Poll for Republicans Only...

[Pete Hanlin]

Okay, if you AREN'T a Republican (you should be ;) heh, heh, heh), don't blame me if you are offended by this poll... I TOLD you up front it is only intended for those of us intelligent to know that the polling options presented represent the only possible four rational reasons for Sen. Jefford's recent betrayal of the American way of life...

GOP~ete

[hcjilson]

I saw the poll and just had to respond.So far 100% of us have the reason for the switch....But thats not what put me on the floor. You were right Pete, I'm NOT a Republican....NOR am I a Democrat.Formerly an Independent now called unenrolled. I wasn't going to vote but then I said what the hey.....He'll never know that I'm not a Republican....so I voted.....Then and only Then did I scroll down and see what you had written. You obviously knew some Non Republicans would vote thereby abandoning the courage of their convictions....So why is it so hard to accept that Senators are any different!!
:) :) :) :)
If I don't talk to you before I leave, have a great weekend.
Best from Harry
PS My Mother is a Vermonter and I learned at a very early age....never insult one! It will Always come back to haunt you!

[Blake]

What about Power? That would be my vote. Think about it - the Democrats were bound to take over the Senate anyway, but now they won't have to wait for Strom Thurmond to kick the bucket.
By jumping ship now and helping the Democrats gain control, Jeffords is making sure he's on the winning team, thus holding on to power. He's not losing anything politically - Vermont isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism. For him, it's a win-win situation, especially when you throw in all the good press he's getting.
Jeffords may be a petty man with a fragile ego, but I don't think Bush could have done anything to keep him in the party - it was a power play, not an act of revenge.

So, since I don't agree with any of the choices, I'll abstain from voting... and maybe later demand a recount (some people might have had trouble clicking the proper circle).

Blake

[Steve Machol]

You forgot one option Pete - Principles! :bbg:

Why should Jeffords remain in the Republican Party if the party doesn't reflect his principles?

For the record, I'd make the same comment about a Democrat, or anyone else for that matter.

[Judy Canty]

You guys sure didn't question his ethics, morals or parentage when Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched from Dem to Rep.:finger:

[Pete Hanlin]

Ah, Steve...

Now now, I KNOW you aren't a Republican... (but I also knew there would be a comment from you within a day or two ;) ).

Fundamentally, I agree with your point. If the Republican Party (or Democrat Party) no longer stands for what an individual Senator or Representative believes in, they should feel free to switch parties. My problem is that in this situation there is a case to be made that the switch was for anything but principals. If the Senate was 52-48 Republican or 52-48 Democrat for that matter, I can understand someone saying "Gee, I just don't feel I'm a part of this group any longer..." However, given the unusual situation our Senate was formerly in, I find it hard to accept that Jefford's move was "on principals alone."

If you want to become an independent, that's well and good. However, to do so at a time when it will cause a complete reversal in power to a party that you're not even switching to points to other motivations. In other words, I can accept the principal argument if you are doing something that will basically just affect yourself or your home state. This move at this particular time was aimed at punishing the current administration by using a tool that happened to be at his disposal. Even at that, that's fine and that's politics- but you come out and say that, you don't hide behind this "The Republican Party left me" bull!

I also despise the liberal media's treatment of the story... If the situation were reversed, they would surely be accusing the Republican's of "subverting the system" and would be lambasting the Senator- not holding him up as some poster boy of moderatism...
This marks the end of my rant on the topic of Sen. Jeffords...

Everything else aside, why am I really hot and bothered about this? I'll tell you why. This country, in case no one else has noticed, has an energy problem (scratch that, make it a quickly approaching long term energy crisis). No small part of this crisis has sprouted from the lack of an energy policy for the past 8 years (unless you call "tax it, tax it, tax it" a policy). Would it be NICE if we could solve the problem by simply conserving more? Sure. Can we solve the problem through conservation? In no way, shape, or form. We need to exploit our oil resources, where we have oil we need to drill for it, period. We need to get some nuclear plants up and running... We DO NOT need liberal Democrats who pander to environmental groups gumming up any possible solution in the name of "protecting our natural resources" (note the term "resource," which implies it should be used...)!

