Well, we might as well get right to it:

May 25, 2001 12:26 AM

Well, we might as well get right to it:

"Democrats moved to take control of the U.S. Senate on Thursday after Sen. James Jeffords announced he would leave the Republican Party, throwing President Bush's conservative agenda into jeopardy."

Isn't that interesting?

posted by Hackworth (44 comments total)

Actually, here is a cnn report that gives a better breakdown of the changes this will cause in the senate's power structure. Enjoy your weekend.
posted by Hackworth at 12:36 AM on May 25, 2001

And Strom will no doubt be leaving the party soon, too.
posted by pracowity at 12:53 AM on May 25, 2001

"[Bush] remained committed to working in a bipartisan way to advance his agenda.."
Translation: "I will continue to politely tell everyone what I will make them do."

Sounds like business as usual to me.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:09 AM on May 25, 2001

While I must admit that I am very pleased with Sen. Jefford's decision, I was outright embarassed by the behavior of (presumably) the Democrats in the audience during his announcement. It was bad enough that they were chanting, "THANK YOU JEFF! THANK YOU JEFF! THANK YOU JEFF!" immediately after he said, "Control of the Senate will soon be changed..." They also took every opportunity to holler and whistle during the Q&A session. This is the sort of rhetoric that has prompted Sen. Miller to cautiously say that he has "no need" to switch to independent at this time..
posted by rmannion at 1:21 AM on May 25, 2001

I cherish my independent voting status. I wish more people realized that you could stand up instead of bowing out.
In the words of my friend Bartleby, "I prefer not," yo.
posted by roboto at 2:23 AM on May 25, 2001

What bothers me about Jefford's decision is that he appears to have made his decision solely to transfer power to the Dems. He could have stayed a "Republican" and continued to vote his consience, as he always has, with no difference than his previous years of service in the Senate. So it would appear that his sole motive in this case was to give the Dems a one-member advantage. I think his motives stink. On the other hand, I wish that a whole lotta members of Congress would renounce their party affiliation, leaving both "real" parties with no solid base.
posted by davidmsc at 3:40 AM on May 25, 2001

A nice piece in L.A. Times this morning suggests he was courted by Daschle. And in other papers, the blame is given Bush, who tried to placate the extreme right in his party and thus upset the middle. the middle, we are toldk getting increasingly upset by such moves. After all Jeffords dissed and not allowed at dinner given by Bush for teacher of the year--woman from Jefford's own state. Why?Cause Jeffords did not go along with a bill being considered.
For better or worse, then, GOP must learn to be more hypocritical and less thugish. Be like politicans usually are.
posted by Postroad at 3:50 AM on May 25, 2001

On the contrary, he switched because he felt that the Republican party was being overrun by far-right, extremely conservative elements, and because Republican committees hamstrung the funding for his education programs. Seems fair to me.
posted by RylandDotNet at 3:55 AM on May 25, 2001

I wish we could abolish both the republican and democratic parties. They do not serve the agenda of the voter. They serve their own agendas, and then use spin doctors to make it sound like they're acting in the best interests of the public.

How do I go about officially not being a registered democrat? Neither political party speaks for me. I wanna be an independent too, dammit.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:10 AM on May 25, 2001

On the contrary, he switched because he felt that the Republican party was being overrun by far-right, extremely conservative elements, and because Republican committees hamstrung the funding for his education programs. Seems fair to me.

Boy, you buy the Jeffords propaganda completely, don't you?

It's ridiculous to think that someone who was telling his constituents just 6 months ago that he's a Republican, and taking money from the Republican Party to run, suddenly out of the blue has a revelation about the ideology of the GOP.

This was nothing more than a power play by a minor politician. Hopefully the GOP will convince one or two of the more conservative Democrats to switch parties, if for no other reason than to deny Jeffords his cheap power grab.

In any event, this isn't going to change how anyone in the Senate is voting these days, so those of you who are hoping for some kind of Democrat Utopian State to suddenly emerge are going to be sorely disappointed.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:03 AM on May 25, 2001

[How do I go about officially not being a registered democrat? ]

Just go to your local courthouse, they should have the papers for you. I registered libertarian a long time ago.
posted by revbrian at 5:09 AM on May 25, 2001

I don't understand what the republicans are getting all excited about. Politically this puts them in a better situation for '02 and '04 by allowing them to portray the senate as obstructionist.

