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
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.
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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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. ------------------
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.
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).]
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.
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://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
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.
ooh, I think that's a phaser burn, court adjourned moment by shanna. ------------------ The terminally ill need to learn that you can have fun without all the drugs.
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. ------------------
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
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. ------------------