"What about the precious Mother Earth, Pete? Don't you want to preserve the Alaskan scenery?" Tell you what, I won't be going to Alaska anytime soon... I WILL be filling up my tank this afternoon... Let's see what all these enviro-nuts think in a few years when they're sitting in lines to pay $4/gallon for gas to fill their Chevettes, Neons, and Subarus. In addition, here's an offer... We'll take everything East of the Mississippi and give it to Conservatives- who will drill wherever we want and build nuclear power plants everywhere (of course, the only oil producing parts in this region will be the Gulf). The Liberals can have everything West of the Mississippi and can "preserve" to their hearts content. When the lights go out in places like CA, however, don't expect one kilowatt of power from us easterners- we'll have cut the lines.

Wanna preserve a couple hundred acres? Great, do so with your own gas money... let the rest of us live in prosperity and peace. They say Rome fell from within via corruption and moral decay... we are falling from within as victims of idealism.

Pete "whew, THAT felt good... thanks!" Hanlin

[Blake]

The possibility Steve mentioned could be the correct one, but the timing is suspect. The Republican party has been leaning to the right for a while now, and Jeffords has been leaning to the left even longer.
All political leanings aside, I think he made a smart move. When the Democrats take control of the Senate, which was highly likely to happen soon anyway, he'll at least hold on to his chairmanship. That will allow him to bring home the bacon (or syrup) to his home state, which is the key to getting re-elected - or elected to another office.


Blake

[Steve Machol]

I'd be willing to bet that if the conservative Senator from Louisiana (his name escapes me) had switched from the Democrat to Republican parites, the same people now decrying Jeffords would be full of praise for the 'courageousness' and 'principled' stand of the Louisiana Senator.

Perception all depends on what side of the fence you're sitting. :D

[Pete Hanlin]

You are probably correct concerning the reaction of Republicans to a Democrat who might opt to become a traitor, turncoat, saboteur to his/her party. However, is it not equally true that the same media sources that are currently hailing the "moderate" Jeffords as a man of conviction and principal would be assassinating the character and questioning the motives of a Democrat turned Republican?

If he wanted to sabotage the Republican administration, that's fine with me (disheartening, but fine)... but don't do so under the guise of "principal!" Doing so is almost as disgusting as watching Gephardt on TV crying over how we mustn't drill in Alaska (lest we destroy the environment).

BTW, I just saw a review of a book that pokes fun at both sides of the aisle- looks pretty good. I think its called "A Parliment of *****s."

Pete

[karen]

Pete, having come to terms with the sad fact that my husband and I are the only Republicans in the state of California I would like to add my 2 cents ( I could have sworn there was a cents key!) I listened to the radio today as I was driving and they were covering the people demostrating outside the Century Plaza hotel where W was meeting with Gov Beige Davis ( I know its Gray but beige suits him better!!;) ) If I hear one more person whine about price caps I am going to scream!!! If maybe we had built a power plant or two in the past few years we wouldn't be in this cruddy situation. Putting a cap on the price won't generate any more power. Now I will admit that I don't like paying more for power-and I think that some of the prices people are getting for a kilowatt hour are pretty outrageous ( wish I was the capitalist who was holding the reins of that horse!) but we put ourselves in this position. But here's the kicker- no one wants a power plant in their backyard. Everybody is whining about saving this area or that but then screams when their light bill goes up. I don't get it. My big peeve about all this is if you are going to charge me more then fix it so the lights don't go out.
It was really interesting to hear what some of the protesters were saying-the funniest part is that after they all left they left all their trash and junk behind all over the street. All these environmentalists screaming about saving the redwoods that can't even keep their city streets clean. Hmmmmm...

[shanbaum]

Well, Pete, you got one thing right (sort-of): it is all about principal.

[Pete Hanlin]

Shanbaum,
Very witty! :D

Karen,
For a Californian, you're okay (now, could you please do something about your Senators... particularly Boxer, who makes even Hillary look like a "moderate")! Here's hoping sounder minds prevail and your state finds a way to build some additional power producing capacity sooner rather than later...

Pete

[Steve Machol]

Pete,

Actually four new power plants are coming online this summer. And I bet you didn't know that California uses less energy per capita than 48 other states! Only one state is more energy efficient than California. (I forget which one though.)

