Political Question

[SpaceCity]

Check out a quote from a story on Jeffords <a href="http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010524/13/news-senate-switch">switch</a>.

In an attempt to keep Jeffords in the party, Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott had promised more money for Jeffords' favored education programs and a waiver of term limits to let him remain chairman of the Education Committee beyond the end of next year.

Does this come across as the Republicans are willing to spend more on education in order to keep control of the house? It also say that they'd waive the term limit rule to keep him.

They should be doing that anyway, right?

Is that bending the rules or are they able to do that. I thought the term limit thing was a law voted on by the people. Can a party just undo it or bend the rules or am i thinking of another term limit law?



------------------

[Jeff]

Jeffords decision really boiled down to differences of opinion. He disagreed and felt he was being retaliated against by the GOP for his left-leaning votes. This was his way to exercise his own congressional power.

McCain said it best when he said the GOP has only itself to blame.

Interesting stuff.

------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

[SpaceCity]

I understand why he did it. I'm asking about what the GOP was willing to do to keep him.

------------------

[unt2003]

FYI: The Democrats have control of the Senate now not the House.

------------------

[SpaceCity]

My bad. You know what I meant, though!

------------------

[JuanValdez]

I suppose it's legal or else I doubt Lott would be saying it. It sure doesn't sound ethical though -- not that that doesn't come with the territory.

------------------
RealGM (http://www.realgm.com/)
Gafford Art (http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/)
Artisan Cakes (http://www.artisancakes.cjb.net/)

[Hydra]

I think you are thinking of Presidential term limits. He is probably talking about an informal senate or even party policy.

------------------
Liberals favor using artificial means to alter the normal to a state which facilitates and justifies how irresponsible they want to be

[Smokey]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hydra:
I think you are thinking of Presidential term limits. He is probably talking about an informal senate or even party policy.

</font>

I remember hearing about this in GOV class. The presidential term limit is constitutional. Nothing can be done to bend that without an amendment.

The term limits on committee chairs are like you said either informal rules adopted by the chamber or congressional party policies. I remember it was one of the points of the 1994 Republican Contract with America.


------------------

[Smokey]

I don't like one party having control of both branches. I'm glad we are returning to divided government. Jeffords switch would normally not hurt the GOP - he votes with the Democrats, but with a 50-49-1 Senate, the Democrats will control Senate legislation. Dems and Reps will have to compromise to get anything done. Before compromise was just a word, now it has to be in action.

[This message has been edited by Smokey (edited May 24, 2001).]

[Holden]

Dont you think he is betraying the trust of his voters by switching parties after he is elected? i mean a lot of people could have simply voted for him because he was a republican and for no other reason. I think that it was a bad move on his part and i think he will pay for it in the future if he wants to be reelected.


------------------
make it stop.

[Jeff]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Holden:
Dont you think he is betraying the trust of his voters by switching parties after he is elected? i mean a lot of people could have simply voted for him because he was a republican and for no other reason. I think that it was a bad move on his part and i think he will pay for it in the future if he wants to be reelected.


</font>

I think that would be true of southern Republicans but not nearly as much for northeastern Republicans who are notoriously left-leaning.

The fact is that there are far more moderate Republicans in the northeast. Another moderate Republican congresswoman from his state said today that his constituents would likely be happy with his decision because the far right influence is not nearly as strong in New England as it is in the south.

Interestingly enough, I heard a report today quoting a close friend of Barry Goldwater (really Mr. Republican in the eyes of many steeped in the party) who said that Goldwater told him shortly before his death that he would be too liberal for the Republican party today. This seems to be the case with several congressional and senate Republicans.

Personally, I like the idea of balance. It is certainly more representative of the make-up of politics in America.



------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

[RocksMillenium]

Actually I think it STRENGTHENS his chance of getting re-elected because it shows the American people that he votes with his own mind and conscience, not just voting through the party line. Any votes he loses to some disgruntled, hardcore republicans will be easily made up with republicans who respect him, democrats and independent voters.

