<Had the President been a Democrat, and the Democrats held the Senate by one seat, I challenge you to visualize a Democrat standing up, claiming that he could not abide the Democratic Party controlling both Legislative and Executive branches, and resigning his party to "balance our national debate."

I get your "point", but I don't see the reasoning behind it.



Given the standard liberal premise that unlimited power is just fine as long as it's your guys with the power, I can understand how you might not see the reasoning behind it. The fact that you don't see the absurdity of Jefford's statements says a lot about how leftists view power and opposition to their positions.

In their view, "balance" is only necessary when the opposition looks to gain power. This is also the world view of leftist regimes across the planet, which is why jailing or execution of the opposition, state control of media, elimination of real elections, and other "balancing" techniques are nearly universal in nations ruled by socialist regimes.

Jeffords switched to shift the balance that the Republicans were giving to their rich team mates......
"the Senate has moved forward with an agenda that concerns the many rather than the privileged few".



It's called conscience Tom. And there are plenty of Americans left that will fight these "priviliged few", to keep our land from becoming an imperialist aristocracy of sorts. (if there is such a thing)



"Of course the Democrats are all about the Little Guys. Look, it says so right on the package! They don't take money from, and grant favors to, rich guys, corporations, and special interests! They have OUR best interests at heart, not just a lust for political power at all costs! That's what they keep saying, and why would they lie to someone like me?"

Jumping Jiminy Christmas, do you actually BUY this crap? "Imperialist aristocracy?" Have you actually LOOKED at the people in power in the Democratic Party?