[hcjilson]

Could it have been..........Massachusetts???:D :D

[Steve Machol]

Originally posted by hcjilson
Could it have been..........Massachusetts???:D :D

Could be! Ever notice that Conservatives really aren't very good at conserving! :p

[Pete Hanlin]

Steve,

I am very glad to hear that you have new power plants coming on line this year (wouldn't want the OptiBoard to crash from a lack of power supply). Maybe if some of these plants had come on line sometime during the past 10 years or so, California wouldn't be having the current shortages. What type of powerplants are these (hydro, wind... they can't be nuclear, since we haven't commissioned a new reactor since 1979)?

I'm also glad to know that Californians are so efficient in their use of power. Obviously, then, you really don't need price caps or any other sort of help, you can just conserve a little more! :D

Hmmm, as for me, I think if "Conservationalists" were a little more conservative, the world would be a much better place!

Pete "looking forward to having Janet Reno as a Democratic candidate for governor in '02" Hanlin

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Everyone,

Jeffords is a loony. Even as a Republican Senator from Vermont he was still a looney. Now he's an Independent loony that will be working with the Democratic caucus so I hope they enjoy him ;)

"Principle?" Hmmmm. There is no such thing in politics just as there is no honor among thieves. Advancement of an agenda and power are the mainstay of all politics regardless of political affiliation. All parties want to be in power but the difference is both the manner in which they try to achieve that power and the reasons for wanting to gain that power. All are guilty of selfishness and underhanded moves but the bottom line is who has a solution or at least an idea of what to do next? Preferably with the welfare of the American people in mind.

As I've said in the past I'm devoutly conservative and vote Republican BUT I'm "Conservative" more than I am a party affiliate. As a Conservative and a common sense thinker there are some interesting views coming from both sides as to solutions for some of the current problems.

First let's talk about Mr. Gray Davis. Regardless of political affiliation, he's an idiot. He has at his disposal power plants that are old and outdated, but can be operated without fines to get California through their crisis. He won't do it. Why? Politics. This gives him an issue to run on. So while he's playing politics people are going without power during these rolling blackouts. He's all about the people of California. Yeah right!

Pete is right "conservation" won't solve any problem. Price caps will turn California's problem into a nationwide problem where we can all suffer. Nothing was done to keep this from happening even though Davis new it was coming and has known for a long time. As I said it's politics. If no other sources for power are built the only other option is to either kill off the number of Californians that will lessen the burden or set a government mandate forcing them to move out of state.

Steve is also right. Californians do conserve more than any other state, but do you know what Steve? California is still having rolling blackouts. Conserve all you want and that's a good thing to do, but it isn't solving the problem and it's right there in front of everyone’s face and yet many still don't see it. If conservation isn't solving your local problem then you produce more; otherwise you kill off enough people to lessen the burden or you set a government mandate forcing the same number of people to move out of the state. Here's a little something for you to peruse:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/calif_energy_facts.html

A little side note and or example of this is an unlikely source, but here it is:

On an episode of Gilligan’s Island, some rare insect that would render him dead within 48 hours of being bitten bit Gilligan. The professor was working diligently on an antidote when Ginger and Mary Ann were bitten as well (Mary Ann was a babe by the way ;) Well, they both went running to the professor begging him for the antidote. His reply was "There isn't any antidote yet. I'm still working on it." Mary Ann pipes up and says "But I'm small. I don't need much." When there isn't any or there's not enough to meet the “necessary demand” being small or conserving your little heart out won't do you any good. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I did like it when Gray Davis said that Californians were paying 700% more now than they were two years ago. Then he went on to talk about price gouging. I was laughing so hard I nearly wet myself. A 700% increase in a single persons electric bill would be cause for them to abandon their homes and move to a different state because they couldn't afford to live there and if they tried would end up having to file bankruptcy. Ya'll keep me posted on your bancruptcy filings and mass exodus from your chosen state. Also keep updated on the increases in your electric bills as well as a comparison on what you payed two years ago vs. present.

