Jeffords' Defection: Traitorous or Heroic?

[wring]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**I’ll be over here with wring, waiting to see that evidence. **

I’ll bring the chips and beer… we’re in for a long haul.

[SterlingNorth]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
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.

And that shows that Jeffords is not a uniter but a divider, um… exactly how, now?

[Kimstu]

Yeah, I don’t quite see that either. Sure, Jeffords has divided himself from the Republican party, but then he’s united himself to the Independents, so it’s all good, right? I wasn’t aware that Republican campaign pledges about “being a uniter, not a divider” referred specifically to the goal of maintaining loyalty and cohesion within the Republican party; I thought that they were about enabling public servants of all political stripes to get on with their jobs of service to the public without being swamped in party antagonism. I don’t think that Jeffords’s decision to change his party affiliation sabotages that ideal in any way.

[Sam_Stone]

Oh for pete’s sake. First of all, wring, I used Democrats as an example of people who vote the ‘party line’ as an attempt to offer balance. Obviously, since we’re talking about Jeffords, I would think it goes without saying that I believe many Republicans do the same.

Now, as for people who voted simply because of the balance in the Senate - sorry, I don’t have any evidence to offer. I’m frankly surprised that you guys would think that this is not a factor at all. I recall that a lot of the punditry that went on before the election concerned this matter, and I know for a fact that it was used in a number of campaigns. Also, remember that I’m Canadian, and our system of government is built around that - in Canada, you don’t vote for Prime Minister, you vote for the party that you want in power, and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister. So perhaps my views on how Americans treat this matter is a bit skewed.

In any event, I would agree that this would not make up a huge percentage of the voters (although I do believe that there is a large percentage of voters who just vote the party and not the man). If Jeffords won by a large margin, then feel free to discount this by as much as you want.

See, I really don’t care a whole lot about this one way or the other. Republicans have jumped ship before, and so have Democrats. Big Deal. My original point was that Jeffords chose this period in time to do so because he was no doubt offered a lot of perks from the Democrats to do so, and because Republicans in General and the Bush White House in particular behaved STUPIDLY towards their own moderates.

Anyway, now that Jeffords is offering to give back campaign donations, it would appear that it’s not just me who thinks that some people got shafted by his jumping ship.

Speaking of returning campaign donations… Does anyone know if he’s doing this out of his own personal funds, or is he being helped by a PAC or the DNC or anything?

[Kimstu]

SS: Now, as for people who voted simply because of the balance in the Senate - sorry, I don’t have any evidence to offer.

'Sallright, wring and I have been enjoying the chips and the beer so we weren’t wasting our time.

I’m frankly surprised that you guys would think that this is not a factor at all. […] If Jeffords won by a large margin, then feel free to discount this by as much as you want.

Defeated State Auditor Edward Flanagan 66%–25%, according to this site.

My original point was that Jeffords chose this period in time to do so because he was no doubt offered a lot of perks from the Democrats to do so, and because Republicans in General and the Bush White House in particular behaved STUPIDLY towards their own moderates.

Maybe. From his own comments on his website, it seems we may also have to consider the factor of his feeling that it was actually inappropriate for him to remain in the Republican Party while “having been honored with positions of leadership” yet being “unable to support the President’s agenda.” That’s a slant I hadn’t considered before: that he may have felt not only that he was personally ineffective and slighted due to his diverging opinions, but that he was not holding up his end as a Republican and was doing both himself and the party a bigger favor by quitting than by hanging on as an “opposition insider”. More detail:

I have spent a lifetime in the Republican Party, and served for 12 years in what I believe is the longest continuously held Republican seat in the U.S. Senate. I ran for re-election as a Republican just last fall, and had no thoughts whatsoever then about changing parties.

The party I grew up in was the party of George Aiken, Ernest Gibson, Ralph Flanders, and Bob Stafford. These names may not mean much today outside Vermont. But each served Vermont as a Republican Senator in the 20th century.

I became a Republican not because I was born into the party but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many other Republicans stood for – moderation, tolerance, and fiscal responsibility. Their party – our party – was the party of Lincoln.

To be sure, we had our differences in the Vermont Republican Party. But even our more conservative leaders were in many ways progressive. Our former governor, Deane Davis, championed Act 250, which preserved our environmental heritage. And Vermont’s Calvin Coolidge, our nation’s 30th president, could point with pride to our state’s willingness to sacrifice in the service of others.