I wonder how the people of Kirby, Vermont feel about him now though. In 1995 they passed a resolution stating "And whereas, James M. Jeffords deserves to be horsewhipped and thrown forever out of public office; therefore be it RESOLVED, that horsewhipping now being illegal, The Republicans of the Town of Kirby will do anything arguably legal or unlikely to be discovered to retire James M. Jeffords from public life."

This can't have improved his standing with them...
posted by revbrian at 5:31 AM on May 25, 2001

The only Republicans in Vermont likely to be angry at Jeffords are the conservative minority who are too small in number to be a force in that state. The guy was elected by Democrats, independents and liberal Republicans. He didn't betray the people who elected him -- he betrayed the party.

I think Jeffords quit for three reasons:

• Although he was chairman of the Senate education committee, Bush bypassed him in crafting his education spending plan, working directly with Lott.
  
• At a time of huge surplus, Bush refused to make good on a 25-year-old promise to fund 40 percent of the cost of public special education. When Jeffords was in the House, he was instrumental in passing a bill guaranteeing that public schools would provide an education for all differently abled students. This hugely expensive program was supposed to be funded 40 percent by the government, but the feds haven't paid more than 7 percent -- making it one of those "unfunded mandates" that drives local governments crazy. Bush refused to keep the promise in exchange for Jeffords' support for his tax cut.
  
• The Bush administration snubbed Jeffords at a ceremony honoring a Vermont teacher of the year, had Andy Card calling radio stations in his state to put pressure on him to support the tax cut, and threatened the dairy compact. It was clear the Bush White House loathed him.

Jeffords had a chance-of-a-lifetime to advance his moderate views, promote himself and stab his conservative Republican antagonists at the White House in the back. I think it's great he took it.
posted by rcade at 6:27 AM on May 25, 2001

What bothers me about Jefford's decision is that he appears to have made his decision solely to transfer power to the Dems. He could have stayed a "Republican" and continued to vote his consience, as he always has, with no difference than his previous years of service in the Senate. So it would appear that his sole motive in this case was to give the Dems a one-member advantage. I think his motives stink. On the other hand, I wish that a whole lotta members of Congress would renounce their party affiliation, leaving both "real" parties with no solid base.

Sorry, but your complaint doesn't hold water. Jeffords could have kept his mouth shut and remained a Republican but then what sort of legislator would he be? One who allows the leadership to do the opposite of everything he believes in? By switching to an independent he will now have the power to make the changes HE feels need to be made. Instead of sitting on his hands and letting the ultra-conservative of his party remove a women's right to choose, rape the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, confirm more ultra-conservative liars to positions of power (Ted Olson), etc etc.

Anyone who sits back and shuts his mouth and lets people do things that they don't believe themselves is an idiot and a coward.

I applaud Senator Jeffords for standing up to the bullies in his party who strong arm their colleagues into doing what their ultra-conservative rich contributors want.
posted by terrapin at 7:15 AM on May 25, 2001

Isn't it rather dishonest to run as a Republican and then switch during one's term? I imagine quite a few people voted for him by voting a straight Republican ticket, in other words they voted for him to represent them as a Republican.

Not to mention he probably took money from the Republican party to help fund his campaign.

Of course GWB would never do anything in office that was the opposite of what he promised in his campaign.
posted by straight at 7:38 AM on May 25, 2001

I noticed Rafe had an angle on this I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else.
posted by mathowie at 7:45 AM on May 25, 2001

The government that cannot goven, governs best. I hope they never get anything done. Hail Gridlock.

Postroad: Did you really mean to say "GOP must learn to be more hypocritical "? I don't get it.
posted by thirteen at 7:54 AM on May 25, 2001

I applaud Senator Jeffords for standing up to the bullies in his party who strong arm their colleagues into doing what their ultra-conservative rich contributors want.

And I applaud Sens. Miller, Baucus, Breaux, and Nelson for standing up to the bullies in their party who strong arm their colleagues into doing what their socialist ultra-left wing politically-entrenched morally-bankrupt contributors want, but that doesn't mean I think they should switch parties so shortly after accepting support from said party.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:04 AM on May 25, 2001

Isn't it rather dishonest to run as a Republican and then switch during one's term? I imagine quite a few people voted for him by voting a straight Republican ticket, in other words they voted for him to represent them as a Republican.

