Opinion on Jeffords switch

[Alan L.]

I say good riddance. It doesn't mean squat although the liberal media is trying to paint it as some kind of victory for the democrats. Any Bush judge nominee who is not a minority or gay will be opposed by the dems regardless of his/her record. The fact that the dems want their judges to make new, liberal laws rather than interpret the constitution won't change either.

Alan L., TX

 

[ddl]

What I read in the NY papers on the net was that after he got relected, he told a close Republican friend that he was not looking forward to spending four years of his last term without being a chairman of a committee. The reps. place term limits on the chairmanships. His term was up in 2002. The dems offered him a chairmanship for as long as they were in power. So what this hack did was sell his soul for a big office and staff. The dems were looking for a rep. that had no convictions and they found one. If Vermont feels this is their type of man, I bet they voted for Clinton.

Dan L

 

[Boondox]

This does not alter the fact that he won...and just goes to show you that Vermonters do indeed vote for the man, not the party. The votes in this case were not so much for Tuttle as against McMullen, a man who had not spent so much as a year living among Vermonters, mispronounced town names, and had no idea how many teats a cow has.

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[hess]

This, in part, is in response to the assertion that Jeffords has somehow deceived his constituents and hurt a lot of people by denouncing his party.
For one, we elect INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE (not ideological robots) for office, or at least that's what we should be doing. Jeffords has not suddenly changed his views on political issues - in fact, he has been voting this way for the last 3 terms (I hope it was 3 terms anyway), but he has been ostracized most recently by the new administration and their newly empowered conservatives. So he is still the same man, with the same ideals, who was voted into office.
I know that many Americans opt to vote along party lines, but in reality, does a Colin Powell, for example, represent all Republicans when he stands before the GOP at the convention and lectures them on affirmative action, or demands that his party step up to the challenge of being more compassionate?
Hardly.
Simply because one is a Republican or a Democrat, or an independent for that matter, does not ensure that they will (or should) tow the party line.
I believe that Jeffords did not agree with fundamental direction that our legislative and executive branches had taken. Therefore, he took a step that was well within his power to take.
Some have commented that Jeffords should... [remain a Republican, but vote however you'd like. Don't change the balance of power. It's not fair]
I say that when the President of the U.S. and his administration begin playing hardball with elected members of Congress by not inviting them to government ceremonies (Vt. teacher of the year), or by threatening to limit funding to their state (dairy farmers), then maybe that senator should reevaluate his situation. Regardless, their is no provision stating that a senator cannot change party affiliation, and in politics, it doesn't really matter if it is "fair."
If the people of Vermont are unhappy with his decision, I am sure they will vote him out.
As for the people who have been hurt, I ask who might they be? The former Chairperson's? Politics are about acquiring power/losing power. It's about "checks and balances."
A few months ago, everyone wondered how our constitution and our government would respond in the wake of the election fiasco. It worked itself out, or at least continues to do so.
I distinctly remember 5 Republican elected Supreme Court Justices who voted to overrule a State Supreme Court, siding with Governor Bush. They had the legal right, and the power to do so - and we as a country must deal with the consequences. Was this "fair?"
Seems as if not much has changed.
hess

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>I distinctly remember 5 Republican elected Supreme Court Justices who voted to overrule a State Supreme Court</font color=blue>

Hess, how come you neglected to mention that the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a "Democratic" State Supreme Court?/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Bird

 

[hess]

Bird,
Quite honestly, I did not know how many of the FL Justices were appointed by Democratic governors.
But, nonetheless, I did not have a problem with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the appeal. The problems involving the Florida election system were too archaic, arbitrary (from county to county), not to mention discriminatory, for the U.S. Supreme Court not to intervene. As much as I believe in states' rights, the incoming president (whoever that was going to be) needed the stabilizing power of the Court to legitimize the election - even if was to the detriment of the Court, and a blow to state sovereignty.
Now, let me say that I do not have a problem with people who voted for either Bush or Gore, or even those who dislike Clinton. I may not agree with you, but I respect your opinion.
Like it or not, Clinton fullfilled over 75% of his campaign promises from the '92 election - which is a higher % than Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, and Nixon did during their terms. And, he did it with a Republican Congress (6 out of the 8 years).
Bush, on the other hand has already flip-flopped on some his environmental pledges (carbon dioxide emissions), causing some of his campaign supporters to wonder publicly about HIS integrity.
And, while I do not believe that Clinton was solely responsible for our economic prosperity during the '90's, he must be given some credit, after all , it occured during his watch (Bush too, has taken credit for many of the good things that have happened in Texas).
Furthermore, the scandals were disgusting, funny, embarrassing, insignificant, depending who you talked to, but scandalous behavior is not solely a Democratic trait (ask Gingrich), nor is does it reflect on one's ability to perform their job.
When it comes to politics, we all have the right to voice our opinion and choose our own path.
We should not forget that this is exactly what Senator Jeffords has done.