Aiken and Gibson and Flanders and Stafford were all Republicans. But they were Vermonters first. They spoke their minds – often to the dismay of their party leaders – and did their best to guide the party in the direction of our fundamental principles.

For 26 years in Washington, first in the House of Representatives and now in the Senate, I have tried to do the same. But I can no longer do so.

Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party. I understand that many people are more conservative than I am, and they form the Republican Party. Given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me, and for me to deal with them.

Indeed, the party’s electoral success has underscored the dilemma I face within my party.

In the past, without the presidency, the various wings of the Republican Party in Congress have had some freedom to argue and ultimately to shape the party’s agenda. The election of President Bush changed that dramatically. We don’t live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to expect that people such as myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the president’s agenda.

And yet, more and more, I find I cannot. Those who don’t know me may have thought I took pleasure in resisting the president’s budget, or that I enjoyed the limelight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had serious, substantive reservations about that budget, and the decisions it sets in place for today and the future.

Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I will disagree with the President on very fundamental issues: the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small.

The largest for me is education. I come from the state of Justin Smith Morrill, a U.S. Senator who gave America the land grant college system. His Republican Party stood for opportunity for all, for opening the doors of public school education to every American child. Now, for some, success seems to be measured by the number of students moved out of public schools.

In order to best represent my state of Vermont, my own conscience, and the principles I have stood for my whole life, I will leave the Republican Party and become an Independent.

Sounds as though Jeffords was a bit blindsided by the Gingrich Revolution in 1994; while the Dems were in the White House, internal opposition was more tolerated, and the increasing tilt of the Republicans toward the far right didn’t have such a muzzling effect on the moderates. I guess it’s a different ball game now.

[Sofa_King]

It didn’t just become Fantasy Baseball, did it?

Let me be the first to point out that the above is a “speculation piece” on the part of the Conservative’s Puppy Trainer, the Washington Post.

There’s a chance it might not be true. No, really. A pretty good chance, maybe.

[SPOOFE]

And that shows that Jeffords is not a uniter but a divider, um… exactly how, now?

Exactly how much unity has come about from his leaving the Republican party? Not a whole helluva not.

1. There has been no unity established between the Republican and Democratic party.

2. There has been a great deal of disarray thrown into the Republican party.

Now explain to me how he was been a “uniter”, or, conversely, how he has been “not a divider”.

[DoctorJ]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that a lot of people voted for Jeffords to keep the Republicans in office. I and a lot of people I know voted for a fairly unlikable Democrat (Scotty Baesler) for the opposite reason. (He didn’t win.)

However, there are people who voted for Jeffords to hold up the Republican line, and there are those who voted for him because of his moderate views. Quitting the Republicans betrays the former group, but staying with them (and implicitly supporting their agenda) betrays the latter group. He had to choose one or the other.

Given his alleged marginalization by the Republicans, I think he made the right choice. I certainly think it’s his to make.

Dr. J

[ElvisL1ves]

For anyone who would rather dismiss Jeffords’ act as simply selling out the highest bidder, he didn’t - the GOP “bid” was higher. Consider this:

Other Republicans have been even less charitable, describing Mr. Jeffords as a “weak sister” who betrayed the party in response to Democratic blandishments, including a proffered chairmanship. Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, who doubles as chairman of the Republican National Committee, was one who took this shabby line. “If this is a matter of principle . . . okay, we can respect principle,” he said in a TV appearance, “but there are these persistent rumors” that the switch “had something to do with a chairmanship over on the Democratic side.” He made a show of inviting Mr. Jeffords to “take that right off the table right now, and just say he is not going to accept [such] a chairmanship.” No reference to the fact that Mr. Jeffords was already the chairman of a committee, that Mr. Lott had offered to waive a term limit rule to let him keep the post for an extra six years and to toss in tens of billions of dollars of education money besides, funds the Republicans had earlier refused to guarantee. Blandishments don’t seem to us to be what decided this.

[PastTense]

Bumping this thread (since probably almost no one remembers him) he has passed away:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/18/us-usa-politics-jeffords-idUSKBN0GI1NH20140818

[astorian]

So, years later, the answer seems to be… neither heroic nor treasonous. Just inconsequential.

The GOP got the Senate back, which made Jeffords irrelevant to both parties. And eventually, Vermont went solidly liberal, and the new population acually found Jeffords too conservative!

By switching parties, he made himself a big news story for a few months… but ultimately, he didn’t matter much to either party.