Whoever who votes straight party is an idiot! Anyone who knows Jeffords record—I do and I am not even from Vermont—knows that his politics are moderate to liberal. He has not backed down from any promises, and he has not backpedaled on any positions. He hasn't masqueraded as a Gingrich Republican. In fact, it is exactly because he WON'T give in to the Repugnicants that he made the switch.

In fact, if anyone should be insulted by the results of the last election it is all the people who voted for Bush believing his lip service (like his daddy's? hehehe) about compassionate conservatism and all that crap. In fact, his actions show that he may be even more conservative than Ronnie Raygun, and is definitely more conservative than his father. Moderates voted for him, and the Supreme Court handed him the crown.
posted by terrapin at 8:07 AM on May 25, 2001

more conservative than Ronnie Raygun

Hey! You misspelled Reagan's name in a comical fashion! I'm now converted to your political philosophy! Well done!
posted by ljromanoff at 8:13 AM on May 25, 2001

Who's to blame? Why did he switch? Dunno...

All I do know is: damn does it feel good to see the Republican juggernaut come screeching to a halt. And none too soon: the rape of America was so very imminent (energy, environment, judgeships, 'star wars,' etc.).

Yippee! Squirm, my little piggies, squirm!
posted by mapalm at 8:16 AM on May 25, 2001

mapalm, thanks for that contribution.

I generally see myself as a liberal, and theoretically I should favor this switch. But am I the only one who finds some of his comments on the change distasteful?

An exact quote eludes me right now, but he acknowledged that inattention from Republican party leaders helped him make his decision. Distasteful.

Seems most of the people on both sides of the aisle need some inattention from voters.
posted by anildash at 9:01 AM on May 25, 2001

being a naive european who really would like to understand a bit more about democracy, could someone point me to a good overview of the American system of government. Are there any other parties in Parliament other than Republicans and Democrats - if not, why not?

I know here in the UK, we are also struggling with the problem of not enough differences between the major parties, which can be a problem when you really believe in the democratic process but there is no one to vote for.

Is proportional representation not a 'better' form of democracy? Any metafilters live in such a political system - does it work?
posted by twistedonion at 9:03 AM on May 25, 2001

This is the luckiest thing that's happened to America in a long time.
posted by pracowity at 9:04 AM on May 25, 2001

An exact quote eludes me right now, but he acknowledged that inattention from Republican party leaders helped him make his decision. Distasteful.

why is that distasteful? he was unable to affect any change on policy because he was being ignored by the more conservative elements of his party. if you want to make some changes or have some influence on an issue, but your colleagues ignore you and even imply threats of retaliation if you don't support their position, then you should leave your party for those reasons. it would have distasteful for him to remain if he wasn't going to represent the interests of his constituency.
posted by tolkhan at 9:12 AM on May 25, 2001

1) Yay for Jeffords! I love you, man!

2) Bush and the Repubs need to learn that they can't play such an arrogant game of hardball in such a precariously devided Senate. All Senators (and human being in general) should be treated with respect -- that's basic politics and diplomacy.

3) Twistedonion, first of all, we don't have a Parliment. A "parliment" implies that parties gain ruling power through coaltion. Actually, the reason the Dems gained power was not because Jeffords is going to caucus with Democrats, but because he left the GOP. If there are 49 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 4 Independents, the Democrats would rule -- without needing to form a coalition with the Independents. Alarming, no?

I pray that someday we will have a form of proportional representation in the US. Countries that use PR have a higher voting rate, and PR allows for 3rd parties to be more viable.
posted by jennak at 9:24 AM on May 25, 2001

Isn't it rather dishonest to run as a Republican and then switch during one's term? I imagine quite a few people voted for him by voting a straight Republican ticket, in other words they voted for him to represent them as a Republican.

yeah, i'm sure the 5-6 republicans in vermont are REALLY pissed...but the rest of the state seems to be cheering him on. and thats what he is there for, to serve the people of vt, NOT serve the republican party.

i'm not from vermont, but this guy makes me proud to be a new englander.
posted by saralovering at 9:26 AM on May 25, 2001

The man got elected on 5-6 votes? Voter apathy at an all time high.
posted by thirteen at 9:44 AM on May 25, 2001