Maria mentioned a Senator that moved from the Democrats to the Republicans and Republicans said nothing about it. So is the shoe on the other foot? Perhaps but the same Senator Tom Daschle made a big stink about it and demanded that he resign and run under his new political affiliation (which Senator Phil Graham did and still won), but he refused. Tom Daschle isn't saying much about this one though. Perhaps he feels vindicated now. Tom is another power hungry idiot that is a danger to us all, not just Republicans, not just Democrats but also all thinking Americans.

Now on the Republican side I have to say that McCain is a whining weenie and I have to admit that I was wrong about my post election assumption about him and I feel much better about Bush being where he is. Arlen Specter needs to be hit by a truck and taste his own blood and Trent Lott needs to have a spine surgically implanted so that he can be an "effective" leader.

Always remember that if you have to depend on others for everything you can never get ahead. You have to do it yourself and that's the only way things will ever get done.

Now, I’m going to go run for office and you can all vote for me. I’ll be the one running for Ruler of the World :)

Take care,

Darris C.

PS. Steve, I'm a Conservative that conserves very well ;)

[Steve Machol]

I don't really have time to get into a point-by-point rebuttal on this, but all Republicans criticizing California and Gray Davis are forgetting one important fact. This 'crisis' is a direct result of the 'deregulation' pushed for and signed by the previous Republican Govenor - Pete Wilson.

Gov. Davis may be an idiot (I won't argue that point! :D ), but he did not cause the current mess. A good share, if not most, of the blame goes to the previous Republican administration.

Frankly I'm tired of people on both sides of the fence who point the fingers elsewhere. The fact is there's enough blame to go around.

[Steve Machol]

Hmmm...that sounded a bit more harsh than I intended it to. Sorry about that.

On a further note, I agree that it was short-sighted for California to not build any power plants over the last ten years. However there's a couple of things to keep in mind:

1. The planning and building of the four power plants coming on line this summer began long before the current blackout situation and sky-rocketing energy costs.

2. The direct cause of the current problem is the deregulation plan itself. Here's the plan as proposed and signed by the Republican Govenor:

• Force the power companies to divest themselves of all their power plants.
• Put a freeze on retail energy prices.
• Deregulate the price of wholesale energy.

Now it doesn't take a genius to see that there's some major problems with this plan. Nonetheless the Republican Govenor and Democratic Legislature approved this exact scenario.

Can anyone serious say with a straight face that this was a 'good' plan? What happened next was inevitable.

The power companies were forced to buy their power on the wholesale market as opposed to generating it themselves. Since the wholesale producers had no price constraints, they raised thier prices. The utility companies were now paying higher prices for energy, yet couldn't recoup these costs from their customers.

As I said there's enough blame to go around. However the true cause of the current situation is not that lack of power plants. Rather it was a seriously flawed 'deregulation' that in truth was bought and paid for by some of the very power producers that profited handsomely when wholesale price restraints were lifted. (Enron anyone?)

[Darris Chambless]

Mr. Steve,

I would like to draw your attention to my post and have you focus in on the word politics. I will grant you that there are some that will point the finger to where ever they "think" the blame lies. Keeping in mind that following a bad policy with a bad policy is, in fact, stupid regardless of party affiliation. The deregs you're talking about and the problem in general is a vicious cycle and goes back even farther than the previous administration. This has all been coming for a long time, but the fact that Mr. Davis and Bill Clinton knew the problems that were on the way well in advance through a study done by one of Gray Davis' people (can't remember his name, but I'm sure I can find it again) shortly after he won the Governorship concerning the population, it's growth and "potential" growth and the increased necessity for more power to supply Californian residents with said power and di nothing about it is the problem that Californians face today.

The truth of the matter is as simple as this: If you don't have the facilities to supply a need on your own then you have to get it from outside sources. If you need it bad enough you will pay whatever they charge. In a free market the price can and will be based on your ability to pay. If I were in the electric business I can guarantee two things: 1) I would be watching other power companies like a hawk. 2) If I saw someone do something so incompetent as to not allow the same types of companies to produce their own power and then came to me to solve this problem, I'd charge them out the wazzoo. After all it's not my "duty" to supply them with power. I'm in it to make money and if I can't make money then why supply them at all?

