WORKS EVERY TIME...Until we all unite against all the whore-mongering, back-stabbing, MONEY-GRUBBING, LYING, politicians...we will posting this SHIT on here until they blow TAPS over our graves.....If the Demos gave a shit they could bottle up the Congress and pass this shit...They don't care...THEY JUST DON'T FU*KING CARE....AND THEY NEVER FU*KING WILL !!!!!

My blood pressure is thru the roof...

Larry

[Gimpy]

You need to calm down and REREAD some of the DAMN ROLL CALL VOTES I've posted about WHO is voting FOR improvements in veterans and military benfits. You can scream & Holler all you want to----but the G--DAMN EVIDENCE is there for ALL TO SEE! By God I'm talkin about NOW and in the last 10 years---Sorry you got your blood pressure in an "uproar"---mine has been there for TEN FREAKIN YEARS NOW!!!!!

[MORTARDUDE]

Just had three Heinekens ..am better...

The Republicans do not have a 60 member majority in the Senate...things could change if our elected assholes wanted them to...10 years ago was Clinton's second year in office, by the way...It is just not a party thing..it is a FU*K THE MILITARY AND VETERANS THING BY EVERYBODY...that is all I have to say 'bout that..

Larry

[Gimpy]

I KNOW what was happening 10 years ago! that's the year the republicans took control of the House. Remember Cute Newt? I'm NOT saying Clinton did all he could for veterans either. BUT (and that's a BIG but!)--he had to fight with a republican led Congress for the last 6 years of his presidency. And, if you'll GO BACK and check (I've posted THIS before also)--the DAMN REPUBLICANS have thwarted just about every DAMN THING the Democrats have tried to pass regarding improvements in veterans benefits! The vote tally does NOT LIE! It's there for ALL TO READ!

And, like I've said before---the Senate is NOT where the P-O-W-E-R in congress is at---it's in the House of Representatives. The Senate DOES however have a MAJORITY of republicans --- just as does the House! SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO when the FINAL VERSION(S) of ANY DAMN BILL goes into "conference committee" for final consideration and negotiation between the TWO versions (House & Senate) the damn "LEADERSHIP" of the House & senate determine the "make-up" and assign their "selections' to participate in this committee process. Invariably (and you can CHECK this out also) the MAJORITY PARTY has MORE MEMBERS on these committes and receive their "marching ORDERS" from the "leadership" of the Majority party! Why do you think this shit has been going on like this for the past ten years???

You're W-R-O-N-G my friend---IT IS A "PARTY" thing!

It may have been "both" partys' in the past----BUT, in the past TEN YEARS it HAS BEEN the G--DAMN REPUBLICANS!

The "NUMBERS" don't LIE!

NUFF SAID!

[MORTARDUDE]

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.. OK ?

Larry

[MORTARDUDE]

Hmm...if what you say is true, why such a big deal in this interview !!!! No mention of veterans here either.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congr...schle_6-6.html

June 6, 2001


JIM LEHRER: And now, a Newsmaker interview with the new Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
First congratulations Senator.
SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Thank you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: The education bill -- you went back to work as Kwame just said. Will we see immediate signs of the change and the debate and the way this education bill is going to be handled?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, of course the education bill was a bipartisan effort before the change took place. And so I don't know that there'll be any immediate appreciation of the change that might be seen down the road. I think the education bill is the first and maybe one of the best ways to launch this new time and bipartisanship and I hope we can do that collectively and comprehensively as we finish the bill next week.

JIM LEHRER: As you say it's a bipartisan bill. Is it correct to say the major differences now between Republicans and Democrats -- at least most of Republicans and most Democrats -- has to do with the amount of money that's going to be spent rather than a philosophical difference?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Oh, I think that by and large it does involve resources. Clearly we are for reform but we have argued that you have to have the resource in order to enact meaningful reform, especially in education. We're still having some difficulty in coming to agreement on that. There are other major policy questions; we'll be debating vouchers at some point before the end of the debate and there will be other very controversial matters. But I would say of all the issues that are of importance to us the resources -- the commitment we must make budgetarily is of paramount importance.

