Jeffords' Defection: Traitorous or Heroic?

Great Debates
81

All this talk of Bush making a hard turn to the right after the election has me baffled. Jeffords campaigned for Bush, and Bush’s campaign advocated drilling in the ANWR, a 1.6 Trillion tax cut, more money for education (a ‘liberal’ position at odds with the right wing of the Republican party), smaller government, etc.

Just where has Bush moved to the right? The only campaign promise I know of that he broke was his plan to include CO2 as a pollutant, and that hasn’t been mentioned in relation to Jeffords.

In fact, Bush campaigned from the right, and so far has been doing pretty much what he promised. Jefford’s knew what Bush was about when he decided to go out and campaign for him.

As for whether this defection is wrong, how about all of those loyal Republican staffers and volunteers that volunteered hundreds of hours each to help get him elected. How do you think they feel today?

Jeffords should do what Phil Gramm did - when he switched from Democrat to Republican he resigned and campaigned for re-election. In fact, this would make a good rule to have in place - if you campaign as a Democrat or Republican, the only way you can switch parties after an election is to resign and run again.

This ability to switch parties opens the door to corruption, influence peddling, and voter manipulation. It hasn’t been a problem before because there has never been a tie in the Senate before. So one Senator jumping ship wasn’t that big a deal. But now, when a single Senator can change the entire political landscape by switching, you can bet that both parties are going to be playing heavy back-room games to try and manipulate the composition of the Senate.

I can even see the potential of fielding ‘sleeper’ candidates, or ‘moles’ in the other party. Let’s say there is a district that votes heavily Democratic. What’s to stop the Republicans from secretly cutting a deal with someone to have them run as a Democrat or independant, then switch parties after the election? Voters on both sides of the political fence should be a bit worried about this stuff.

82

Is a failure to communicate.

Scylla tends to ironic, some might even say sarcastic, self expression. Frequently, there is so much topspin that unfortunate interpretations become possible. It only sounds like he’s saying that Democrats come in two variety: the malignant and the moronic.

I quite understand how someone less, shall we say, perspicacious, might misunderstand. He means only to point out that it is naive to attribute noble motives to any politicians moves. Clearly, his point is unassailable.

I rise to the opposite, equally valid point: we are not equipped to look into another’s conscience and take the inventory. Since Jeffords has not done anything that overtly contradicts his assertion that his decision was based on conscience, I feel obliged to take it at face value.

This is not to imply that I eschew unseemly gloating. I would give a years supply of toenails for a picture of Jesse Helm’s face when he got the news.

Haven’t had this much fun since they shot Ol’ Yeller!

83

And here I was about to complete my thesis on the universal moronity (I think that’s a new word,) of Democrats in general, and along comes my ancient nemesis elucidator pegging me and the situation to the wall.

Excellent summation.

However, while you may not be above gloating (and I don’t even blame you, it’s an eminently gloatable situation and God knows you liberals are overdue for one,) I’m glad to see you recognize the signals being relayed to your cynical cortex.

I’d be curious whether you think there’s a deal in the works here. Governor is the only thing that fits the bill in my opinion. Nothing else makes sense, and it works beautifully.

I for one think that peering into one’s motivations is an eminently rewarding pastime as it provides all kinds of useful information and predictions.

I’ll wager at 2-1 odds that we get another turncoat before the June transition. And, if I’m wrong, I’ll bet there’s a few Democrats that suddenly feel compelled to vote their “consciences” on a couple of major bills and move against the party line.

Look at the tax-bill that went through today. Sometimes things work out in spite of all the BS.

84

I thought those three had an open door policy long before party switching became en vogue. :slight_smile:

85

Not a clue. About Jeffords I know diddly squat, save that he represents the Peoples Republic of Vermont. But as soon as the cat was out of the bag, rumor-wise, and the Republicans started making counter-offers, there really was no move he could make that wouldn’t appear venal and corrupt to somebody! Suppose he could have shaved his head and joined Hare Krishna, but that’s about it.

Wouldn’t be bit surprised to see another apostasy, from either side. The payoff in attention is mighty tempting. And the pork that commmittee chairmen get to sling around is re-election *manna[/].

Our politicians are venal and corrupt. But then, whose fault is that?

86

By an amazing coincidence, it’s the narrow-minded paranoid assumption of conservative supporters that Jeffords’ switch must be due to selfish and sinister forces that I find … well, laughably amusing, to tell you the truch.

“Jeffords must have defected for unwholesome and evil reasons, because no true American would ever leave the GOP!”

:rolleyes:

87

Two screw-ups in one post.

Failure to preview, 1 count, hyperitalicism.

1 count of failure to recognise a graceful gesture.

