Nevermore shall we hear the plaintive call of 'Reluctant Nay'

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, its still welsh for ....... I see.

Reluctant EAT ME!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I always campaigned and earned each one of me terms even when I didn't have an opponent. Consider that in each case going back to 2012, I have had to contend with at least one major crisis (Computer failures, illness, relative hospitalized, internet disconnected, and this last time, moving), and yet I still won them all except this last one. I have seen players get wiped out by just one of these problems occurring. I worked successfully with members of every party that has existed dating back to the DA And JCP in 2009 to the Labor, DRs and TPP of today even whilst spending half of my tenure as chair of the right of center party. I even voted to confirm your subsequently inactive self to the cabinet (probably one of my few regrets). Finally, I maintained an active presence from the time when Obama could walk on water until now.

I think I did a hell of a damn good job.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

I would not say so. As conservatives, we needed someone, at that critical juncture, to stand up for the basic principles of free enterprise, the market economy, and pure fiscal sanity. For him to have signalled "reluctance" in opposing the ludicrous piece of legislation that was the Fuel and Power Act was tantamount to saying that his support of those principles was equally ambivalent.

Wrong. I stated explicitly what I wanted and my reluctance was because I hated the fact that I could not change the bill into that with the votes that were available. I wanted a system of market competing non-profits, not nationalization. The only way you can think that I was ambivalent on the free market requires that you ignore what I have stated publically then and subsequently. Nice try, Simmy, but it ain't happening.

I have never denied that I have some pro-labor sympathies, so does Hagrid ironically by the way or at least he did. So in that once sense don't expect much to change in terms of the Southern Senator.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

I have have long had great respect for Yankee and his service, and I thank him for it, but the fact is that it had simply become too milquetoast, both in the Senate and as leader of the Federalists, who now are, and I don't think anyone would deny this, interminably moribund.

Hamilton said the same thing half way through my first Senate term. I always separated my service in the Senate from leadership of the Party and I have never been an ideological hack. I also know full well what it means to be dirt poor and thus haven't been afraid to compromise on some economic issues where I know markets alone won't cut it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

None of y'all can say that his campaigning record isn't impressive. 17 consecutive wins is unheard of. AFAIK only one person has exceeded his winning record with a losing record.

I actually wondered about that, but did not check. I was going to take a wild guess and say 20-1 W-L, which was in the ballpark. 17-0 W-L record from 2009 until Feb. 2015 is quite impressive. And it wasn't even At Large either.

Actually it is 17-3 if you count other races. I twice ran unsuccessfully for VP (DWTL/Yankee and Jbrase/Yankee in Feb 2009 and October 2012).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wrong. I stated explicitly what I wanted and my reluctance was because I hated the fact that I could not change the bill into that with the votes that were available. I wanted a system of market competing non-profits, not nationalization. The only way you can think that I was ambivalent on the free market requires that you ignore what I have stated publically then and subsequently. Nice try, Simmy, but it ain't happening.

I have never denied that I have some pro-labor sympathies, so does Hagrid ironically by the way or at least he did. So in that once sense don't expect much to change in terms of the Southern Senator.

I admit that I may have overlooked some of your proposals, but I do recall your proposal to replace the present electricity sector with a system of non-profit enterprises, which I thought was still very much a solution to a problem that did not exist, even if it was a (considerably) less harmful solution than what was being proposed. Regardless, it was to me a matter of principle- opposing the nationalisation of industries for the mere sake of nationalising them, as was the only real reason given for that bill, was something that had to be opposed and opposed uncompromisingly lest we start heading down such a path. You may have considered it to have had lower stakes, but- again as far as I was concerned- it was absolutely pivotal.

I never equivocated on opposing nationalization. I was reluctant to kill a bill that could have been altered in such a way to fix a very real problem namely that the power system is not a market, it is a monopoly at present.

Hamilton said the same thing half way through my first Senate term. I always separated my service in the Senate from leadership of the Party and I have never been an ideological hack. I also know full well what it means to be dirt poor and thus haven't been afraid to compromise on some economic issues where I know markets alone won't cut it.

This comes as a surprise to me; I would think it impossible to separate one's service in office to the image they were able to project as a partisan leader. You were the face of the Federalists by default, at least that's how I saw it. Hence why I was appalled by your remarks during the debate on the Fuel and Power bill: it created (or frankly, merely reinforced) the impression that the Federalists were not an effective opposition to the Administration.

I don't think it's a matter of being an ideologue or not being an ideologue- it's understanding what the basic principles of a party are and communicating that effectively. It's steering the course of events as to not allow an actual ideologue who just re-registered to nearly successfully primary a popular incumbent President. It's not putting a party into a position where it is compelled to nominate a candidate despite the majority of present members having voted not to nominate that candidate. I don't mean to berate you- I sincerely do have a great deal of respect for you and think that you have probably put in more and contributed more to Atlasia than anyone else over the years- but these were my concerns.

If I was ineffective at opposing the adminsitration it would not have been because of this, it was because at the time I had to walk a good distance to my neighbor's hours to just get on three or four times a week. But leaving that aside, let me state that the image I hope I have attained is one that does in fact represent a right of center party. Namely being pro-region, pro-market (preserving a monopoly is not pro-market just because it is privately owned ), and is willing to compromise when necessary.

I am not sure what role I had to play in the primary you are referring to. You were not here and thus may have missed the fact that I didn't take over the leadership of the Party until last February. I did wrongly give the impression to the Federalists (as I was the only communication link) that Duke was heavily leaning towards retirement, a sentiment he expressed multiple times over the course over November and December of 2013, but Maxwell and Tmth were chairman when that was set in motion and consolidation had split the party to the core.

It would have been my preference to get the bylaws amended months ago, but the opportunity just was not there to get the job done and only the platform was finished last summer. Thus stuck with the old ones, it is hardly fair to blame me for interpetting them as best as I could when even the "experts" could not agree on what they meant.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Simfan, how many choices do you have when you "select" your power provider?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As people have also conveniently forgotten, I also would more often then not vote against tabling bills because I was reluctant to see a bad bill with good potential go to waste. A bill is a vehicle and the time spent on it is a resource, and thus if you spend weeks or even months on that bill, to then throw that in the garbage seemed rather wastefull, always did to me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Simfan, how many choices do you have when you "select" your power provider?

Well?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Simfan, how many choices do you have when you "select" your power provider?

Well?

Anyone who pays utility bills in New York State can choose to buy from an "energy service company" rather than their local utility, so Simfan's landlord most likely has several choices. Customer-sited distributed energy generation is also rapidly growing in importance here, as it is in most of the country.

When I lived in New York that wasn't the case. We are not provided the same type of competition down here. Hence why I wanted a system of market competing energy co-ops, and idea that has support from even some on the right in this state, at least in terms of organizations supporting it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is really going to disappear is the color coded voting and Scott's style for designing legislation.

Also, these:

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For a minute I thought he said "This man doesn't speak for me".