Too often people look at an individual states problem as a national problem, but unfortunately for the affected state or fortunately for the unaffected states it's not. The local governments job is to handle these problems through information reviews, a good cabnet of people, intellect and common sense. Mr. Davis had good people that were incharge of specific tasks one of which was the power situation and what needed to be done and it was reject. Not overlooked, not misrepresented, not misunderstood. It was rejected because of all the environmental issues allowed to take precedence over reality. If you have difficulty believing or accepting this, one need only look at ones electric bill and or the real problems facing ones own state. The "Well, he strated it!" accusation is irrelevant at this point and the better accusation would be "Well, he fixed it!"

Playing Devils advocate here for just a minute (since you mentioned finger pointing but in a not so direct way did it yourself ;-) What if the former Republican Governor said:

"What we have to do is deregulate the power industry because price capping will create long term problems that we don't want to have to address if we can avoid them. The way we get around these problems and the gouging that comes from deregulation is to build more power plants to insure that we can take care of ourselves in these times of need and not have to rely on outside sources that would overcharge Californians for power."

What if the Democratic legislature said:

"That's all fine and good but we need to shut down some of the older power plants we have becuase they are outdated and a polution problem to boot. We should NOT build anymore plants because of environmental issues that we support. To keep the problem of price gouging a non issue we will simply cap the prices the carrier companies can charge to the consumer so that they're never the wiser and the problems are then solved?"

Then political (there's that word again ;-) pressure is put on the Governor to go along with this policy and it is signed into law and it is so. Who's to blame you ask? The political process because many in it will abandon their principles for poilitcal power regardless of what party affiliation one may have.

The part that gets me the most is this "deregulation." Deregulation is the deregulation of pricing from outside sources. Guess what? California doesn't have nor did it ever have the authority to "regulate" sources outside of it's borders. Deregulation is a buzz word. Think of it this way; California goes to Texas power plants and says "You're going to supply us with power and you will be regulated by our state government so that you can only charge X amount!" Now if this were actually done, when the Texas power company CEO's got done laughing their rear ends off, they would simple tell the California representatives "Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you."

Now I realize that "deregulation" was more along the lines of California telling other power companies that if they wanted to do business in California they have to follow their regulatory guidelines. That's fair enough, but the problem? No outside companies would do business in California because they would lose money if they did and have to shut it down shortly after opening. Who in their right mind would do that? No one would and therein lies the problem. When the problem started the afore mentioned administration deregulated so that power companies would be able to do business in California and make a profit, thus appeasing the environmentalists by not having to build more power plants and dirty up the place. Only one problem, California NEEDED it and the power companies knew it so they charged accordingly to spite the legislature for having been kept out for so long because of what they felt were unfair business practices. The vicious cycle continues ;)

Bottom line on the power problems in California; if you can't supply it yourself you are at the mercy of those that can, no two ways about it. That's reality like it or not believe it or not. Create enough competition and the prices will no longer be high and the problem is solved.

I'm vaguely familiar with the four power plants you speak of but there are a few questions I have with regard to them and please correct me if I'm wrong. Weren't these power plants in the process of being built and at a certain stage of completion (I believe somewhere around 60%) halted by the current administration because of environmental concerns and legislation? Wouldn't this create the illusion (especially now) that this problem had been address by the current administration well in advance, by simply starting up the builing process once again, and making GW look even more like he is being unreasonable and hanging California out to dry (Politics maybe?)? And aren't these four powerplants only going to be able to supply about 500,000 homes with power? Of course if you use Governor Davis math that would be 250,000,000 :)

With all that said Steve, I want you to understand that no one and I mean NO ONE is blaming you, other Californians or even their voting habbits for this problem. The problem is what it is because a small group of unqualified people were left to and are still making all the decisions. Truth in advertising; by a show of hands how many people believe that campaign adds or town hall speaches truly depict the candidate running for office? My hand isn't up folks. Speach writers and political advisors create these people and they're just actors playing the part until elected. Once in office they are free to do whatever they want to regardless of how it effects others. That can be good or it can be bad. In this case it's bad.