88

Now, now, 'Luc (mind if I call you ‘Luc? Wouldn’t wanna throw around any “personal insults”, don’tcha know), you yourself often peg Republicans as simply the latter variety… c’mon, admit it, sometimes them Religious-Right types are cute! What with their crosses and Bibles an’ all… :smiley:

89

This was directed at Mr. elucidator, but I’ll take a half-assed crack at it anyway. [sub]Hm. Gotta watch my metaphors.[/sub]

I figure that Senator is a cushier job than Governor of the Green Mountain State. My understanding is that the primaries always posed more of a challenge for Jeffy than the November face-off ever did. Becoming an independent neutralizes his right flank, and removes the necessity of debating another panel of troglodytes in 2006.

Also, he can play the high-minded-power-broker game. And he can shake his finger at any elected Prima Donna that he chooses to. All in all, a great deal.

90

Wow! You just kicked the shit out of that Strawman! Wow! Can I have your autograph.

91

Again, I’ll ask - if the Senate weren’t 50-50, would Jeffords have “followed his conscience?” If it were 60-40, this story would have been a page-five brief in The Washington Post.

That the move was a significantly more power-shifting one at this particular time tends to indicate it was part of the motivation, does it not?

To me, that takes a little of the believability out of the “I just have to do what I feel is right in my heart” spiel. That and the fact this is occurring less than six months after the election.

Also, is it not a bit disingenuous to become an “Independent,” yet caucus with the Democrats and receive prominent committee positions and special favors from them as a result of the party change? (That’s a prediction.)

92

Those of you wishing for a little more insight on Vermont’s “independent” streak might find this link of interest. Vermont’s other senator, Leahy (D), was up for re-election in 1998. In protestation of the fact that the lead Republican candidate was a flatlander, Fred Tuttle, a dairy farmer of local movie fame, ran for the Republican nomination. And won, on the platform that he would attempt to get out of the race should he happen to win the primary. Certainly, this represented some cross-over voting in the (open) primary. However, I think it is also a telling instance of how politics work in Vermont.

For the record, I voted for Jeffords, and fully support his actions.

-ellis

93

Well, let me say that I’m sorry if my parabolic OP annoyed anyone. I think we all know that Jeffords’ move was purely neither heroic or traitorous. I also think it would be folly to attempt to ignore both the duty to best represent one’s constituents as well as self-interest.

What interested me the most about this event is that it may finally signal the near-completion of the political somersault of the two major parties. One upon a time you had Southern Democrats (like Strom Thurmond) and Liberal Republicans (like McCain and Jeffords). Both groups belied the political distinctions of “liberal” and “conservative” that were assigned to one or the other party. They were vestigial organs left over from the hard feelings of the Civil War, and were perpetuated by rote party affiliation. That seems to be finally approaching an end.

Was there a back-room deal? Hell, yes! We’re talking politicians, here. According to this article, this deal has been actively in the works for at least a month. Jeffords was one of the moderate Repulblicans whom Daschle and Reid wooed to help spike Bush’s original tax cut figures.

I view this as part of the overall effort by Senate Democrats to slide into the vacuum left in the middle by the Republican party once they caught the bloodlust of total conservative domination. The carrot for Jeffords appears to be the coveted chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which Reid hinted he would give up in favor of Jeffords should he agree to align with the Democrats on procedural matters.

Finally, let’s all take a deep breath and realize that this ain’t nearly over. On the ailing and faux Democrat side you have Robert Byrd (WV), who ain’t looking so good these days, and Zell Miller (GA), perhaps the last classic Southern Democrat, far more conservative than John McCain. On the Republican side, the Thurmond Death Watch Crew is starting to rattle their car keys, and Lincoln Chaffee (RI) is so unpredictable that he already rates as a true independent.

This latest do-see-do just underscores to me that America is a fundamentally moderate nation, and any party that attempts to drag the country too far in one direction or the other is destined to be sorely strained by the enormous inertia of the middle. As far as “victories” go, it’s a pretty hollow one for the Dems. They now control one-half of one of the three branches of government, without a majority. They’ve managed to keep a seat at the table, nothing more.

94

This may be a hollow victory for Democrats. Had the Republicans stayed in the majority, there would have been a pretty severe backlash vote in the 2002 elections. Americans don’t tend to like one party controlling everything. Also, the word is that this defection is going to rile the rank-and-file in the party, and make fund raising much easier for Republicans.

The bottom line - the Democrats gain control now, but possibly lose it again in 2002, or at least don’t gain enough seats to squash filibusters and such. Had Jeffords stayed where he was, the Republicans could have lost at least 10 seats in the next election. They still might, but the Democrats’ job is that much harder.