JIM LEHRER: But just to be -- to make sure we understand this situation now, there is nothing that you can do as the majority leader to change the outcome of this vote on the education bill itself, correct -- no procedural thing that changed today that would affect the outcome of that, this particular legislation?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: There is no procedural motion that could I anticipate that I would want to use at this point because we very strongly want to see a good comprehensive education bill that has both Democratic and Republican imprint on it. And that's exactly what you're going to see. I'm confident that we can successfully complete our effort and that it will get a good bipartisan vote.

JIM LEHRER: Let's assume that happens. Then what's the next order of business and when do we see the Daschle era of leadership begin, sir?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I would hope you see it today. I would hope with the tone that I attempted to set with my opening remarks, the tone that we created as we deliberated on education, the way with which we're working through the organization resolution, all of those things are elements I think of this new majority and the tone that we want to create as we work through the more complex questions. But the next bill to come up in answer to your question is the Patients' Bill of Rights. Our view that is one that should have been passed a long time ago; it has strong bipartisan support; my hope is that we can get that done too.

JIM LEHRER: Now that would not be next if you were not the Majority Leader, if Trent Lott were still the Majority Leader, correct?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: That's a big change.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: That's correct.


Finding middle ground
JIM LEHRER: But again that doesn't mean the result and the final, when it finally comes to a vote will be different, is that correct too?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I think that's correct, at least I hope that's correct. My guess is that because of the way we have been negotiating and working now for a long period of time, the growing majority of people who support the bill will be in evidence and we will have a good vote -- as you say -- regardless of who would have chosen to bring it up.

JIM LEHRER: So the important thing here I'm trying to get at is that where the difference is going to come, at least in these first few weeks or so, is that Patients' Bill of Rights may not have come up for a month or so or it may have never come up if the Republican leader didn't want it to, but it's going to come up next because you and the Democrats want it to.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, Jim, there's two things that I think will be in evidence. First of all -- how we handle the floor agenda, the schedule; I don't think there is any question this is going to be perhaps a fairly significant departure from what was originally anticipated under the Republican majority. The second, of course, is at the committee level: What kinds of hearings will be held; what kind of bills will be marked up; what kind of opportunities will there be for us to explore the issues? That too will change and obviously the most important evidence of that will be the agenda set by each committee chairman.

JIM LEHRER: I want to get to some of those specifics in a moment. But I was struck by something you said and we just ran it -- that Republicans and Democrats have two different philosophies. How do you see the differences in the philosophies of the Republicans and Democrats as constituted now in the United States Senate?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I think that the Democratic philosophy is one of collective good will, of a collective investment in our country, a recognition that we're stronger together than we are separately; and that in working through the power of that collective achievement that we can do a lot for each other; we can do a lot for this country. Whether in education or in health care or in infrastructure, or in energy now, the array of opportunities, the array of challenges that we have to face can be more consequentially and successfully addressed if we do it together. I don't think our Republican colleagues share that point of view. And that probably is the philosophical divide. Now there is a lot of overlap and I'm hopeful that over the course of the next several weeks we can find that middle ground as we address the many issues that we have in our agenda.

JIM LEHRER: The Republicans would probably answer the same question that well the Democrats want more government involvement in the solution than we Republicans do. Is that another way of saying it, would you agree with that?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I'm not for more government; I'm not for big government; I'm for smart government. I'm for a government that responds officially and with the least amount of bureaucracy, the least amount of red tape, the least amount of tax dollars committed unnecessarily. That, in my view, is the difference generationally perhaps. And that's something we're going to impress upon our colleagues and I think will be the imprint you'll see in most of our bills.

