That first sentence should read…
You make it sound like Vermont Republicans, who gave their dollars, time, and efforts to Jeffords’ campaign, were hideously manipulated into supporting a liberal.
Cutting and pasting and changing thoughts midstream are not my friends.
dos centavos…
Apparently, Jeffords disaffection with the GOP leadership has been building for years - seen now with the usual 20/20 hindsight.
GOP discipline in both the House and Senate stands in stark contrast to the much looser Democratic style which made Jefford’s switch to “I” even more attractive.
Thus, while the handful of moderate/conservative Democratic Senators who supported the Bush tax cut are handled with kid gloves by the Democratic leaders, Jeffords found himself as a committee chairman in name only and saw the ghost of Jacob Javits as his only future back home.
GOP conservatives assumed that the Vermont wimp would take this guff at least until he retired - or Vermont found their Al D’Amato.
But the GOP has its reasons. One major factor for the failure of the Carter administration and a major reason for Ronald Reagan’s legislative victories was (and is still) the complete breakdown in Democratic party loyalty in the Congress. The GOP as a minority party in the House or Senate since the late 1950’s maintained their party discipline - as the only way to get things done.
Too often, even today, Democratic Congressmen act as petty warlords responsible only to themselves, their chief contributors, and their constituents. Unlike the GOP, the party isn’t necessarily the chief source of funds, nor is there a liberal Taliban with mass mailings and radio rants to remove them from power.
So the rest of the GOP moderates are likely doomed like Jeffords - either to switch parties, be marginalized in the House and Senate, be challenged by conservative D’Amatos funded by the GOP Taliban, or ostracized completely (like John McCain). What the right wing GOP may lose in Vermont, or Maine, they feel (and rightly so) will be made up in Georgia, Louisiana, and the mountain states. But party discipline will be retained and as Lyndon Johnson (as Senate Majority Leader in the late 1950’s knew well) that’s what’s needed to succeed in Washington.
As for Dumbya - he was and is completely out of the loop. Andy Card can take all the responsibility he wants but if the west wing committed any slights against Jeffords - it was following the GOP Senate’s lead.
“Was it anything I said - or did?”, Bush is quoted as asking Jeffords.
Priceless - absolutely priceless.
chill, Milo you’re still safe in MI, home of the ultra conservative Republicans.
What I’m attempting to point out to you is that he was ‘hired’ (elected) by a majority of those voters to serve their interest. While some may have voted for the entire party platform, others may not have.
Re: the disappointment of the Republican Party at their wasted investment of campaign dollars - what are you saying? that any elected official that takes $$ from a political party has officially signed on to all of the subscribing party lines? No, right? Let’s see, their other senator is a Democrat, their rep is an “Independant” (according to my link), and according to this, the governor is a democrat, and, the state seemed to have went for Gore over Bush, so at least as far as state wide political leanings are concerned, Vermont seems to be at most centrist, if not leaning to the left. I don’t think you can make the case that the majority of the state were more interested in the Republican name tag and the party platform, then the specific individual for whom they voted.
As far as his employees are concerned, in general, political appointees do not have job security in the first place. While I may feel sympathetic to anyone suddenly out of a job, it’s not really part of the debate IMHO. (should he have sacrificed his constituents needs over the needs of his office staff? I think you’d agree no.)
Indeed! And the “independent” you speak of representing the state in Congress is Bernie Sanders, about as close to an honest-to-goodness socialist as one can find at the Capitol. (I do think he used to identify himself as such.)
Senator Jefford’s a weasel. Nothing more, nothing less.
(Senator Daschle is a weasel,…nothing less.)
I am late to the party, so let me simply grab a cocktail and stand by those who say:
© None of the above
I think both options reflect the politics of alienation which so thoroughly infects public discourse. It makes for great sound bites and spirited coffee room counsels, but it plays better on Rikki Lake than c-span. At least, I fervently wish it were so.