 

[Bird]

Hess, I don't have a problem with that. If Jeffords is the kind of character you want to "represent" you, then I think you should vote for him. But for me, if he were from my state, I'd vote against him in the next election (unless his opponent was someone like Ted Kennedy)./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Maybe I just believe too much in that old country saying, "You're supposed to dance with him what brung you." And I figure the Republican party brought Jeffords. And I'll even admit to being a bit cynical; it's been a long time since I voted for anyone; I just try to vote against the worst one. It so happens that I don't like either of our senators from Texas (both Republicans), but I voted for them because the Democratic alternatives were even worse, in my opinion./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Bird

 

[cowboydoc]

Bird,
Boy I sure do agree with you about not having voted for anyone lately. It's pretty sad that nowadays we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's all about special interests and this deal and that anymore. Would be nice to see some good men running for office and not just politicians.

 

[Wingnut]

Ed ... very, very well stated ... you said everything that I was about to say and then some!
The man is an unprincipled scoundrel ... which is to be expected for a politician, I guess ... but disappointing nontheless.
He has been a RiNO (Republican in Name Only) for his entire "career" ... let's see, he voted FOR Hillary's insane health care bill, against impeachment ... and basically voted WITH the democrats at almost every turn ... and the (extremely liberal) press calls him a Moderate. Ha!
If he was an honerable man ... he would have run as an independant instead of accepting the funding and the help of the state (and federal) Republican parties.
Also ... there should be NO CHANGE in the Senate ... were ANY Democrats honerable peopel. The agreement that was made between Lott and Daschle ... in order to appease the democrats (who weren't in power) was for power-sharing ... putting far more dems on all committees than was necessary or "fair". This deal was to be in place until one party somehow acheived an absolute majority ... and that would mean 51 members. By my count, there are 50 Dems, 49 'Pubs and 1 Benedict Arnold, errr Independant.
I'm sorry ... but I have no conception on how you gentlemen from Vermont can be proud of this man ... I guess honor and pride are a completely different concept there.
Ohh ... since I'm sure you're wondering ... no, I'm not a Republican ... or a registered anything ... any voting I did would still be for Alberta politicians since I'm only allowed to pay high taxes here ... I'm not allowed to vote ... and if I were ... I, too, would vote for the man ... and start a recall movement for anyone representing me that stopped representing me.
By the way ... what kind of power does an independant have? Does he get to pretect an education bill that has NEVER been funded? Or a milk compact?

too bad that common sense ain't

 

[Rick572]

When My local Senator, Phil Gram, Former (D) switched partys, he resigned his position, came home and ran as an (R). He didn't have too, but it seems like the honorable thing to do. I wonder how critical the press would have been if Jeffords and been changing to republican.

I think to be honest, several other, or maybe many other republicans should consider switching party. They have not done well while being in the majority as far as standing up for what what they are suposed believe in, and many of the so called "middle or the roaders" are really just closet liberals who lack the candor and honesty to admit it. If there is a positive side to this , it is that Trent Lott will not be in charge soon. I believe that he is a fine gentleman, and a sorry leader.

As far as switching party's go, the only difference it makes is that the (D)'s will be able to stop more of Bushes programs that he has sit fore to accomplish, so at election time they can claim how much of a lane duck he is. Its all about the power of politics and little to do with making our country even greater than it is. At this time I just fail to see the great difference between (D) and (R). They both lie to get elected and continue to say and vote in a way to protect there jobs, not serve the country. It seems like whatever the (D)'s believe in the (R)'s do to, but just to a lesser extent. I think the (D)'s and the (R)'s should join forces (as if they haven't already) and then maybe a decent new party might develope.

Sorry for rambling. Its late now, but maybe at another time I will be able to let ya'all know how I really feel.

