2014 October Presidential elections, political loser

[Adam Griffin]

No, but some presidents are more impressionable than others. I think the electorate understands what it means to elect a Laborite to the White House now, though. Y'all kind of did the work for me. Not that I think the Federalists will ever be able to capitalize on it...

Right, so the Labor President that crashes and burns is a "real Laborite", and the others were just poseurs? What a convenient set of definitions you have going there!

You do realize that all three Labor Presidents by such exception-based criteria could claim to be "outside of Labor" or whatever you're implying, right?

[Napoleon]

No, but some presidents are more impressionable than others. I think the electorate understands what it means to elect a Laborite to the White House now, though. Y'all kind of did the work for me. Not that I think the Federalists will ever be able to capitalize on it...

Right, so the Labor President that crashes and burns is a "real Laborite", and the others were just poseurs? What a convenient set of definitions you have going there!

You do realize that all three Labor Presidents by such exception-based criteria could claim to be "outside of Labor" or whatever you're implying, right?

Forgive Hagrid for not understanding how President-party relations are supposed to work- we havent had a real Federalist president until now, and at this point there is no respectable Federalist structure to be meaningful anyway.

Also are we really debating whether the so called Politburo had significant influences during Nix's term?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That's what I mean by having no control. Duke basically signed off on every major piece of Labor legislation during his tenure (save for a few of the most extreme, and in most cases, only modest modifications were needed). Despite the fact that all three of "my Presidents" will tell you that I never coerced them into acting against their will on any significant element, I would have publicly disavowed any of them had they given in as much as the Right does any time it holds the White House (of course, we don't have much of a track record to go on here, and I only personally recall one President "from the Right", but I've heard enough about Tmth's tenure to draw the same conclusion).

Atleast half of the Federalist Senators were typically siding with Duke on any given issue. Both Tmth and Maxwell supported consolidation, I believe both Tmth and myself voted for one of the labor bills that came up in December. The only major instance where I differed from Duke and most of all in the party did as well (unlike consolidation where the party was split more evenly) was I think on the redraft to the Productivity amendment where I voiced my displeasure by voting against the redraft that I was disappointed in. Plus it gets conviently forgotten, that Duke had four Labor Senators, 1 Nappy and 1 Xahar against 3 Feds and a DR on most domestic issues. When you cannot get you way on everything survival to ensure the priorities survive, takes priority. And there was a good bit that Duke wanted to do and couldn't until he had a more favorable Senate.

Despite the fact that all three of "my Presidents" will tell you that I never coerced them into acting against their will on any significant element, I would have publicly disavowed any of them had they given in as much as the Right does any time it holds the White House (of course, we don't have much of a track record to go on here, and I only personally recall one President "from the Right", but I've heard enough about Tmth's tenure to draw the same conclusion).

And that tells you nothing? Short of given up and abandoning the game, there is nothing any conservative can do to satisfy your complaints. Any coalition will be bifurcated, any candidate will have need to espouse somewhat centrist views and have cross-over appeal to stand a chance. It is just that simple. Short of personal voting or some other sort of clique voting not based on ideology (It happened once or twice), just how in the world do you expect the Presidency to be won by a Conservative without significantly more compromising then the left, and/or Duke or a Lumine?

I also don't know what your model for a conservative is either, perhaps if you did, then we could get somewhere. Chances are I am to its left.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Of course the Labor Party had substantial influence during my presidency. Only a ignoramus would insist that it didn't, and only a naïf would assert that there was anything improper or unscrupulous about it. Had I been elected as a Federalist, I would have pursued a substantially different set of priorities.

The trouble with Hagrid's post is that Labor's influence was diametrically opposite to what he implies. Adam in particular consistently encouraged me to be more conciliatory - something that any Labor insider would confirm. I cannot count how many times he convinced me not to tell someone just how much they were annoying me.

The problem is that Adam is trying to make a contradictory point about the party needing to "control" its President and at the same time maintaining that he didn't coerce his President. The latter is true, but it undermines his initial attack against the Federalists, especially when it is combined with the fact that his strawman "proto-typical conservative that we always deviate from unnecessarily" line also rings hollow. Perhaps he should have used a better choice of words. Also, there is a double standard being applied when it comes encouraging "concialiation" on the part of his people, yet when the right does so out of necessity, it is an unnacceptable concession from some standard line.

