Skip to comments.
Max Cleland's downfall
Posted on 11/06/2002 6:52:29 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
It seems to me that Max put the interests of unions before the interest of national security. If you recall, Max constantly vetoed amendments of Bush's Homeland security bill because Bush wanted the option of firing incompetent government (read..union) workers. Gary Aldrich's latest column addresses this govt. worker incompetentcy.
Georgia voters looked past Max's war record and saw that the man had his priorities all screwed up.
TOPICS: Campaign News
KEYWORDS: whydidhelose
To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
Well said. The fact is that Max was too liberal for GA and had a very good opponent. Georgia had been Maxed out and wanted someone new.
2
posted on
11/06/2002 7:36:51 PM PST
by
sboyd
To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan; sboyd
I would much rather have won South Dakota than Georgia. Max Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. Sure, Cleland voted against the President on this issue, but that doesn't make him unpatriotic. The Homeland Security Dept. was something Bush didn't even really want.
For Cleland to have such a positive attitude after coming home from Vietnam is very inspirational; most people would've said "woe is me" and called it quits.
Also, I think Cleland's defeat reduces the possibility that Zell Miller will switch parties. If anything, he's probably mad as a hatter, as he is Cleland's fellow ex-Marine and campaigned very hard for him.
To: Holden Magroin
Well maybe Max Cleland shouldn't have lied to the voters of Georgia.
Yes he is a hero for what he did for this country in Vietnam, but should that garantee him a job for life.
His record was very liberal, and it was out of step with the people of Georgia, and to make matters worse he tried to lie to the voters in an attempt to convince the voters that he wasn't really a liberal.
Max you voted against the Boy Scouts meeting on Government property, and then you lied about it. You deserve to be voted out
4
posted on
11/07/2002 2:31:23 AM PST
by
bigmikes
To: All
I was sad to see Cleland go. At least he served his country, unlike most of the members of the Senate. Yes, he had some liberal ideals, but when it came to fiscal issues, he was a true-blue conservative. I guess that is the most important issue to me... Miller, I am sure is upset, but I bet Jeffords is more pissed than any other member in the Senate. His celebrity status is now gone...
5
posted on
11/07/2002 9:04:07 AM PST
by
Abram
To: Holden Magroin
You must not be from GA. Cleland wanted labor unions in charge over Bush in homeland security. He voted against the partial birth abortion ban. So a baby can be aborted 6 months out? He supported a ban on funding for schools that allow organizations to use school gounds for meetings that deny membership to homosexuals. Zell did not vote with Cleland on any of these topics. You will see Zell op out on re-running. He is 70 years old. We should have won SD. There might be possible voter fraud there.
6
posted on
11/07/2002 6:41:30 PM PST
by
sboyd
To: sboyd
No I am not...I live in Washington State. Unions absolutely dominate this state. We can't even elect RINOs. Cleland voted with the President on several key votes...he broke with leadership on the greatest tax cut in history. True, he had to try to keep his seat. I also honor any person who served his country. Cleland was one of the more moderate voices in the Democratic Senate...sad that voices of moderation have been silenced. I don't know much about Saxby, but I welcome him into the Senate. Maybe we can make the tax cuts permanent, pass a marriage penalty absolution, eliminate the death tax and capital gain tax. We will see.
7
posted on
11/08/2002 5:15:50 AM PST
by
Abram
To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
i watched the debate. he came across as such a di..head.
8
posted on
11/08/2002 5:34:17 AM PST
by
GoMonster
To: Abram
Cleland was one of the more moderate voices in the Democratic Senate...sad that voices of moderation have been silenced. Cleland was a liberal. And Zell Miller has to be thinking retire or have Bush do to Miller in 2004 what he did to Cleland in 2002. Miller is not concerned about Cleland. He is concerned about Miller. And Miller is in big trouble if he does not retire. He will likely retirn in 2004.
The south is quite loyal. In the Solid South once elected you could stay in office forever as long as you did not stray from the conservative southern values too far.
In 1964 the South was the Solid Democratic south. It was also conservative. Now it is the Solid Republican South and still conservative. Hollings Seat in SC. and Millers Seat in Georgia will go into the Republican column in 2004. Hollings has already announced his retirement.
