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? ------------------
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
I understand why he did it. I'm asking about what the GOP was willing to do to keep him. ------------------
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 Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
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
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. ------------------
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).]
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.
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
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.
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!!! ------------------
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$$ in the long run.
Guys: It wasn't political suicide. Most Northeastern Republicans are more liberal than Texas democrats. The guy voted with the dems more often than not. Bush *promised* to be a moderate. He lied, not Jeffords. Now that Bush is being a wacko-conservative, he's going to lose the moderates. It's Bush's fault. What I'm surprised about is that he's waiting until after the tax bill. Given the fact that he disagrees with it, I wonder what Bush promised/threatened him with. People in the rest of the country (Republicans) are making a big deal about it, but in Vermont... they don't care. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited May 25, 2001).]
What he did was not wrong or illegal...its very common. Politicians have been switching parties for decades. Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm for example were once Democrats. Other recent examples are Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell - became Republicans. The only reason this has become a major story is because of the 50-50 split. Jeffords is a liberal Republican. If you voted for him, you would know that he supported Clinton's health care reform and voted against impeachment. Jeffords voting record shows that he is more aligned with the Democrats. For Republicans in Vermont, this should come as no surprise. Jeffords was being shafted by the Republicans for his left leaning - the voters of Vermont had no problem with Jeffords. Many voted for Jeffords not for the Republican Party. Will this come back to bite him in the a$$? 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. ------------------
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.
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. ------------------
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.
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.