The right will not have a standard line as long as it is 1/3 moderate, 1/3 JCL/Cassius and 1/3 Jbrase/Dallasfan and the internet will ensure such is the invariably the case unless the site gets overun by born again Christians or something.

[windjammer]

The right will not have a standard line as long as it is 1/3 moderate, 1/3 JCL/Cassius and 1/3 Jbrase/Dallasfan and the internet will ensure such is the invariably the case unless the site gets overun by born again Christians or something.

You mean BRTD?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In the reality of the site, priorities which unify as much of the movement as possible will be identified and pursued.

The mideast was a recent example of that or rather the lack thereof.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The Labor Party machinery, such as it is, has never seemed to me to be much aside from a means to organize people for electoral purposes, not to actually push an agenda while in government or pull the strings of any office-holder. The Politburo just tries to get people elected and defends them once they get there.

I mean, let's take a look at Labor Presidents:

Me. Everyone is already on the same page about the fact that I can't be cajoled into much of anything unless I'm willing to do it already, so there's no point elaborating on that much. The fact that the last weeks of my Presidency were spent realizing I was hopelessly out of the loop with Griffin as it related to Rimjob is proof enough of that.

Nix, who is notoriously strong-willed. This is the person that tanked Griffin's GM nomination in the opening days of my Presidency, has always been an independent-minded element of the party, and now doesn't even identify with it anymore.

And DemPGH, who's presidency probably would've gone 10x better if his strings had been being pulled.

People don't give Labor enough credit; Griffin and co. aren't idiots. We're actually incredibly effective negotiators and have succeeded so far in many respects because the party knows when to hold 'em and knows when fold 'em. Labor doesn't exert influence so bluntly and stupidly. 90% of the party's failures have been due to individual negligence rather than the party being rotten to the core; which, by the way, is my answer to the multiple people who've straight-up asked me "Why are you still in Labor?" I genuinely don't believe the party itself is a destructive or controlling influence. At least, no more than any other group around here. I would've left if the party was truly led by a tiny group of stubborn-minded people with little tolerance for diverse opinion. The JCP we are not.

I think the party could use a fresh perspective on things (and perhaps a Lumine Presidency is the opportunity to be more contemplative about that) but I've never felt like the party is actually some sort of Soviet entity despite the use of Soviet-esque language as some sort of little dramatic flourish.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The right will not have a standard line as long as it is 1/3 moderate, 1/3 JCL/Cassius and 1/3 Jbrase/Dallasfan and the internet will ensure such is the invariably the case unless the site gets overun by born again Christians or something.

You mean BRTD?

Good point. No group is going to be like it is in real life.

[DemPGH]

Wow. Look, people are free to think whatever they want, and I'm not involved in governance here anymore for good reason (this is for you guys who have built a following for yourselves - I don't have the time, and I apologize), but no one, I mean no one, "controlled" me. In fact, I had little contact with anyone in the party until things started to really, really fall apart, and at that I said, "I've had enough." Any number of people can vouch for this. I also don't fit in very well. I'm to the right socially and to the left economically. That hurt me, and like I said, I don't have the time or desire to build a following or to become a ringleader. I just wanted to do the job and be done. But I brought out the worst in everyone, and it's why I wanted to step aside. That's the goddam truth, and you can believe it or not. Whatever.

I've also never been personally popular, and when that's the case you represent who supports you! Running the Pacific was easy because no one wanted to do it. Here? Everyone is at your throat over nothing. Or so I felt. If I represented Labor more than anyone else, it was because I felt their support was all I could get, and it probably was, so call it the path of least resistance. I never intended to run again anyway. I'm not a moderate hero, and I never wanted to play that b.s. mind game with anyone, so my reign fell apart for obvious reasons, the very, very least of which was the degree to which I was being "controlled," which I was NOT. Anyone who says so simply does not know and is being a blanket hyper partisan. Ugh. 

I could rant about this person or that person, and really go on about the bullsh*t, but I won't because it doesn't matter and I'm done. But just don't say Labor "controlled" me.

[Adam Griffin]

The problem is that Adam is trying to make a contradictory point about the party needing to "control" its President and at the same time maintaining that he didn't coerce his President. The latter is true, but it undermines his initial attack against the Federalists, especially when it is combined with the fact that his strawman "proto-typical conservative that we always deviate from unnecessarily" line also rings hollow.