------------------
See the three, be the three.

[MadMax]

I would be PISSED if I voted for this guy. He ran a campaign that aligned him to President Bush as a candidate. Then he gets in and says, "come to think of it, I don't agree with him on all these issues that you thought i did when you voted for me." That's trash!

My new plan is to go to Sheila Jackson Lee's district and act like a democrat...then I'll screw them all when I get to office and switch back to my conservative political thought!!! This is so dishonest it's ridiculous. I love how everyone is painting him as a hero for having a mind of his own. Great!!! You have a mind of your own and you misrepresented it to your constituents. What an American hero!!!

------------------

[4chuckie]

What the guy did was political suicide. Unless he fully switches to the Deomocratic party before the next election he will have trouble getting funding as an independent.

I think what he did was wrong, but not illegal. It will come back to bite him in the a$$ in the long run.

[haven]

Guys:

It wasn't political suicide. Most Northeastern Republicans are more liberal than Texas democrats. The guy voted with the dems more often than not.

Bush *promised* to be a moderate. He lied, not Jeffords. Now that Bush is being a wacko-conservative, he's going to lose the moderates. It's Bush's fault.

What I'm surprised about is that he's waiting until after the tax bill. Given the fact that he disagrees with it, I wonder what Bush promised/threatened him with.


People in the rest of the country (Republicans) are making a big deal about it, but in Vermont... they don't care.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

[This message has been edited by haven (edited May 25, 2001).]

[Smokey]

What he did was not wrong or illegal...its very common.

Politicians have been switching parties for decades. Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm for example were once Democrats. Other recent examples are Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell - became Republicans.

The only reason this has become a major story is because of the 50-50 split.

Jeffords is a liberal Republican. If you voted for him, you would know that he supported Clinton's health care reform and voted against impeachment. Jeffords voting record shows that he is more aligned with the Democrats. For Republicans in Vermont, this should come as no surprise. Jeffords was being shafted by the Republicans for his left leaning - the voters of Vermont had no problem with Jeffords. Many voted for Jeffords not for the Republican Party.

Will this come back to bite him in the a$$? No, I believe it will not. He is elected by the voters of Vermont only. They will see that he voted his conscience, and elect him if he did a good job for his state. Sure, he will lose conservative Republican votes, but that is the risk he takes to gather Independent and Democrat voters in Vermont.

------------------

[RichRocket]

Jeffords actions are regrettable.

He abandoned the people of Vermont who elected him running as a Republican. He was elected only a few months ago running as a Republican in full knowledge of Bush's policy preferences. What surprises have made him change at this point in time? I smell a rat.

It is one thing to swtich parties when it is relatively meaningless (as with Shelby and Campbell); it is another thing entirely to swtich when the move is so meaningful to the balance of power.

Add to it the proximity to his own re-election. You can't just strip away the context and call them identical events.

All in all, it will probably be much ado about nothing. He is a forgettable Senator.

Now the onus will be on the Dems to prove their bi-partisanship.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[Smokey]

I assume Jeffords had enough of the Republican Party this week. Rumor has it that Jeffords got into it with Cheney, and also was not invited to a luncheon at the White House honoring a teacher from Vermont.

Interestingly, Vermont's representative in the House is an Independent and a self proclaimed socialist named Bernard Sanders.
I wonder how many voters voted for Jeffords because he was a Republican (not many). I forgot to mention earlier that Jeffords is pro-choice. Jeffords has been in disagreement with the President all session. People who voted for Jeffords because they believed he would follow Bush's policy preferences must not have been paying attention during his previous 2 terms. The party has been moving too right for him. Jeffords has always been a maverick, and has never followed the party line. The majority of Jeffords supporters applaud his move.

------------------

[Achebe]

Bush also lost Vermont. It's not as if Bush carried Jeffords to power... democrats were taking the time to vote for the guy.

It's also interesting to note that Vermont has become more liberal. I haven't followed Jeffords career, but it's not implausible that he could have changed as well.

------------------
The terminally ill need to learn that you can have fun without all the drugs.