I think you have gotten up in arms about being a Californian and when people talk about this problem they tend to use very general terms, I will apologize for mine if I've made any and would like to do so for others but I can and will only speak for myself. Remember California will not go without power for any long term period, you won't be forced into bancruptcy and lose your home because of high electric bills, you won't be paying 700% more for electricity, no one is going to leave California high and dry regardless of what you're being told and you don't need to debate any points. The problem is California isn't able to supply enough power to meet demand and is being charged out the hind quarters for outside sources power. The solution, build more powerplants and maintain self sufficiency and California will never have to worry about this kind of thing again.

Take care,

Darris "If the barns on fire, throw water on it." C.

PS. There is not a single confrontational tone intended in this post. If anyone feels offended or feels that I'm attacking it is your personal opinion and your problem. Thanks for your understanding.

[John R]

Originally posted by Darris Chambless
Hello Everyone,


Maria mentioned a Senator that moved from the Democrats to the Republicans and Republicans said nothing about it

Er Darris its not Maria its Judy opps bet you just saw the dancing lady ? and thought of the brit babe........

Very nice thread this one we have had a few defect over to the other side over here as well and one lot will moan like hell, then when it goes the other way they dont say owt but the others moan like hell....
From my point of view all they care about is themselves and their own cosy little world and shove the voters till its election time then its "Now what did you want doing"

John R "total ****** off with politics"

My it got through the ####

[karen]

Whew! what a long thread this has turned out to be... Darris, maybe you know the answers to some of the quesitons I am about to pose or where I can get the answers.

1. Is it true that California has the strictest environmental regs and that limits the type, size and amount of power plants we can build???

2. Are the other states that are providing us with power being fined by the EPA for producing when they are not supposed to and passing along that cost to us??

3. When we talk about deregulation, are we talking about wholesale AND retail?? I know, I know, you said it was a buzzword but I am just trying to put this all together in my mind

[Pete Hanlin]

Okay, here's my proposed solution to the problem (without pointing any fingers)...

• Sever all power lines coming into the State of California

That's pretty much it. I guarantee two things: 1.) there will be some major problems for a year or so.
2.) at the end of that time, California will have somehow come up with a way to supply all of their own power needs.

Actually, California is a great example of the problem inherent with the country as a whole. If you don't have enough resources for your own space, don't count on the resources of others to bail you out. If some of the ridiculous spending projects we see from year to year had to be funded with local or state money, we'd see far less such projects... and this is the main reason I am a Republican. I believe in a very limited federal government and strong responsibilities being put on the states. Not that states shouldn't work together (that's why we have a "union"), but each state should shoulder its own responsibility.

Finally, as for deregulation being the cause of California's current woes... come on, the good governor must have you all brainwashed! Lack of supply is the current problem and lack of supply comes from lack of power plants- regardless of who failed to build them. Regulation usually just keeps an inefficient system running just well enough to keep everyone from revolting (that, and it usually results in benefits for one group of people over another).

Pete

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Karen,

To answer your questions:

"1. Is it true that California has the strictest environmental regs and that limits the type, size and amount of power plants we can build???"

Yes. I'm going on memory here so bare with me but I believe that the regs put in place were lobbied for by the Environmentalists. The restriction put on the size, type and number of were designed so that in no way could a power plant be built and operate at a proffit under these guidelines. BUT the provisions do not disallow the building of power plants as that would constitute restraint of trade under Anti Trust (the Sherman Act.) In short "Don't say they can't build power plants, just restrict them so much that no one in their right mind would ever want to."

2. Are the other states that are providing us with power being fined by the EPA for producing when they are not supposed to and passing along that cost to us??

Yes, not to mention Californians are paying off passed due bills for electricity. I believe that a power plant can operate for seven to nine days a month without being fined, but in order to generate the surplus electricity being sold to California they must operate over and above the allowable time limit therefore assessing fines each day that they operate over said time limit. If you look at the actual cost increase to the California consumer and then tally up the cost of electricity+transfer of such+the fines+taxes assessed on said electricity I'm sure you would find that the percentage of increase would match the total of the afore mentioned equation. California isn't being "gouged." They are paying the amount necessary for the supplying companies to both provide the power under federal guidelines to California and make a profit. Many see that last word as an evil word, but if you can't make a profit then why do it? No one ever got into business to lose money ;)

"3. When we talk about deregulation, are we talking about wholesale AND retail?? I know, I know, you said it was a buzzword but I am just trying to put this all together in my mind."