No, but I did actually think about this argument you're making as I was having to straddle both sides of the fence in the argument. The short of it is: run people who are going to at least try to act like they're affiliated with your party, and stern control won't be needed. Run people like you have been (and this goes not just for President, so don't think I'm picking on an individual), and you'll continue to enjoy more of the discombobulated need for control that I originally mentioned.

[bore]

I don't think there were any losers.

Labor wound up picking up a Senate seat due to windjammer being the best, the Federalists won the Presidency, Poirot completely outperformed his expectations, and we would have probably swept the Northeast if we ran someone like Cincinnatus against bore.

I'm not going to dispute that Cinci would have won, because he would have, but that's not really a great argument. It's basically the equivalent of saying the republicans didn't lose Nevada in 2010 because they could have run Sandoval instead of Angle, or Harkin could have run for re election this year, so no matter what happens the democrats aren't really going to lose Iowa.

I don't think TPP lost, because of your sweep of the Northeast and winning the VP, but that's not a great argument.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The right will not have a standard line as long as it is 1/3 moderate, 1/3 JCL/Cassius and 1/3 Jbrase/Dallasfan and the internet will ensure such is the invariably the case unless the site gets overun by born again Christians or something.

You mean BRTD?

Good point. No group is going to be like it is in real life.

I imagine a day where born agains do have a significant demographic on this site and part of this game.

[Flake]

The right will not have a standard line as long as it is 1/3 moderate, 1/3 JCL/Cassius and 1/3 Jbrase/Dallasfan and the internet will ensure such is the invariably the case unless the site gets overun by born again Christians or something.

You mean BRTD?

Good point. No group is going to be like it is in real life.

I imagine a day where born agains do have a significant demographic on this site and part of this game.

RIP competitive elections

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The right will not have a standard line as long as it is 1/3 moderate, 1/3 JCL/Cassius and 1/3 Jbrase/Dallasfan and the internet will ensure such is the invariably the case unless the site gets overun by born again Christians or something.

You mean BRTD?

Good point. No group is going to be like it is in real life.

I imagine a day where born agains do have a significant demographic on this site and part of this game.

RIP competitive elections

More like a lot more competitive elections.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

That's what I mean by having no control. Duke basically signed off on every major piece of Labor legislation during his tenure (save for a few of the most extreme, and in most cases, only modest modifications were needed). Despite the fact that all three of "my Presidents" will tell you that I never coerced them into acting against their will on any significant element, I would have publicly disavowed any of them had they given in as much as the Right does any time it holds the White House (of course, we don't have much of a track record to go on here, and I only personally recall one President "from the Right", but I've heard enough about Tmth's tenure to draw the same conclusion).

Atleast half of the Federalist Senators were typically siding with Duke on any given issue. Both Tmth and Maxwell supported consolidation, I believe both Tmth and myself voted for one of the labor bills that came up in December. The only major instance where I differed from Duke and most of all in the party did as well (unlike consolidation where the party was split more evenly) was I think on the redraft to the Productivity amendment where I voiced my displeasure by voting against the redraft that I was disappointed in. Plus it gets conviently forgotten, that Duke had four Labor Senators, 1 Nappy and 1 Xahar against 3 Feds and a DR on most domestic issues. When you cannot get you way on everything survival to ensure the priorities survive, takes priority. And there was a good bit that Duke wanted to do and couldn't until he had a more favorable Senate.

Despite the fact that all three of "my Presidents" will tell you that I never coerced them into acting against their will on any significant element, I would have publicly disavowed any of them had they given in as much as the Right does any time it holds the White House (of course, we don't have much of a track record to go on here, and I only personally recall one President "from the Right", but I've heard enough about Tmth's tenure to draw the same conclusion).

And that tells you nothing? Short of given up and abandoning the game, there is nothing any conservative can do to satisfy your complaints. Any coalition will be bifurcated, any candidate will have need to espouse somewhat centrist views and have cross-over appeal to stand a chance. It is just that simple. Short of personal voting or some other sort of clique voting not based on ideology (It happened once or twice), just how in the world do you expect the Presidency to be won by a Conservative without significantly more compromising then the left, and/or Duke or a Lumine?

I also don't know what your model for a conservative is either, perhaps if you did, then we could get somewhere. Chances are I am to its left.

I never really had an issue getting anything through the Senate during my first and second term, and I felt I accomplished just as much during my first term as I did my second. Remember, we passed healthcare reform with the support of a Labor senator, and there was never an instance where I passed anything without bipartisan support.