[Major]

I would be PISSED if I voted for this guy. He ran a campaign that aligned him to President Bush as a candidate.

Jeffords actions are regrettable.

He abandoned the people of Vermont who elected him running as a Republican.

Sorry, but these statements are loads of crap. His views are very well-known in Vermont. He has been a senator for 12 years, and a house member for another 13. In 25 years in Congress, he's been relatively liberal, and his constituents know that. I presume he didn't just change his ideas and run on Bush's platform (if he did, then I am a load of crap).

Voters should vote for people, not parties -- and most people do, or we wouldn't keep changing from Democrat to Republican and back in Congress and in the White House. If you vote for a party, you deserved to get screwed. People know that congresspeople can change parties any time they please. It's just that it's never been 50-50 which makes one switch a huge deal. Several people changed from Dem->Rep after 1994 as well.

In terms of the issues raised in the first post, it's sad that Congress uses these kinds of things to bribe their own members. The Democrats offered him a committee to switch to the Democratic party. Those kinds of things are bad enough. When Congress (and both parties do this, although it's Republicans this time) actually changes funding due to these kinds of things, that's beyond irresponsible. In addition to the extra education spending, rumors were that the Republicans were going to kill a Vermont dairy farm's funds to punish Jeffords. When people and jobs and federal funds become a pawn in a game between Senators, something's really ****ed up.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Hydra]

When Strom Thurmond resigns and the democratic governer appoints a democratic senator to replace him, all of this will become a mot point anyway. I fel the committee control should not be changed during a congress, instead only when new people are elected and the balance of power shifts. People may have voted based on who they wanted to control the committees in both of these cases.

------------------
Liberals favor using artificial means to alter the normal to a state which facilitates and justifies how irresponsible they want to be

[Major]

People may have voted based on who they wanted to control the committees in both of these cases.

Unfortunately for them, that's not their right. Vermont voters and S Carolina voters have a right to vote for their own Senator -- not their Senator's party, and certainly not control of congress or committees. They did that. Everything that happens after, they are allowed to consider in the next election.

Similarly, they knew that Thurmond is unhealthy. They could have considered that when voting for their last governor if it was that important to them.



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[RichRocket]

Why didn't Jeffords run as an independent or as a Democrat just a few months ago?

Answer that for me satisfactorilly and I will go away quietly. And don't give me some crap about technicalities. I want a real substantive reason.

If it were a matter of conscience, he could have walked away from re-election. His honor spills out only when he leans left.

On the ballot just a few months ago, he used Republican party money and machinery to run; he had "REP" by his name. It may have been deliberately misleading. At least it is hypocritical at this point to bolt at this crucial juncture fter such assistance.

The issue is not THAT he left but the timing of his leaving.


------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[Major]

Why didn't Jeffords run as an independent or as a Democrat just a few months ago?

Because he was a member of the Republican party.

His honor spills out only when he leans left.

He's always leaned left. He's pro-abortion. He's pro-environment. He's pro-education. He's pro-labor (I think). He's been this way for 25 years.

It may have been deliberately misleading.

How so?

The issue is not THAT he left but the timing of his leaving.

The timing? Bush refused the money he wanted for education -- an issue Bush claimed to be wanting to focus on. The Republican Party then got pissed at him because he didn't support the huge tax cut and was set to punish him by killing funding for Vermont stuff. They also excluded him from a reception simply to punish him. He then decided he didn't like the party.

Would you stay in a party that hated you?



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[TheFreak]

Sounds to me like this guy is a p***y politician who couldn't play politics, so he bolted.

Jeffords said he found himself increasingly at odds with Bush and Republican leaders on issues from abortion and education to tax cuts.

Abortion and tax cuts just happen to be two of the major issues that decide which party one chooses. If he was at odds about these two issues, what the hell was he doing in the Republican party?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Voters should vote for people, not parties -- and most people do, or we wouldn't keep changing from Democrat to Republican and back in Congress and in the White House. If you vote for a party, you deserved to get screwed. </font>

You're giving voters way too much credit. I don't have any concrete evidence to support this, but I would bet that outside of a presidential election, the vast majority of voters vote for the party. For president, most voters just vote for the one who looks the best on camera -- but the vast majority of "regular voters" vote for the party (at least that's my guess).