And it may be kind of a pyrrhic victory anyway, because Bush has already gotten through the major policy initiatives of his first term. Now he can afford to coast a little, do things to make the Democrats look like left-wing radicals, etc. AND, if things go sour, of course he’ll make the claim now that he tried to do the right thing but was stopped by that dastardly Democratic Senate. Had the Republicans maintained control of all three branches, they would have had to accept the credit or blame for what happens. Now they can accept the credit but shirk the blame.

I’m not sayin’ that this is *good overall for Republicans, but that there may be some silver linings in the Jeffords cloud.

95

Sofa:

A pretty fair analysis. I just hopes Jeffords sold himself for than just a chair. He’s be a pretty cheap whore, and a poor negotiator if that’s all he’s getting.

It’s possible he could get that Chair, but wouldn’t that just be so obvious?

I’d like to think they’d give the american people a little more credit, and cover up their deals and make them a little more subtle.

But, then again, based on some of the reactions in this thread, they may be asessing the averagee voter’s intelligence after all.

I still say it’s the Governorship. If he’s smart he won’t take that chair. I know that if I had been Jefford’s I would have gotten the Governorship.

I may be a whore, but I ain’t a cheap one.

96

Jeffords moved now because it was the first time his party status was detrimental to the advancement of his political beliefs. Until now he could work within the party and vote his beliefs which had become increasingly aligned with the democratic party over the years. Now he found himself in the uncomfortable position where his status as a republican was responsible for putting a platform he largely opposed in control of the senate.

Jeffords ran as a liberal and made a principled decision. From my understanding there is widespread support for the move among his constituants.

There are always potential downsides to control and the democtrats will have to exercise it with a great deal of care. There is no question that the republicans will try to paint the democtrats as obstructionists. On the other hand, if Bush tries to push through unpopular legislation people will breath a sigh of relief that Jeffords jumped. The senate can play this game in reverse as well by passing popular legislation that Bush and the congress kill.

97

It would be no more “obvious” than Bob Smith’s return in 1999 to the GOP he had quit a few months earlier, when that very same committee chair opened up.

You can completely reject any possibility that any politician could ever do anything in any way based on any principle if you like, but you’re not at all convincing about it, and especially not if you’re confining that judgment to members of one persuasion. We know you’re better than that.

98

Elvis1

You need to read the thread before you start pontificating.

I’m not going to start a fifth time repeating what I said just to save you the bother of actually reading the thread.

99

I have to agree with flowbark. Why are you obsessed with this governship idea? Governor of a puny state like Vermont is better than being a senator? Don’t more people use governor as a stepping stone to senator (and this even being true in bigger states) than the other way around?

In fact, I’ll put down $100 at 5-to-1 odds that Jefords does not run for governor in 2002. I.e., if he does, I owe you $100; if he doesn’t, you owe me $20. [Is betting legal on the SDMB?] I can almost taste that sushi dinner already.

100

Sam,

In some sense I think you are right here and in another very wrong. I think that if you listened closely to what Bush said (e.g., wanting to appoint judges like Thomas and Scalia), then it should have been clear where he was coming from. But, while sounding quite conservative on some specifics, he tried to sound very moderate on generalities, about “compassionate conservatism” and “bipartisanship” and the like, enough to woo people into believing he really wasn’t so far right. The public at large bought it (or at least enough did, along with a little luck in Florida) and, admittedly, even I didn’t really expect him to necessarily end up as bad as I feared. Maybe Jeffords felt the same way. We were wrong.

Also, while Jeffords may not have mentioned CO2, the environment is one thing he has always been very strong on. He was one of the few Reps I believe to receive the League of Conservation Voter’s financial and vocal support, which they reserve for only relatively few races. He can’t be happy about the reactionary anti-environmentalism emanating from the White House.

Another point is related to Milossarian’s point about the 50-50 split and him making the difference. Except, I believe that Milo got it exactly wrong. The fact that he changes the balance of power makes his argument about doing what’s right in his heart more compelling. If the split weren’t like this, why the hell should he really care which party he is in? He can continue to vote his conscience and to hell with the fact that his voting record doesn’t look like most other Republicans! The only reason it would matter very much is that, as a result of his votes, he would be snubbed for various posts in the party…But that only matters if he is opportunistic enough to care a lot about that, and he apparently wasn’t enough to make any switch before the election. [I have to admit, I don’t quite understand how having to campaign for the likes of Bush didn’t drive him to a crisis of conscience…but, hey!]

Now, as fate happens…Bush wins, the Reps take the House and also the Senate with his very party affiliation providing the difference. All of a sudden, he sees these Neanderthals with LCV ratings close to 0 heading all the important committees related to the environment, etc., etc. And, it soon becomes clear that Bush and the Neanderthals will work together to set environmental and other policies back many years. At this point, he really has to ask himself, “Do I want to be responsible for that, given that it is actually within my power to make a significant change of this reality?” Now, that is a real crisis of conscience!!! In my opinion, he (finally!) solved that one well.