Democrats on the offensive
JIM LEHRER: Now, you mentioned the overlap. For instance the Senate has already passed tax cuts and you were and the other members of the Democratic leadership in the Senate were strongly opposed to that and yet many of your Democrats voted for that. And of course there were some Republicans who voted against it and we've had the Jeffords example as well. So it is a mistake to think that all Republicans vote one way and all Democrats vote with you on everything too, correct?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: Is that going to change?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: No, that won't change. I mean, we're united I think as a caucus and I feel very good about the cohesion but, you know, I'm not expecting absolute total unanimity on every issue that isn't why we're here. I think people have to feel free to express themselves, to vote the way their conscience tells them. We're going to accept that, respect it and move on. All I can do is make the best case for our point of view and hope that I'll get as good a vote as we can get and move on to the next issue.

JIM LEHRER: By when you go to one of your Democratic colleagues now as the Majority Leader rather than as the Minority Leader, you carry more ammunition in your parcel so to speak?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I think so. I think there is clearly a difference in part because I'm able to set the agenda. We're going to be more on the offensive than we will be - than we would have been if we had been in the minority. Minority often times is forced to play a lot of defense because they're responding to the agenda that's set out by the majority. So I think I'll have advantages that I didn't have before most certainly.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Lott and other Republicans wanted assurances from you that judicial and other appointees of the President would get a good hearing and get a vote. Did you give them these assurances?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I have assured my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we are going to be as fair as any majority party could be as the consideration of both nominations, as well as the issues the administration cares about is considered. I don't think we have any choice. We have got to do that. That was exactly our record the last time we were in the majority in the early 90s and that is going to be our record now.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Leahy, the new Judiciary Committee chairman, said on this program last night that nobody with extreme views whether they be of the left or the right should be on the federal bench. Do you agree with him?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I'm hopeful that we can encourage people to nominate - those in the administration who have the power to do so - to nominate those in the political mainstream. I don't think our country -- I don't think the Senate is necessarily prepared to support extremist views, but do I believe that there is a desire. And I've had a number of conversations among my Republican colleagues about this, a desire to be as supportive of mainstream positions with regard to nominations as we can be.

JIM LEHRER: President Bush -- as you know -- during the presidential campaign often named Justices Scalia and Thomas as examples of folks that he would like to appoint to the federal bench. Would they pass the extremist tests of the current United States Senate, Democratic majority?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Jim, I'm not going to get into personalities and I don't think it's appropriate right now to hypothetically consider options -- especially as you relate them -- to current judicial appointments. I think that what we have to do is to recognize that we've got to work together; we've got to try to find a way to respond to the needs of the country with regard to the Judiciary. But we do have expectations and we're going to insist that those expectations be a part of consideration of the Senate as we consider the qualifications and ultimately the eligibility of the nominees that are provided to us.

New hearings and investigations
JIM LEHRER: So when Senator Lott says he's worried that you all are going to apply some kind of litmus test that if somebody is too conservative or too much to the right you're going to block the ratification, is that right?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I'm not supportive of litmus tests per se. I don't think that that's the way we ought to proceed. There is a procedure that the Senate Judiciary Committee uses; there's a procedure, of course, that is immersed in tradition here in the Senate. We're going to follow that tradition, those procedures; we're going to respect that tradition but we're also going to be respectful of nominees. What I don't want to do is to see pay back. As strongly as our Democrats feel about the way we were treated, about the way some of our nominees were treated I don't think we ought to extend that practice. I think we have got to show fairness in ways that were not shown when we were in the majority or when we had the administration.

JIM LEHRER: Have you said that to your colleagues?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I have.

JIM LEHRER: Another power that comes to the majority is the power, as you said earlier, to hold hearings and full scale investigations and that sort of thing. There has already been a suggestion that there will now be hearings on high energy prices. First do you support that? Do you think the Senate should get into a full flown investigation of high energy prices?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I do; in fact, I have called for it. I think a bipartisan investigation is very meritorious. I think we ought to find ways with which to better understand what's happened, why it's happened, why has it become so exacerbated in recent months; why the tremendous amount of profit we see now reported by some of the energy companies. I think we need to look into that; I think we need to expand that review of course into the larger question of what should be our energy policy especially as it relates to the crisis we see right now in California.

