Posted on 03/15/2007 11:21:59 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
NASHVILLE -- The Republican majority in the Tennessee Senate was short-lived: Sen. Mike Williams of Maynardville declared an independent today and no longer a member of the Republican Caucus.
Williams blamed dissatisfaction over the arrival of what he called "Washington-style partisanship and gridlock" -- which he said he wants no part of -- for the switch.
His move left the makeup of the state Senate at 16 Republicans, 16 Democrats and one independent. That won't have an immediate impact on the organization of the Senate -- Republican Ron Ramsey was elected to a two-year term as the Senate speaker in January -- but it could affect the dynamics of key votes.
Sen. Paul Stanley, R-Germantown, said he was "angry and frustrated" over his colleague's move and his failure to notify Republican leaders prior to his press conference. Stanley vowed to campaign in Williams' district for Republican candidates when Williams is up for re-election in 2008.
TN's own traitorous Jeffords.
He doesn't want gridlock???
So he joins the party that's responsible for the partisanship and gridlock. How do we get stuck with these people?
What a sissy.
Republicans are told they have to support them because "they can win".
Williams... Jeffords... McCain... Snowe... Chaffee... Specter...
Democrat sleeper cells to be activated when the roll is close enough?
I don't think a Chafee jump is worth worrying about, at this point.
Good one.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Mike Williams sounds like a real tower of jello.
Hey, Mike, what's wrong with grid-lock? Tennessee, like most states, probably already has too many laws. Not to mention the laws it will not or cannot enforce.
I've always thought that a little gridlock can go a long way, and save the taxpayers a lot money.
You forgot Warner...
How are Jeffords and Chaffee going to effect any balance when they aren't even in the Senate anymore? I'm confused!
Your confusion appears to be a permanent condition.
Sincerely, MovementConservative
Official FR standards adjudicator
Situations like this illustrate why it's never OK to have just a one-vote majority. The Rats always seem to have one of "our" people up their sleeve. We saw this THREE times in California back in 1995, when there was supposedly a one-seat Republican majority in the Assembly.
And even if the Rats don't have someone up their sleeve, you can just about count on one of our people being a milquetoast, or an ingrate, or a fool ... or just plain liberal, and going over to the Rats for one of those reasons -- whether he formally switches or not.
Metaphorically speaking, this man should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
"told they can win."
That's part of the problem, but sometimes there's a district where only a relatively nonpartisan or relatively moderate Republican can win, so we have to take that. However, the powers that be in the party should be on the lookout for WEAKLINGS and IDIOTS and SELLOUTS, which are not necessarily the same thing as moderates or people who are willing to work with Rats. With careful skills, such individuals can often be identified early in their careers
by sophisticated higher-ups in the GOP. Their careers can then be aborted before they ever get into any significant office, reducing the chance that they can come out of the blue and win election to the legislature or Congress. By its nature, this is unfortunately something that needs to be done behind closed doors by undemocratic, top-down processes, by leaders, not voters.
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.