I give him credit for going independent rather than democrat. But this doesn't sound too much like a matter of principle. I think he got tired of being picked on and couldn't play with the big boys, so he decided to leave.

[Major]

You're giving voters way too much credit. I don't have any concrete evidence to support this, but I would bet that outside of a presidential election, the vast majority of voters vote for the party.

That's fine. I don't care how voters actually vote. However, they SHOULD be voting for the person. If they don't, that's their own problem.

Tell me, is anyone here not know Phil Gramm's basic views? In Vermont, I'd guess people knew their Senator's views just as well, given they had voted him in nine times.

I think he got tired of being picked on and couldn't play with the big boys, so he decided to leave.

He has always voted his own way. His party increasingly penalizes people that do so because they need every single vote to pass anything. He basically said "f*** off". What's bad about that? When you bully someone into agreeing with you, you're playing with fire, and the Republican Party got burned.

I think it's great -- and I think it would be great if it happened to the Democrats too (they pull the same crap). The more independents, the better, in my opinion. That way, only truly useful laws get passed because each party has less power to pass their junk laws.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Achebe]

Nothing has changed for the worse. This guy will vote the same way.

The only thing that has changed that would adversely affect republicans is that their 'bipartisan' methods will actually include the majority of democrats now. Since Bush was already bipartisan this shouldn't be any sweat off of his back.

Oh wait, if Bush hadn't played hard ball he wouldn't have gotten himself in this trouble to begin with. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif

It was a fun 100 days bee-yotch, have fun trying to cram stuff down the country's throat now.

------------------
The terminally ill need to learn that you can have fun without all the drugs.

[RichRocket]

OUT ON A TECHNICALITY!

That he was a Republican is merely a technicality; he could have changed parties at a previous juncture. If he can spend money, run and win as a Republican, he should have the integrity to stay a Republican at such a critical juncture.

Didn't he just vacate the good voters of Vermont who voted him into office as a Republican? He sure spent some Republican dollars not so long ago to get there.

DECEPTION

He must have been considering this for months if not years-- there's the deception. A US Senator doesn't make this kind of political move without long, long deliberation... NOT as a childish reaction to some legislative disappointments. Such a deliberative period would take us back to campaign and election time. Don't try to persuade me that he did this in a reactionary way because he wasn't getting his way in the US Senate. That's childish.

So the Republicans tried to send him a message by disciplining him; what else is new? Isn't that done all the time. They didn't try to impeach him, did they? Hate, you say? I don't think so, but politics is a rough game.

IS IT PORT OR STARBOARD?

I'm pro-education (Bush isn't you say?). I'm pro-environment (tough choices have to be made; ask anyone in California). I'm pro-life (no reconciling that, but even Laura Bush is pro-choice!). I'm Republican for the most part, but may differ on issues from the main thrust of the part.



------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[Smokey]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TheFreak:

Abortion and tax cuts just happen to be two of the major issues that decide which party one chooses. If he was at odds about these two issues, what the hell was he doing in the Republican party?

</font>

Political parties have ideological shifts. What the Republican Party stood for 20 years ago is not the same as today. Jeffords said that the Republican Party had become too conservative. Had Jeffords stayed a Republican, he would have continued to vote alongside Democrats - Would that have benefited voters who choose Jeffords for his party? How about the good voters of Vermont who potentially would be ignored by conservative Republicans who disapproved that Jeffords voted his conscience.

Talking about deception, what about those voters (and Jeffords) who voted/supported George W. Bush - compassionate conservative.

Believe or not but Strom Thurmond was once a Democrat.

------------------

[Major]

If he can spend money, run and win as a Republican, he should have the integrity to stay a Republican at such a critical juncture.