JIM LEHRER: You said bipartisan, but just for the record, do you believe there would be such an investigation if the Republicans had remained in the majority?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Probably not, but then again you asked question earlier, what would a majority under Democratic authority be and how would be in evidence -- and that would be a good example I think. What we'll do in energy is just yet another demonstration of the new direction that we hope we can move the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Is there any other area that immediately comes to mind where you believe there should be something like this, Senate hearings, the whole nine yards that would not have happened under a Republican majority that will happen now under you all?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I think election reform is also something you're going to see a significant amount of effort and time invested. There is no question -- we have got very serious problems with regard to the way the elections have been held. The evidence most recently and the most recent report would indicate that we've got a problem that has to be solved, that has to be addressed in a way that raises level of confidence among minority communities especially, so you're going to see Democrats pursue that agenda as well and it probably will happen sooner rather than later.


Working with a narrow majority
JIM LEHRER: What do you make of Senator Lott's comment the other day that, yes, the Democrats now have a plurality but he said a couple of other things and he said the one thing they do not is the moral authority to run the Senate. What do you think of that?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I disagree fundamentally. Anyone who has 51 place settings in his caucus has the moral authority and we have 51 place settings. I don't think it's a question of moral authority but it's a question of making sure that we do the best we can with the authority we have to guide this country, provide it leadership in a constructive, bipartisan way and that's what you're going to see from us.

JIM LEHRER: In general terms, Senator Daschle, how do you see your role as Majority Leader, contrasted with that of -- of that of the President of the United States in dealing with his agenda, dealing with what he wants and he feels that he was elected to do?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Jim I think we were both elected obviously by very, very narrow margins, by the slimmest of margins. I'm not sure the President fully appreciated that in the way he has conducted his strategy so far legislatively. It worked because he had protection under reconciliation and our budget rules but that won't work in the future. I also have a very narrow majority; and I would hope that what we could do is to recognize that both parties must feel invested. Both parties must feel included in the process in order for this to work. Democrats have not felt invested or included. I don't think that we ought to reverse those roles. I think it's important for to us make sure Republicans do feel invested and included. That's what I'm going to do; I hope that's what the administration does.

JIM LEHRER: I understand you're having dinner with the President tomorrow night?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: Are you going to tell him what you just said?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I sure am.

JIM LEHRER: Have you hold him that before?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: If he's watching tonight, I won't have to.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Have you told him this before?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I haven't had many opportunities to tell him anything in recent weeks but I hope this is a new day, and I hope that we'll have many opportunities in the future to talk and constructively consider just how we might act together in a more bipartisan manner.

JIM LEHRER: Well, again, Senator Daschle, congratulations and thank you.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: And tomorrow night we will talk with the Senate's new Minority Leader, Trent Lott.

[MORTARDUDE]

Seems like this was a pretty big deal....


May 24, 2001

RAY SUAREZ: We get some historical perspective from NewsHour regulars, Presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, and journalist and author Haynes Johnson. Joining them is former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma. He's now a lecturer in legislative politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Well, can any of you remember any time in modern American history where the decision of one man had so much anticipation around it, had so up riding on it, Haynes?
HAYNES JOHNSON: Yes, Theodore Roosevelt -- 1912 when he bolted the Republican Party -- set the stage for the ending of that party as control of the White House and the progressive government of Woodrow Wilson and all the rest, and later on the New Deal had a profound impact on the politics of America. But there has not been a time in our lifetime where we've seen anything -- I agree with the Senators, seismic it's a moment of great, earthquake, all these things. This is an unusual day.

RAY SUAREZ: Doris.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, you know, in some ways I'll go back to 1910 - even further back than Haynes Johnson -- because I think what happened then was that you had a series of progressive Republicans who felt they weren't being listened to by the conservative leadership particularly in the house there was this old character Joe Cannon, who was the Speaker of the House and a real autocrat. First one caught and then another began to bolt and they actually stripped Cannon of the power, and that created a whole new group within the progressive Republican tradition.