I've never really viewed certain political makeups as problems, and I have no idea if my Presidency was a victory for the Federalist Party or if they just took me in spite of it all because of the alternatives. I was so close to switching to the Labor Party at one point and being their standard bearer that I had a speech prepared for that event, the things I could tell if I wrote some tell all book about my Atlasian time here.

My dealings with the Senate all came down to how well I could talk my way into their pants. In retrospect, I'd be in the same position with a Labor majority as I would be with a Federalist majority considering my relations with the left were often better than with the right. To this day I'm not sure how well received my presidency is amongst the right of Atlasia. One of the great mysteries that will forever linger in this game.

[Adam Griffin]

Just think how much different things would be right now had you done so, Duke.

RIP SHATTERED DREAMS.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That's what I mean by having no control. Duke basically signed off on every major piece of Labor legislation during his tenure (save for a few of the most extreme, and in most cases, only modest modifications were needed). Despite the fact that all three of "my Presidents" will tell you that I never coerced them into acting against their will on any significant element, I would have publicly disavowed any of them had they given in as much as the Right does any time it holds the White House (of course, we don't have much of a track record to go on here, and I only personally recall one President "from the Right", but I've heard enough about Tmth's tenure to draw the same conclusion).

Atleast half of the Federalist Senators were typically siding with Duke on any given issue. Both Tmth and Maxwell supported consolidation, I believe both Tmth and myself voted for one of the labor bills that came up in December. The only major instance where I differed from Duke and most of all in the party did as well (unlike consolidation where the party was split more evenly) was I think on the redraft to the Productivity amendment where I voiced my displeasure by voting against the redraft that I was disappointed in. Plus it gets conviently forgotten, that Duke had four Labor Senators, 1 Nappy and 1 Xahar against 3 Feds and a DR on most domestic issues. When you cannot get you way on everything survival to ensure the priorities survive, takes priority. And there was a good bit that Duke wanted to do and couldn't until he had a more favorable Senate.

Despite the fact that all three of "my Presidents" will tell you that I never coerced them into acting against their will on any significant element, I would have publicly disavowed any of them had they given in as much as the Right does any time it holds the White House (of course, we don't have much of a track record to go on here, and I only personally recall one President "from the Right", but I've heard enough about Tmth's tenure to draw the same conclusion).

And that tells you nothing? Short of given up and abandoning the game, there is nothing any conservative can do to satisfy your complaints. Any coalition will be bifurcated, any candidate will have need to espouse somewhat centrist views and have cross-over appeal to stand a chance. It is just that simple. Short of personal voting or some other sort of clique voting not based on ideology (It happened once or twice), just how in the world do you expect the Presidency to be won by a Conservative without significantly more compromising then the left, and/or Duke or a Lumine?

I also don't know what your model for a conservative is either, perhaps if you did, then we could get somewhere. Chances are I am to its left.

I never really had an issue getting anything through the Senate during my first and second term, and I felt I accomplished just as much during my first term as I did my second. Remember, we passed healthcare reform with the support of a Labor senator, and there was never an instance where I passed anything without bipartisan support.

I've never really viewed certain political makeups as problems, and I have no idea if my Presidency was a victory for the Federalist Party or if they just took me in spite of it all because of the alternatives. I was so close to switching to the Labor Party at one point and being their standard bearer that I had a speech prepared for that event, the things I could tell if I wrote some tell all book about my Atlasian time here.

My dealings with the Senate all came down to how well I could talk my way into their pants. In retrospect, I'd be in the same position with a Labor majority as I would be with a Federalist majority considering my relations with the left were often better than with the right. To this day I'm not sure how well received my presidency is amongst the right of Atlasia. One of the great mysteries that will forever linger in this game.

There were three economic bills that would have dead in your first term and healthcare would not have happened with the Senate makup as it was in November and December. Remember, shua was not there and without him, it would not have been possible. One Labor Senator would not have been enough and if you will recall Duke, none of us expected it ahead of time.

You had a better personal relationship, but on various matters of economic policy, thinks were more dicey. And remember your relationship did not extend to all wings of the Labor Party and TNF did run against you and critiqued those very bills I am referring to with regards to the second term. Remember the minimum wage bill that you spent six months regretting having signed and then only managed to fix it (partially) thanks to having a more favorable Senate. You commented often on how various Labor approaches to economics did not make sense, and also consistently stated opposition to single payer which unites all the Laborites and all the Laborite Senators had voiced support for such. You not have viewed them as a problem necessarily, but what bills could you have passed as a Laborite that you would have been comforable with, cosnidering all the discomfort you expressed to me personally with higher tax rates, nationalization and single payer?