The situation in 2004 is reversed from 2002. This time there were 20 Republicans and 14 democrat held seats before the election. In 2004 there will be 19 democrat seats and 15 Republican seats. The republicans will likley pick up at least 4 seats in 2004. That would make the senate 55 to 45 or best case 57 to 43. But if the economy is booming and the nation is at peace the Republicans might pick up 8 seats. that would make it a 60 40 Sentate and a fillibuster proof senate.
If the economy is still good by 2006 and the senate is a more likely 57 to 43 then after the 2006 election it will likely be 61 to 39 and the most productive years for change in the Bush administration will be 2006 to 2008.
There will be a huge effort in 2006 to elect Repubican governors. There were major gains in state legislatures this election. For the first time in ages the Republicans now have parity in state houses. The republicans almost lost the advantage in Governors. They lost a net 3 governorships. It is beginning to look like Gerrymander fun time for Republicans in 2010. The Democrats may not be able to get control of the house until 2022. It may be 2012 before they can have real hopes for the senate. Lots for rats are going to retire. Being in the minority in the senate is no fun.
To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
I'm still quite ticked that Max Cleland, apparently thinking of himself as a fairly safe incumbent, publicly ridiculed the President and our troops by referring to
Operation Enduring Frustration. Perhaps that explains why the VFW endorsed Saxby Chambliss.
10
posted on
11/08/2002 1:30:56 PM PST
by
Coop
To: bigmikes
John McCain is a Vietnam hero too, although some have questioned the whole tale, and look what he has done.
To: Holden Magroin
Max Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. Max did not lose two legs and an arm fighting for his country. He lost them because he was inebriated one night, and was showing off with a grenade and dropped the pin. He had to fall on it to keep it from killing those around him that he put in harm's way. I have sympathy for him. It must be really hard.
However, the sniper was in the military - that didn't make him patriotic, and Max Cleland is not patriotic either. He is a career politician. He was Georgia's secretary of state before becoming our Senator. His office own office watched over his election.
GA voted Republican in the 1992 election, but some how 'ol Bill squeeked out a Victory and got GA's electorial votes in 1996. There were problems counting ballots, and ballots that arrived "too late" to be sent to the state office and were therefore not included in statewide tallies. Most notably in Newt Gingrichs district. Clinton won GA that year due to funny business. Clever Max, our Secretary of State, rode into that Senate seat at the same time that he was ignoring complaints of voter irregularities in the presidential race.
12
posted on
11/08/2002 5:22:55 PM PST
by
gatechie
To: gatechie
We here in Louisiana were in the same boat. Clinton carried Louisiana by 52% and also brought in Landrieu but the voter fraud in New Orleans was so obvious the state had to come in and fix it.
The person who brought those reforms, heh heh, is running fot the Senate against Landrieu herself. Funny how things work out.
To: gatechie
For the record, Clinton did not win GA in 96: Dole did.
14
posted on
11/08/2002 8:36:04 PM PST
by
GAGOP
To: Holden Magroin
This is such a non-sequitor & red herring. it was used again by Kerry(D-MA) wrt max "oh he is being called unpatriotic" bullpukey! ... max is not "unpatriotic" because he is taking the wrong position on an important issue, and more than the Dems are "unpatriotic" for being wrong on Bush's tax cut or being wrong on energy bill or being wrong on how to deal with Saddam. Max was being accuesed of being lax about national security because he put union interests ahead of homeland security when it came to passing this bill.
Max Cleland tried to hide behind his war wounds - which he got through a hand grenade accident, btw, not enemy fire - on this issue where he was putting unions first and national security second, accusing Saxby of calling him unpatriotic. Saxby in the debate answered clearly that was not the case and set the record straight. But Max and the Dems like to play the 'victim' card here, and try to use whatever technique to shut down debate. It is an issue of being wrong on judgment.
15
posted on
11/10/2002 8:59:18 PM PST
by
WOSG
To: GAGOP
For the record, Clinton did not win GA in 96: Dole did. My Mistake. You are correct about that. GA went for Clinton in 1992 - that was the year of the problem with votes for Newt too. I guess two plus two isn't four in thus case.
16
posted on
11/12/2002 8:03:32 PM PST
by
gatechie
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson