would we be better off if Zell Miller was never in the Senate?

[ButterflyBlood]

basically, if either Paul Coverdell lived throughout his whole term or if a Republican was appointed in his place instead.

on the one hand, we never would've had the Senate for a year and a half. on the other hand, it could've been easier to take it in 2002 rather than lose it, and now we wouldn't have Zell whoring for Bush or making the right wing agenda bipartisan instantly.

so yeah, i'd say we'd be better off without him.

[Buffler]

1. no

If Zell wasnt in the Senate then Jeffords defection would not have changed control of the Senate. And to be honest, I dont think Jeffords would have jumped as I honestly believe he was paid off to do it. There would have been no reason to get him to jump since it wouldnt have shifted power.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. but then we could've blamed all the problems on the GOP exclusively

and taking the Senate in 2002 would be easier than holding onto it.

[LoneStarLiberal]

3. Always Difficult

Looking at the voting records for both Breaux and Miller, they were definitely blue dog material. I know there's a "Blue Dog" Caucus in the House for Democrats who vote with the Republicans as much as with Democrats, but is there one in the Senate as well?

If there is, Breaux and Miller are probably both paid up through death.

While I don't have any love for Democrats who won't even back the party's social legislation every now and then, there's no possible way to overstate the importance of that "D" behind their name in the Senate roll when it comes to tallying up numbers for control of the Senate.

[ButterflyBlood]

4. Breaux is nothing compared to Miller

he's far too conservative for my tastes, but at least he's a loyal Democrat and didn't endorse Bush. Plus he's supported most judicial filibusters and opposed the latest batch of tax cuts. Zell Miller hasn't done shit for us. He's to the right of Trent Lott in my view, since Lott did oppose the Medicare bill.