Rick

 

[ddl]

The common idea is that "I vote for the man not the party", everyone votes for a person, but that person aligns themselfs with a party. ONe reason is for common ideas that they have and more for funding to run. The question I have for Vermont people, why did not Bennedick run as a democarat in your state. Is it that he could not win a primary as a real democrat. And what does this say about your state, this puts your state in the same box as New York. Both could not find a real democrat in their state to run and win.

Dan L

 

[Boondox]

Which is EXACTLY what we here in Vermont have!

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[Boondox]

Wingnut -- Before you go around slamming all Vermonters who like Jeffords, ask yourself this: How else, given the politics of big business, could an official from a very rural state with only two electoral votes (a state that is therefore pretty much disregarded by the mainstream politicians as therefore unimportant except during their vacations) give his state a meaningful voice? And before you ridicule the NE Dairy Compact, figure out another way to ensure that we can retain our rural flavor once the little guys have been swallowed by huge agribusiness.

Yes we are proud of Jeffords. He did what's right for Vermont, and continues to "dance with him who brung him." I can't understand why folks in other states are content to elect officials more interested in their party than in their states.

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[Boondox]

Dan -- You miss the point entirely. Jeffords and Leahy are both doing excellent work for Vermont and Vermonters. It has nothing to do with being unable to find an opponent of the opposite party and everything with being unable to find enough voters dissatisfied with them...to the point where they'd possibly vote for another.

I don't understand how so many of you can complain about gridlock, about politicians acting like politicians instead of Americans, and then complain even more bitterly when one of them does what's right for those he represents. Though a registered Republican, I will continue to vote for Jeffords. And though a registered Republican, I've voted for and will continue to vote for Leahy as long as he continues to represent our needs so well. I'm proud that our elected officials are not mere ****** to their party.

Some of you have taken this to a very personal level. From my point of view it's like you're attacking a personal friend of mine. I know that any time he's in state, I can pick up the phone and talk personally with Jim about an issue that concerns me. How many of you in other places can say that about your officials? He doesn't know me, but he listens to my views even though I haven't donated thousands to his campaign. Can advocates of Orinn Hatch or Trent Lott say that? Jim Jeffords is not a coward, a slug, without honor or any of the other disparaging remarks I've read on this thread. Nor is he a Republican or a Democrat. He is a Vermonter, and that works for those who elected him.

Let's cool the hateful rhetoric, okay?

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[cowboydoc]

Pete,
I like you and you have great comments but practice what you preach. I know Mr. Hatch through Governor Leavitt in Utah who is my cousin. When Mr. Hatch was trying to make a run for a presidential bid last year I helped to spearhead his campaign in Iowa. He was available and is still available with a phone call and is very concerned about healthcare and some other issues which I take to heart and he isn't even my state senator.

 

[ERNIEB]

Pete, Maybe I've just become jaded when it comes to politics, but nobody gets elected to the senate without money, and lots of it. Without it Jeffords would not have even been there for the people of Vermont to vote on.
Bottom line, He took the republicans money, and then dumped them to get a chairmanship.

Ernie

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Pete. Do you have the figures on the dollar amount that Jeffords spent in this last election? I have not been able to find the number, I don't believe it was all that much, butProbably more the the $18 that Sen George Aiken spent in his last campaign.

 

[Boondox]

Richard -- You're absolutely right and I apologize. I should have made a blanket statement instead of singling out any particular politician. We have a very competent senator in Jeffords, one who looks out for Vermont first, and to assume there are not others like him out there was wrong.

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[ddl]

Boondox
This morning in the east coast papers and on C-span, tow things were reported, the first is that Jeffords began talking to the Democrats last year about switching and what they could offer him. He must really have a strong ethical base!! The secod story was about the Repbs. in Vermont want Jeffords to resign and run as a democrat or indep. and to return the money repbs. gave him, he is supposed to have about 1/2 millon left from the last race. When you elect a person, you base his ability to do what he says by who he aligns himself with. From what I can tell only Democrats from Vermont feel thios is a good thing. Oh by the way there are no Independents only people without the guts to state how they really believe. Here was a person with his soul up for sale to the highest bidder, no man at all just scum.

Dan L

 

[cowboydoc]

Thanks Pete and I respect your fortitude to stand up for the man if you believe in him.