If the Republican Party treated him like a Republican, maybe he would have stayed.

Didn't he just vacate the good voters of Vermont who voted him into office as a Republican?

No, because the good voters of Vermont voted him in as a person. As you noted, the fact that he's a Republican is a mere technicality. The other Senator from Vermont is a Democrat; the Rep is an Independent. You really think they voted for the party?

He must have been considering this for months if not years-- there's the deception.

That's simply not true. People get pissed and they make decisions. Several congressman changed parties after 1994. The only deliberations were that "Republicans are popular - let's switch!"

So the Republicans tried to send him a message by disciplining him; what else is new?

So you think people should just accept the punishment? You think it's bad to stand up and say you won't tolerate it?



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[RichRocket]

There are two levels at play here: politics and mechanics. Jeffords changing parties will not change the voting patterns in the body that much, but it does have an impact on the mechanics of how the body works because the majority now changes.

That is my objection. He had to have been contemplating this for awhile, yet continued to mask long enough as a Republican to spend Republican dollars to get re-elected by Republican Vermonters-- even knowing that George Bush was the Republican presidential candidate.

He didn't become a Democrat over a couple of political disappointments and a waylaid invitation. That is unrealistic.

He gladly spent Republican dollars to get re-elected as a Republican Senator-- only to switch a few months later.

This is not junior high school where you get mad at your best friend and don't speak to them for weeks.

He didn't HAVE to do anything; I'm just saying he did THE wrong thing and A wrong thing.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited May 25, 2001).]

[Achebe]

There are other moderates that are voicing frustration with the Administration RichRocket. Olympia Snowe demands to be heard. Arlen Specter demands to be heard. Jeffords held meetings in which no republicans even showed up.

I'm not sure that your experience as a 'moderate republican' is the same as theirs. It sounds to me as if there's a pretty large frustration within the party... it was masked over at the national convention but I think it's about to raise its head again.

------------------
The terminally ill need to learn that you can have fun without all the drugs.

[Major]

He gladly spent Republican dollars to get re-elected as a Republican Senator-- only to switch a few months later.

I completely disagree. He's been elected nine times now. He's extremely popular in his state. I doubt he needs Republican money to get elected.

He didn't HAVE to do anything

True. He could have just stayed in the party, been ignored and alienated, and had no power whatsoever. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Major]

Here are some snippets from various CNN articles:

---

Moderate and mainstream Republicans aired their grievances during a two-hour caucus Thursday, blaming the GOP leadership for not listening to Jeffords and the rest of them or taking their positions seriously.

"Just because we have different views, that doesn't mean that we lack principles," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

Moderate Republicans once again raised the issue of having one of their own at in the leadership, comprised of senators from the conservative wing of the party.

"We need to ensure that our voice is heard in the process because obviously we do have different views and we can't always accept fait d' accompli positions when they clearly don't reflect the view of our constituents," Snowe said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said the Republicans have done nothing to get more in touch with what Americans want, especially in key states where Republicans lost seats in November.

"We really have to face up to the fact that we lost some key seats and there really hasn't been an evaluation of that since the election. This was a very loud wake-up call and I think the caucus was awakened," said Specter.

---

In a written statement, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, blamed "short-sighted party operatives" whom he accused of targeting Jeffords.

"Perhaps those self-appointed enforcers of party loyalty will learn to respect honorable differences among us, learn to disagree without resorting to personal threats, and recognize that we are a party large enough to accommodate something short of strict unanimity on the issues of the day," said McCain.

"Tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature party, and it is well past time for the Republican Party to grow up," he added.

McCain, who has clashed with both the party and the Bush administration, praised Jeffords for basing his votes on something other than politics.

"Despite occasional policy differences between us, I have long respected Jim Jeffords' integrity, and his conscientious service to his constituents and to the nation," said McCain.

Jeffords' party switch was applauded by supporters in his home state, and some voiced hopes it would start a trend.

"I think the rest of the country is getting a little bit better picture of what it is to be a Vermonter," John Alexander told The Associated Press. "He's voting his conscience. I just wish the rest of the Congress was like that."