Jeffords had longstandting differences with the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Jeffords has a long history of strong concern for eduction in this country, hence his position as chair of the education committee. He tried unsuccessfully to get President Bush to fully fund special education programs in exchange for his support of the President’s proposed budget. He failed. He voted against the budget.
In the following weeks Jeffords was publicly attacked by a conservative PAC. The Republican leadership did nothing to assuage this and the perception even this far outside the beltway was that at least some of the party leadership had encouraged the attack ads. Jeffords also felt that President Bush and the conservative wing were sidewtepping him on education issues, despite his position as committee chair. Also, while Jeffords himself has not spoken directly to the issue, the statements of several other moderate Republicans indicate that someone in either the Senate leadership or the President’s cabinet was doing some very heavy-handed “leaning” on Jeffords to force him into step.
It seems that neither Jeffords nor the Republican Party behaved as if an implied contract of mutual support and assistance was in effect. So, if neither party accepted the agreement, what was betrayed?
As for the other side? What did Jeffords do that weas heroic? His stance seems unlikely to cost him significant long-term political capital in Vermont. He will perhaps lose his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, but I think most observers are confident that he has ensured that Daschle will reward him with at least a position of similar authority. If he truly felt marginalized, disregarded, and threatened from within the Republican Party, he can certainly be seen as acting out of self-interest in leaving. The circumstances of his switch (balanced senate + start of 6 year term) certainly weaken any element of personal risk in pursuit of priniciple.
So, we have an action that can be seen both as principled dissent encouraged by attempts to marginalize, browbeat, and chastise and as a calculated political maneuver of enlightened self-interest. Mix them together, add a pinch of Machiavelli, a dash of Harry truman. Voila, a political decision.
To me I can only see turning traitor to republican money or volunteers as a neutral or good thing. Jeffords owes them nothing(or at least he should). Jeffords owes it to the people of his state to represent them. If that includes switching party lines then great.
Uh… you DID read the part where Jeffords left the Republican party, right?
Yeah.
That little part.
I know that nobody’s really been talking about that, but it’s been mentioned a couple times in this thread.
Yeah.
Let’s turn this on its head for a second. SOme years back, Phil Gramm was a DEMOCRATIC member of the House of Representatives. At the time, Gramm was the quintessential “boll weevil” (Reaganite Democrat). He voted with the conservative side on almost every issue that mattered, and ignored Tip O’Neill’s numerous threats and pleas.
At long last, the House Democrats kicked Gramm off all major committees. An outraged Gramm then decided to abandon the party he’d always belonged to, and ran for the Senate as a Republican. He’s in the Senate today. As for the House Democrats, they’ve been a minority for the past 7 years.
Now, I COULD just ask why Democrats never agonized over “who lost Phil Gramm,” and why nobody ever suggested “the Democrats are too exclusionary, and don’t have a big enough tent.”
Rather, I’ll just note the obvious: when Phil Gramm and James Jeffords entered politics, they lived in one-party states. THe Republicans ALWAYS won in VErmont, the Democrats ALWAYS won in Texas. So, it didn’t matter whether you were a left-winger or a right-winger: to get ahead in politics, you HAD to join the proper party. So, Phil Gramm became a Democrat and James Jeffords became a Republican.
Over time, the demographics of both states changed, as did the issues that stirred passions in each party. Today, the Republicans rule Texas and liberal Democrats rule Vermont. Meanwhile, the Jacob Javits/Lowell Weicker wing of the Republican Party has vanished (thank God), and the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party was long ago replaced by the Jesse Jackson wing. Both parties take ideology and issues seriously now.
I ask liberal Democrats: was it “wrong” or “exclusionary” to boot out Phil Gramm? Considering it helped cost you the House, did the Democrats “screw the pooch” in their handling of Gramm?
As a far-righter myself, I’d have to say no. Gramm was not a “moderate” who broke with the Democrats on a few issues. In fact, he almost NEVER voted with the Democrats on any important issues. At SOME point, the Democrats were absolutely right to say, “You’re NOT one of us. Get lost.”