And I think the question today is if this is going to be historic, it will depend on whether or not Jeffords having said that this was a feeling that his party no longer could embrace his progressive Republicanism is going to be followed by others. Are there others out there? Not necessarily even others who will bolt the Republican Party but others who will stand up for what they believe and their views and feel sort of strengthened in their ability to act on principle because of what Jeffords did. It's one of wonderful those movements, I think, where we can wonder will an individual makes a difference again? We've lost that belief in our country. We saw it again in the election when individual votes make a difference. And I think maybe today the dramatic unfolding will make people question whether or not if they do stand up for what they believe they really might be able to make a difference.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: One of the most dramatic and most exact parallels a little bit before our time -- 1881 - and that is when there was an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and it came down to a guy game named William Mahone of Virginia who was elected by a break away Democratic faction, and there were rumors that the White House -- Republican White House - James Garfield with champagne and satisfaction -- we don't know what they meant by satisfaction, but he surprised everyone by allying with the Republicans. He did get a payoff. He got to be chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He got a lot of patronage. He also got to influence who were going to be officers in the Senate and perhaps, most of all, the coup de gr?ce was a huge basket of flowers arrived from the Garfield White House.

RAY SUAREZ: And Chester Arthur got to break the ties.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And also got to be president very soon which - needless to say -- is not an exact parallel here but perhaps not as principled as Jim Jeffords.

RAY SUAREZ: Mickey Edwards, has there ever been so many riding on the decision of one politician?

MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, I think one of the things riding on this that is significant is there have been a lot of changes from one party to another. But it's usual usually the other direction, it has usually been going from people leaving the Democratic party and becoming Republicans - and before Bill Clinton -- we have to remember -- Republicans had won five out of six presidential elections and the country was moving to the right. Given that psychology, it really is significant now that the big news is a Republican Senator leaving and sending a message that there are a lot of people who are not as conservative as some of the leaders in the Senate who maybe don't have a home in the Republican Party. I think he was wrong by the way. I have great respect for Jim Jeffords. I served with him in the House. He is a good man but I think he is wrong but I think he has dealt a blow to the Republican Party today.

RAY SUAREZ: Does it have to happen again before we can talk about a change in national momentum or trend?

MICKEY EDWARDS: I don't think it has to happen again but I think that the fact that everybody is even talking about this and now looking at isn't Arlen specter going to be up happy. Apparently he is not based on what we saw on the program. But there are a lot of others. There is Olympia Snowe. There is Susan Collins, there are a lot of Republicans who don't quite fit the conservative mold. And I think if you are sitting in the White House right now, you have to be wondering what do you have to be wondering what do you have to do to keep those people on board.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Haynes, Jim Jeffords has been for a long time one of the most liberal members of his caucus but he is a northeasterner, a Vermonter. Is his departure part of a very long process in American politics?

HAYNES JOHNSON: I think it is. What we're watching -- do you remember the election map? We watched that terrible night when we didn't get sleep. It was all red in the United States -- colored in Republican from the Canadian border down to the Gulf of Mexico and right over from the deep South over to the Rocky Mountains -- solid Republican. You had the blue or the Democrats. And they had the old New England base, the Yankee base. They were voting for the Democrats. Now you are seeing a move back away from the old Republican wing, progressive wing like Jeffords. I think it's quite significant in that sense. And you also have the blues covering in the West Coast. The county is really culturally, economically, politically divided and this tells you how the divisions are, and the arrows now seem to be going in another division.

