Skip to main content

View Diary: Caltagirone Decision To Back Republicans Throws House Into Chaos (220 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Someone mentioned nobility? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm talking about the "non sequitur."

    Aside from that misnomer, though, it's the agreement that works the change in partisan control, not the switch by itself. Absent the agreement, the switch might mean nothing.

    •  Yes, if not with that particular word (0+ / 0-)

      This whole thread is fundamentally about whether "Jeffords pulled a fast one on VT voters." Other people have, in the course of this thread, used words like "principled," "deceptive," and "deceit" in an attempt to gauge whether Jeffords's action were right and how one might possibly distinguish them from Caltagirone's actions. That I, by chance, introduced another word ("noble") should be fairly unremarkable.

      Fundamentally, you're confounding agency and instrumentality. The Lott/Daschle agreement (which filled in an apparent gap in the Senate Rules) was the instrument of the change in partisan control in 2001, just as the ordinary procedure of the Penna. House might be the instrument of the (non-)change in partisan control in 2007. The agent, which impels the change in party control, is Jeffords alone in 2001 and Caltagirone alone in 2007.

      To see how common-sense this really is, ask yourself this: Can you find a single newspaper headline from 2001 that says "Lott and Daschle Deal Causes Senate Flip"? No. However, I'm sure you can find headlines that look something like "Jeffords Switch Causes Senate Flip."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site