In the same way, James Jeffords was NOT a “moderate” who diverged from Republican principles every now and then. He was a flat-out liberal who NEVER voted with the Republican mainstream on any issue of substance. Frankly, no Republican should miss him.
Gramm and Jeffords are both where they belong, now. Happy ending all around.
One small difference: Didn’t Gramm resign and run again in a special election as a Republican?
Jeffords death threats :rolleyes:
and Trent Lott speaks claiming a ‘coup of one’, that
Of course, strictly speaking, it’s also true that the American people did not vote to put the Republicans in control, either since each state votes only for their own senators and has less than zero control on how other states vote.
and, as illustrated above, the people of Vermont voted Mr. Jeffords into power, not the Republican party (since in NO other entire state election held this year did they elect a Republican, and the state itself went for Gore).
But then, we don’t really expect much from Mr. Lott.
What an incredible whiner! That was pathetic.
(Lott, I mean)
Aw, c’mon, Stoid… this is an emotional time for him. Not only has he lost his position as Majority Leader… he also lost his lover… have a little heart, wouldja? 
Wring: Well, that’s not really fair either. First, a lot was made before this election about how close the Senate and House were likely to be divided. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that a lot of folks voted for Jeffords for NO other reason than to help keep Republicans in control of the House and Senate. Specifically, a lot of conservatives who might have voted for an independant or not voted at all had the Senate not been predicted to be that close.
Second, there are a lot of voters who simply vote the party ticket. “I’m a Democrat, my Dad was a Democrat, and his Dad was a Democrat, by God.” This is a popular sentiment. Such people would vote for an Iquana if it were the candidate from their party.
Not that you care, but I reject that argument completely, and the horse it rode in on.
Point 1 - care to offer any evidence? I’ll wait here patiently.
Point 2 - so only democrats are subject to party line votes just 'cause? Oh, right, that’s cause you apparently think that **only ** Republican voters would vote specifically **for ** an individual who they think would do the best job, oops, except in the case of Vermont republican voters who apparently voted specifically not for Mr. Jeffords himself, but to ‘keep the balance of power to the Republican side’ in the Senate.
I see. Interesting theory you have there. It’s not often that folks post self contradictory things so blatently.
and for those who wish they can get a refund.
Of course, meanwhile, the same republicans who wouldn’t let a judge nomination get out of committee, want new rules, so the same thing can’t happen. Hmmm. It was perfectly fine for Clinton nominations to never see the Senate floor but unfair for the same rule to apply to Bush?
Sofa King wrote:
Miller is no “classic Southern Democrat.” Miller is a true moderate who refuses to toe the party line. You may recall that it was Zell Miller who, as governor of Georgia, first sought to remove the Confederate flag from the Georgia state flag. He did this in spite of opinion polls at the time showing that over 60% of voters wanted to keep the flag as it was. Hardly the act of a “classic Southern Democrat.”
Moreover, Miller’s politics are pretty consistently moderate. He could only be viewed as a “conservative” by someone standing on the far left wing of the Democratic Party.
That said, I would agree that Miller’s ties to the Democratic party are strained at the moment. In interviews, he has stated unequivocally that he would not switch to the Republican Party. However, when asked if he might end his affiliation with the Democrats and become an independent, he has been more cagey.
My bet is that he’ll stick with the Democrats, but is using the threat of independence to gain clout. Playing both ends against the middle, as it were.
spoke- said:
What, why are you looking at me like that? I happen to like the breeze out here.
SS: Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that a lot of folks voted for Jeffords for NO other reason than to help keep Republicans in control of the House and Senate.
What the hell? He’s been Senator from Vermont since 1988 (and we know how most Americans are about re-electing their incumbents), he’s had consistently high approval ratings, but all of a sudden you figure that lots of his constituents’ votes last November were nothing but desperate attempts to keep a precarious foothold on Republican domination of Congress?!?
I’ll be over here with wring, waiting to see that evidence.