Perception has a way of becoming reality, but when taken together you Presidency should definately be viewed as a positive for right based on passage of the healthcare bill and several other items in the second term.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You may be a rino (and my favorite one forever man ) because of social issues, but you are not a lefty and certainly not on economics where your instincts as you have expressed them to me over five years, would naturally place you on the right.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just think how much different things would be right now had you done so, Duke.

RIP SHATTERED DREAMS.

From my perspective your shattered dream could have turned him into DemPGH at worst and at best a do nothing. The biggest source of unity between Labor and Duke passed the Senate in his first term with the support of 2/3rds of the Federalist Senators as well.

Duke made the right choice. The only reason Duke almost joined the Labor party was rooted in the lapse in communication between Duke and Federalist Party regarding his interest in still running for reelection. If the engagement had been there from the start and had Duke joined sooner so that he was in the February discussion, there never would have been any guessing, no aborted Maxwell candidacy and February would have been a lot less chaotic.

Another way things could have turned out different would been with Maxwell as VP instead of Matt. Matt is a good guy, but he was not active and became even more disconnected from the PArty then Duke ever was over that period of time. Unfortunately, Maxwell was in Senate Seat 4 and losing it was not desriable with so many Laborite Senators. ITS ALL YOUR FAULT GRIFFIN!!!

[Adam Griffin]

From my perspective your shattered dream could have turned him into DemPGH at worst and at best a do nothing. The biggest source of unity between Labor and Duke passed the Senate in his first term with the support of 2/3rds of the Federalist Senators as well.

Ugh, read again what all 3 Labor Presidents have said in this thread, Yankee.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is that Adam is trying to make a contradictory point about the party needing to "control" its President and at the same time maintaining that he didn't coerce his President. The latter is true, but it undermines his initial attack against the Federalists, especially when it is combined with the fact that his strawman "proto-typical conservative that we always deviate from unnecessarily" line also rings hollow.

No, but I did actually think about this argument you're making as I was having to straddle both sides of the fence in the argument. The short of it is: run people who are going to at least try to act like they're affiliated with your party, and stern control won't be needed. Run people like you have been (and this goes not just for President, so don't think I'm picking on an individual), and you'll continue to enjoy more of the discombobulated need for control that I originally mentioned.

Duke cut taxes several times and reformed the corporate tax code, modernized healthcare and then tried to introduce a competive model, and scaled back an excessive minimum wage. Maybe I am skewed by the personal revelations that Duke made personally to me on a daily basis and unless I have been reading him wrong for five years, Duke's instincts on many of these issues placed him well within line of the Federalist Party.

There were disagreements and these were worsend by the lack of communication, but there was a reason why Duke did not jump to Labor and why he made the choices he did later on based on what he was comfortable with pushing and the best way to advance it. If DemPGH had followed his instincts too, had followed his natural political instincts (particulalry if he was only going for one term as he said) he would have been rather successful, as opposed to siding with the most fervent of Laborites to as he said "get the support that offered the path of least resistance" the results of which were rather obvious.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From my perspective your shattered dream could have turned him into DemPGH at worst and at best a do nothing. The biggest source of unity between Labor and Duke passed the Senate in his first term with the support of 2/3rds of the Federalist Senators as well.

Ugh, read again what all 3 Labor Presidents have said in this thread, Yankee.

No, you should read my subsequent post. I have several times ackwowledged that you DID NOT control your Presidents.

[Adam Griffin]

From my perspective your shattered dream could have turned him into DemPGH at worst and at best a do nothing. The biggest source of unity between Labor and Duke passed the Senate in his first term with the support of 2/3rds of the Federalist Senators as well.

Ugh, read again what all 3 Labor Presidents have said in this thread, Yankee.

No, you should read my subsequent post. I have several times ackwowledged that you DID NOT control your Presidents.

Yet we're at fault for them making what you say are bad decisions?

The reality and the truth of the matter is that each President from our Party made decisions as he saw fit, with no negative repercussions applied or implied by the Party. I elected people; I didn't tell them what to do once they got there by and large. No one else had the authority to do so, either. Whether that results in it being "our fault" for not being dictatorial in that sense or not is irrelevant; I merely wanted to clarify since some were implying that "Labor" ruined a bunch of Presidents by forcing them to act in a certain way (bullshit). Therefore, any "dream" of mine didn't turn anyone into anything. Each President makes a choice as to whom he wants to work with and how he works with others, plain and simple.