RAY SUAREZ: Doris, do you agree?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: You know what is so interesting is to look back to 1944 when Franklin Roosevelt had lunch with the progressive Republican Wendell Wilkie, and he suggested to him that he thought that the progressive Democrats and progressive Republicans should form one party; they would lop off the southern conservatives from the Democratic Party, lop off conservatives from the Republican Party, and really have a division that people could then debate and stimulate the country as a whole. Wilkie actually agreed with him and sadly, however, several months later Wilkie suddenly died so that dream of Roosevelt of really defining the parties more according to progressive and conservative, rather than this geological - or geographic way we have it now -- never got realized, so I think part of it is also going to depend not only on what other Republicans do but does this embolden the Democrats who have been really defensive, it seems to me, since the election to somehow debate as they have what the size of the tax cut should be, rather than putting forth that they wanted public resources to be used with this surplus for the environment, for parks, for schools in a much larger way and ask the country to debate that issue. They got caught I think on their own petard, as that old saying goes, but now maybe they're going to be more on the offensive and the issues will get defined more, and the country can debate it. I think the best thing that can come out of this instead of looking at what is happening in Washington, with these little maneuvers going on, the country starts really talking about what do they want to do with this huge surplus.

RAY SUAREZ: Mickey Edwards, perhaps you heard Senator Hutchison just a little while ago talking about how she wanted everyone to be welcome in the Republican Party. But Jim Jeffords, upon his departure, said he no longer felt like it was his party. They seem to all say they want a broad church but we are not seeing so much of a broad church anymore, are we?

MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, there are a lot of moderate and liberal Republicans in the House and the Senate and in the Governorships and in the state legislatures so the Republican Party is still a pretty broad party. It is -- it's obviously more conservative then the Democrats are. I think the real problem here is if you see the two parties become more polarized and less of umbrella parties. What we have had so far has kept the country pretty much in the center. If you start seeing the Democratic Party become more a liberal party as Doris suggested they once talked about being, and the Republican Party becoming just the conservative party, I think we are more likely to swing between extremes than we are to continue to have a very centrist kind of a politics. From that standpoint I think it's disturbing. But I still think that both the Democrats and Republicans, you know, have a pretty broad mix philosophically within their ranks.

RAY SUAREZ: Can we look to other parts of American history where the parties seem to be in play?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Sure. This is one of the biggest themes because when a party gets too far from the center, they lose elections and they come back to the center so they can begin winning again. You've seen the opposite. In 1948 for instance over civil rights, a lot of southerners walked out of the Democratic Party; the same thing in 1964 with civil rights. Strom Thurmond, who seemed to be the fragile thread that this Republican majority was hanging on, became a Republican in 1964. He had been a Democrat part of the movement. The new Democrats -- Bill Clinton's efforts to bring that party to the center was because a lot of the Democrats said, our party has gotten too liberal; we can't win elections any more. You may see Republicans now saying the same thing.

RAY SUAREZ: So what should we be looking for - I mean, to understand the moment, to understand the significance of this event?

HAYNES JOHNSON: There is an old saying that 24 hours is a lifetime in a life of a politician and a political party and a country. This moment is really up for grabs. It requires the kind of leadership to put together what Mickey was talking about, coalition governments and coalition consensus politics so you don't have one extreme over there and one extreme over there and nothing gets down. Otherwise you have a polarized and more of a turn off of the electorate. So it's a very important moment.

RAY SUAREZ: Mickey Edwards, when this split Senate and it power sharing plan first was introduced back in January, the conventional wisdom was that was going to give a lot of power to those in the middle --- the often called Snowe-Rowe coalition -- but we saw one politician who rather than relishing that role as a man in the middle found that he had to redefine himself. What do you make of that?

MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, you know, I have a vested interest in saying that I think the common wisdom was right because that's what I was saying at the same time but I think what has happened here is that it was the leadership in the Senate and perhaps the White House that was is not as skilled as it could have been in making sure that the views of people like Jeffords and Snowe and the others were being adequately considered. You know, sometimes Presidents, I'm sitting here surrounded by people who are in fact presidential scholars, and I am not -- but sometimes presidents have a tendency to become a little arrogant in their office and to not respect the individual at of Senators and their concerns. And that might have been at play here too. It doesn't sound like Jeffords was given the kind of attention to his ideas, to his principles, that he should have had. So I think it could have worked as we were talking about the common wisdom in the center, but I think to some extent he may have been pushed overboard.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, we're going to leave it there, thank you all.