Longtime Republican activist and Rutland lawyer Arthur Crowley told The Associated Press he would stick with Jeffords.

"This issue is based solely on Jim's moderate political philosophy and what he thinks is best for Vermont," said Crowley, a former county and state GOP committee chairman.

"I will agree with whatever decision he makes," Crowley said. "He has always represented us well in Washington, and I'm sure he will continue to do so."

---

Vermont was once the most Republican state in the nation. For more than a century -- from the early 1850s to the late 1950s -- only Republicans were elected here. Some years in that century found Vermont nearly alone in its support of Republicans. In 1912 only Vermont and Utah supported the presidential bid of William Howard Taft; in 1936 Vermont and Maine were the only states to vote against Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The bond between Vermont and the Republican Party was formed out of a dislike for slavery. "Our party was the party of Lincoln," Jeffords said as he detailed why he had spent his lifetime in the GOP.

Vermont's bond with the Republican Party eroded in the 1950s as a new wave of residents began moving into the state, carried in on the new interstate highways and attracted by the growing ski industry and the opening of new industry.

In 1958 the state elected a Democrat to Congress; in 1962 it elected a Democratic governor; in 1974, Patrick Leahy became the state's first Democratic U.S. senator.

The party labels meant little, though. The new leaders were still mavericks. Vermonters rewarded those who went their own way, giving strong support to the independent presidential campaigns of John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992.

Nowhere is that love for the maverick better shown than in the almost cult following of Rep. Bernard Sanders, a socialist who was elected to Congress as an independent in 1990.

Vermont is now considered the most Democratic state in the nation. With Jeffords' abandonment of the GOP, only one Republican holds statewide office, state Treasurer James Douglas.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Achebe]

ooh, I think that's a phaser burn, court adjourned moment by shanna. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
The terminally ill need to learn that you can have fun without all the drugs.

[Smokey]

He had to have been contemplating this for awhile, yet continued to mask long enough as a Republican to spend Republican dollars to get re-elected by Republican Vermonters-- even knowing that George Bush was the Republican presidential candidate.

He didn't become a Democrat over a couple of political disappointments and a waylaid invitation. That is unrealistic.

Jeffords has always been a Republican. He feels like he didn't leave the party because the party left him. The events of this week were just the final straws. Why did the Republican leadership let it get this far? I heard Jeffords let Lott know his feelings weeks before his move only to be ignored. So, yes Jeffords did contemplate his move. The question you seem to be asking is why didn't he make his switch sooner. Jeffords didn't feel Republican backlash until recently.

This is not junior high school where you get mad at your best friend and don't speak to them for weeks.

He didn't HAVE to do anything; I'm just saying he did THE wrong thing and A wrong thing.

What about the voters of Vermont who would be shafted by having Jeffords (R) as their Senator? The Republican leadership wanted to punish Jeffords for his left leanings.

Republicans in Vermont voted for a left leaning Jeffords. Why should they be punished or ignored? As an Independent, Jeffords can better represent his constituency. Over 50% of Vermont voters are Independent. He doesn't have to take threats from conservatives, and his agenda (similar to the Democrats) will have an easier time now.



------------------

[Jeff]

Freak: Just so you know, I asked my political consultant friend who is also an election judge and she told me that straight ticket voting represents about 30% of votes on the average throughout the country. Beyond that, as much as 30 to 40% of voters only vote for the high profile positions in major elections. That leaves about 30 to 40% that vote all over the political spectrum.

------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

[Smokey]

I heard this on Leno last night. Pretty strong words.

---

Jeffords Calls Bush 'One-Term'
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Shedding light on his momentous decision to bolt the Republican Party, Sen. James Jeffords (news - web sites) said he told President Bush (news - web sites) that the administration's proposal for school spending would make Bush a ``one-term president'' and jeopardize GOP senators seeking re-election.

Hours after the moderate Vermont senator announced he would leave the GOP and hand Senate control to Democrats, Jeffords told home-state reporters on Thursday that Bush's budget provided insufficient money for education.