I think anyone familiar with the history of the political parties int he US would agree that Jeffords represented the Republican Party much more effectively than the converted Dixiecrats from the South who now rule the party with an iron fist. Jeffords considered Republicans to be members of the Party of Lincoln, not the party of Jefferson Davis, and I for one consider that to be an honorable position. Too bad the thugs wouldn't even consider the moderate Republican's views to even be a part of the the party's platform.
I've never endorsed a particular party and don't intend to start but I'll never support politician's whose thinly veiled goals are the repeal of all the good that has been fought for since the end of the Civil War.
posted by nofundy at 10:19 AM on May 25, 2001

twistedonion:

there are only 2 major parties in congress in the US, republican and democrat. some others are independent, which isn't a party per se, but rather a commitment to no one party.

there is proportional representation in the US congress as well; there are actually two branches of the legislative body in the US. the senate is comprised of currently 100 members, 2 from each state. the house of representitives is the proportional one, with i think 400 some members... 437 sticks out to me, but i'm not sure. at any rate, the members of the house depend on the number of populated districts in the states, so some states may be better represented than others. the existence of both was part of the compromise that the colonies made to each other before the US was officially formed.

you would think it'd be better, but really some people will soon be shafted when political districts will be "remapped" in the coming monthes/years. it's supposed to happen in my state, anyway.
posted by moz at 10:39 AM on May 25, 2001

I am losing my Congressman, and I could not be happier. I just hope he does not become my Governor, not that I like my Governor much either.
posted by thirteen at 11:01 AM on May 25, 2001

Moz & Twistedonion, there is no proportional representation in US.

PR is when seats are distributed based on the percentage of vote for each party. For example, if there was PR by state and vote was as follows in GA:

43% Repubs
38% Dems
12% Independents
7% Green

The there would be 5 congressional seats that would go Republican, 4 seats that would go Dem, 1 seat Independent, and 1 seat Green.

The advantage of PR is that everyone gets a representative. Let's say you're a Democrat, live in Georgia, and are represented by Bob Barr. Do you think you're really represented? But if your state went PR, then you could go to any one of your Democratic representatives.

There are 535 member in Congress; 100 are Senators. The District of Columbia (where I live) gets a member that cannot vote. (Even though we pay taxes and have full citizenship; this is taxation without representation.)

I'll post a few links w/ statistics of higher voting participation with PR, and examples of how it works in other (mostly European) countries.
posted by jennak at 11:11 AM on May 25, 2001

I really don't like the concept of willy-nilly switching parties.

That said I'm glad to see Lott and his boys eating some humble pie for a change. Gridlock is most likely in the stars, but if it stops Bush cold it can't be too bad...
posted by owillis at 11:42 AM on May 25, 2001

As promised, links regarding Proportional Representation:

"Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation. "

***********

"In the 1994 elections to the US House of Representatives, 23 percent of eligible voters elected candidates of choice. In contrast, over 75 percent of Germany's eligible voters in their 1994 national elections elected candidates under a PR system. "

***********

"There are many systems that can be used. All require multi-seat districts - more than one representative per district." Examples.

***********
PR increases voter turnout: "Voter turnout is generally estimated to be 10-12 percent higher in nations with PR than in similar nations using winner-take-all elections....[in US] relatively few legislative elections are competitive, and our analysis of recent House elections demonstrates a strong correlation between the degree of competition and the level of participation.

PR also "provides better representation for racial minorities" and ends gerrymandering.
posted by jennak at 11:55 AM on May 25, 2001

As far as I know, there are two different theories on what a member of Congress is supposed to do for his/her constituents.

In the more classical view, which is based on the idea that the U.S. is a republic in the classical sense -- and this was the view of most of our nation's founders -- people elect a representative because the masses lack "virtue"; they need a virtuous person to represent them. "Virtue" is a complicated concept, but it has lots to do with having the appropriate moral character, good judgment, and so forth, which are necessary to make good decisions in the public interest.

That was the original idea, but it evolved, especially during Andrew Jackson's time. In the newer view, the U.S. is primarily a democracy. People elect a representative in order to do their bidding. The masses are exalted, seen as a great thing, and the people's bidding should be done. They just elect a representative to do what they want him/her to do.