Not exactly. What happened was this: Retail pricing to the consumers was capped so that your price for eletricity remained low and stable. Many of the power plants operating in California were old and outdated and therefore a pollution problem and a veritable gold mine to to the EPA regulators in charge of assessing fines :) Basically these power companies were fined to extinction. Not saying they didn't need to be shut down because of pollution problems, but they were shut down.

When deregulation came into play it opened up the market for outside sources to come in with their own power grids meaning that they could then freely buy and or sell power in the California market without the restrictions previously put on them (restrictions not unlike tarrifs, of quantity restrictions i.e. you could sell power but only 1000 kw hours per week or whatever.) These companies could also build power plants if they were so inclined but the Environmentlal restrictions kept them out so they opted to sell power to the carriers. The retail price caps then needed to be lifted so that the carriers could pay for the increase in pricing caused by having to buy power from outside sources to supply the communities they serviced. The price caps weren't really a part of the "deregulation" it was more of a situation where they had no choice so they did it, kind of thing. The problem here was that because the price increases had to come immediately many consumers could not afford to pay the bills which meant the carriers were not getting their money with which to pay the suppliers. This is the recipe for bancruptcy.

In a nutshell California kept power companies out by restricting what they could and couldn't do. California also restricted power companies and restricted the building of new power plants locally. Then when they went into the red and "needed help" they deregulated to bring in outside sources to supply power, but it wasn't without cost and because of that you here a lot of screeching from the politicos. They don't see why they should have to make up any additional costs incurred because of bad policy, which is the same as not wanting to take any responsibility. Again that is called Politics. It all goes much deeper than that, but I'd be here writing for days :) I'm trying to paraphrase as much as possible.

Like I told Steve and anyone else that would listen, no one blames Californians for the problem. California residents are doing exactly what they need to do and can't do any more and are to be commended. What is happening is that bad policy gave Californians an energy crisis and the current administration wants other companies to supply them with power but doesn't want to pay for it.

If you want a lot of good information regarding these issues you can go to www.rogerhedgecock.com. I will try to find the article he has which follows each step of how this problem came about. It's good stuff and will probably answer many of your questions in more detail. ;)

John you are correct, it was Judy that mentioned the Dem gone Repub. Sorry.

Judy is correct that there wasn't much squacking coming from the Republican side when this occurred.

To my dearest Judy,

As I said before, regardless of which side of the isle Jeffords is on he is a loony. I'm sorry that the Independants will now be shackled by him and that the Democrats will have to deal with him directly. It would be the same to me if Arlen Specter or Trent Lott changed. You have one with no spine and the other with no brain and I wouldn't wish that on anybody not to mention they're both Republicans ;)

However, I haven't heard too much (other than here on the board) concerning outrage of Jeffords actions by the Republicans. All I've really heard is disappointment about Jeffords switch from the current Republican congressmen and best wishes for him in the future. Other than that this is the harshest thing I've heard about it.

With that said I will say that Mr. Daschle, on the other hand, was very vocal about the Dem. turned Repub. He demanded that Mr. Campbell resign his post and run under his new party affiliation and that this was the only fare and right thing to do. When I say Daschle was very vocal I mean as in not only bringing it to the floor but trying to put pressure on him to force him to stay under the Democrat party affiliation. A Republican switch to Democrat really hasn't seemed to phase Mr. Daschle though. In fact Mr. Daschle seems almost giddy about it :) From that front I believe that is where the hypocracy lies. There is hypocracy in this thread as well, there always is when it comes to politics. Therein lies the problem. It's not the parties but it is infact the politics the people elected to their perspect positions play. Right now there are a lot of idiots on both sides of the isle and we will just have to deal with them for now I guess :)

Love ya dear, you too Karen ;)

Darris C.

[John R]

Now seeing as this person stood for election on one parties way of thinking dont you think that if he wants to change side and swing the other way that he should stand down and re fight his seat (where ever that is) on his new parties stance.
We have this problem this side of the pond as well but when you here the person involved say that they could no longer stand by there old polices (that they fought for and were elected on) as they now think that they are wrong, and they have swung to support the other party.

I feel that they should put there neck on the line and restand for election.