And besides, this conversation was and is about how the Federalists only can elect people who not only they don't "control", but who don't even pursue an agenda that is consistent with the party. If you'd do the latter, then the former wouldn't be an issue of control, and my seeming contradictory explanation wouldn't have been needed. Rather, you guys count as a victory something that results in us not getting 100% of what we want. And as I implied prior, as long as you're willing to play the game from that dynamic, you'll never really win, because your "victories" will be nothing more than our losses, and Labor draws its strength and unity more than anything from unrelated groups of people uniting solely to try to cock-block us because they're weaklings and sore-losers.

The far and center-left isn't any easier to keep in line than the far-right and center-right. We had three factions, too, when I joined the game (the loonies, the serious leftists and the liberal heroes). Now go out and organize your party, recruit a perfectly manageable 10 people or so, and stop waxing nostalgically about being perpetual losers/playing the victim card all the time.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I didn't almost join the Labor Party because of a communication breakdown. Aside from you, dear Yankee, I was basically being shown the door and nearly lost in a primary to a guy who hadn't played the game in years and was running a less than serious campaign. Yes, I hadn't made up my mind on running again, but no one really approached me on the matter until it was too late. The only reason I remained in the Federalist Party was because of you, Yankee, as you, and Marokai, are my best friends in this game and my longest tenured allies. We go back to 2009 together.

It was no secret then and now that I opposed nationalization, but at the time that policy plank was not in serious discussion amongst the Labor Party, and for all intents and purposes, they were making me feel welcome and had promised support. Adam and I have a history together dating back to the first TPP, so it made sense for me, and I have never been controlled by anyone, and it wouldn't have started had I switched. Adam is a smart guy - he knows I am just a wild horse who's tough to tame.

I am not and would never have performed as DemPGH did in office. I knew what I could do and what I couldn't do and I was aware of public perception, let my income tax cute example stand and evidence to that.. when it became apparent our budget could not take any tax cutting, I dropped it immediately. While I inherently believe in lower taxes, I am always aware of the limitations budgetary concerns play in the debate, and I was unwilling to cut certain safety net programs. I wanted to expand Nixcome and simply our welfare system, but oh well, maybe another time.

Regarding my first term, I was able to reform the corporate tax code (even TNF supported it, don't you know?), outlaw at will employment and pass the Pacific bailout. The closest thing I had to a partisan fight was the healthcare I passed in the last days of my second term, but that was largely a collaborative effort, as I had initially wanted to model our system like Singapore.

All in all, I am a solutions guy and not very ideological. I knew our healthcare system was in bad shape and we needed a change, so we did it. I maintain I doubt things would have been any different had I joined the Labor Party aside from some of the votes I got in the general. I never really had any party pulling my strings because the Federalists didn't want to touch me, aside from you of course and I wasn't a member of the Labor Party.

But really, it doesn't matter, because I stayed loyal to you as I have always promised to do in hard times, and will always continue to do, and remained with the Federalists, scraped out a primary victory over Mike Naso, and the rest is history, and I hold no hard feelings to anyone involved during that period. Both Maxwell, Hagrid and I have gotten over the differences we had the time, and life goes on, as it should. 

[DemPGH]

I should also add that over the likely strenuous objections of Labor, I would have signed a ban on polygamy and incest had it reached my desk, which there was no possibility of, which shows where I am to where everyone else is. Then there's an aggressive, entitled "center" which I underestimated and which I really didn't think it was my job or duty to bend over backwards to pacify (so I certainly came off as too partisan). Had I known that that was an obligation, I would have strongly reconsidered my June candidacy. Honestly, if I liked an idea, I got behind it; if not, I opposed it. I just didn't fit in. When I say I took the path of least resistance, that may not be accurate. I guess I didn't feel an obligation to pacify people who I could never please and who would not support me, personally or otherwise. My comments were always mine and mine alone.

After the nationalization debacle, and maybe the V.P. ordeal, my tenure was not salvageable. That's when the groupies got together. The ideal circumstance would have been to have had Tyrion confirmed the first time, avoid the Ogis thing, and me resign at that point. I strongly considered it. Tyrion would have been very good.