Jeffords said that as a result, when he visited Bush at the White House on Tuesday amid unsuccessful GOP efforts to keep him in the party, ``I told him that I firmly believe he would be a one-term president.''

Jeffords' description of that extraordinary conversation and his decision to sever his lifelong ties to the GOP came as both parties prepared for the Democrats' imminent ascension to control of the Senate, which they last led in 1994.

Republicans said will they will relinquish Senate control when Congress completes the huge tax bill Bush wants or on June 5, whichever is later.

Negotiators from the House and Senate resumed their meetings Friday in hopes of producing a tax-cutting compromise, a triumph they hope to send to Bush quickly, perhaps this weekend. Though most Democrats oppose the measure, they are no longer blocking it since Jeffords said he would not formally become an independent until Congress approves the measure.

Bush has made revamping education one of his top priorities, and would raise the Education Department's budget to $44.5 billion next year, $4.6 billion over this year's amount.

But Jeffords has been upset since far larger increases he and Democrats added to the 2002 budget approved by the Senate were erased when GOP bargainers from the House and Senate crafted a final fiscal plan that Congress approved.

Jeffords predicted there would also be problems for GOP senators next year, when Republicans will be battling for Senate control just as the lack of education funds hit home.

``The real awakening is going to come right when all of our senators are up for election,'' Jeffords said.

Jeffords, who said he was also upset when money was removed from the budget for health programs, called his last few days of mulling his departure from the GOP ``probably the most difficult period of my life.''

In remarks earlier Thursday in Cleveland, Bush rejected Jeffords' criticisms of the his policies on education, the environment and other issues.

``I was elected to get things done on behalf of the American people and to work with both Republicans and Democrats, and we're doing just that,'' Bush said.

Meanwhile, at the Capitol, the next Senate majority leader said his first priorities would be finishing the bipartisan education bill and a Democratic push for broader patients' rights.

``It's important that we all recognize the value of compromise, the urgency of compromise, and the real practicality of compromise,'' Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., told reporters in remarks that seemed aimed at Bush. ``We can't dictate to them, nor can they dictate to us.''

The outgoing majority leader, Sen. Trent Lott (news - bio - voting record), R-Miss., also spoke of working together, but signaled that Republicans had no intention of playing dead. Their leverage comes from the age-old Senate tactic of gathering the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster, or delays that can kill legislation.

``When you're in the minority, sometimes I think it's easier to come together and be very aggressive in your tactics,'' Lott said.

Jeffords' decision to become an independent will give Democrats a 50-49 edge. Jeffords said he would vote with Democrats to give them the right to be the majority.

But for Democrats to exercise the majority's powers, the Senate will have to approve a resolution - probably next month - reorganizing its committees to reflect the Democrats' new strength. Some Republicans spoke of delaying that measure unless they won commitments about treatment of Bush nominees and other demands, though their leverage seemed limited.

Senators from both parties held separate closed-door meetings as they began soaking in the meaning of Jeffords' decision.

``There wasn't champagne, but there was a lot of applause,'' Sen. Debbie Stabenow (news - bio - voting record), D-Mich., said of the Democratic gathering.

Predictably, the Republican session was a more somber affair. Several participants in that meeting said Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and John McCain of Arizona all pleaded for more tolerance.

But others were less willing to concede that moderates like Jeffords were not accorded a voice within the GOP. Sen. Don Nickles (news - bio - voting record) of Oklahoma, the No. 2 GOP leader, said Jeffords was given numerous provisions in the Senate's tax bill.

``This is not a factual statement that moderates are not being accommodated,'' Nickles said.

Republicans began an exercise in legislative spring cleaning, sweeping legislation out of the Senate while they still have the ability to do so. Democrats were happy to oblige.

``We'd love to make a fresh start and get on with our agenda,'' said Sen. Charles Schumer (news - bio - voting record), D-N.Y.



------------------

[Smokey]

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010525/pl/senate_switch_26.html

------------------