The classical view seems more and more obsolete, but I think it still has some value. And seen in that light, Jeffords probably made the right decision. He was elected to do what he believes is right for his constituents. Political parties aren't even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, anyway; the founders looked down on the idea of national parties.

So I don't think Jeffords did something heinous by leaving his party. He's not being disloyal to those who voted for him. I bet that a large portion of those who voted for him did so not because he was a Republican, but because they felt he believed in the same things they did. They knew he was a liberal Republican when they elected him. He's not changing any of his principles; he's just changing his label.

In fact, if anyone has changed principles since Jeffords first entered the Senate 12 years ago, it's the Republican party, which has become increasingly conservative. And ever since Bush took office, the moderate wing of the party has become increasingly marginalized, to the point where Jeffords probably saw few good reasons to stay in the party. He did what he thought was right.
posted by Tin Man at 1:06 PM on May 25, 2001

Bush's conservative agenda's gonna be on jeopardy? Would that be under Pot Pourri? Would Dubya even be able to pronounce it?
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 1:39 PM on May 25, 2001

PR is a *bad* idea for people who support independents. It's good for people who support third parties.

What would be good for the US, though, is an overhaul of the primary process. Because of the primaries, we had Gore vs. Bush, rather than the moderates McCain vs. Bradley which would have been supported by a > number of people. Primaries and political parties encourage extremism.
posted by Kevs at 4:33 PM on May 25, 2001

Kevs -- McCain is an establishment Republican in the same vein as Bush (although he pretends otherwise, his voting record outside of his pet issues bears this out), while both Bradley and Gore were moderate to conservative Democrats in the Senate and tried to out-liberal each other in the Democratic primaries.

Parties don't encourage or discourage extremism. This should be pretty obvious, if one examines the political systems in various democracies throughout the world.

The winner-take-all electoral system that we use in the US is a powerful force against extremism. You need to get 51% of the vote to have a sure victory, so parties are as centrist as they can be with alienating large segments of their supporters. That's why the Democrats aren't a 'progressive' party, and why the GOP isn't exclusively a 'conservative' party.

The primary system does tend to force candidates to the political center of their party, rather than the general population, but this is a good thing, because it creates some ideological differences between the parties without sacrificing the stability of the two-party system.
posted by drothgery at 5:23 PM on May 25, 2001

If anyone's interested, the Rutland (VT) Herald has a good article about the range of reactions from Vermonters.
posted by acridrabbit at 5:47 PM on May 25, 2001

Kevs: way I see it Bradley was more of an extremist (left wing) than Gore (left of center). Of the two, I'd say Gore was closer to "the middle"
posted by owillis at 7:44 PM on May 25, 2001

“Benedict Arnold and Jim Jeffords — Both Traitors,” read one held by a man dressed as Arnold in Revolutionary War garb.

I also heard about this guy on ATC. Only conservatives would use such language. Traitor? Only if you take the logical graduation of conservatism to fascism, as one's politcal slant equates him with being American or not. This in a country supposedly founded upon freedom of thought. Indeed that man's freedom to proclaim one a traitor.

Speaking of traitors and the beautiful freedom they are (were) afforded in this country. . .

Oh, I see now. . .defecting senators.
posted by crasspastor at 9:11 PM on May 25, 2001

I would really like to give Sen. Jeffords a hug. This is the first time I've felt a glimmering of hope for the country since the Nov. election (not that I'm a Gore democrat, necessarily)
posted by Lynsey at 11:01 PM on May 25, 2001

I tend to fall roughly in the middle of the road when politics are concerned. I am socially conscious and fiscally conservative. In other words the government should be there as a safety net for those on hard luck and to protect that which can not protect it self (like the environment), but the government should run efficiently (not necessarily smaller government, but if it ran efficiently it would be smaller).

Therefore Jeffords move made me very happy. I have been pissed that Bush ran toward the middle and once elected dove hard right (not that I voted for him, I put my votes behind the guy who received the most votes). The republicans began abandoning the middle in the 1980s with Reagan and then Papa Bush (who started out a good moderate - maybe it is in the genes). The Dems took over the middle ground after that. The Republicans moved more to the right following the Christian Right whom I can find little Christian in their political views, as we Christians are to love their brother as themselves and very few find it in their hearts to publicly love anybody else (hence the need for the Right's love of guns).
posted by vanderwal at 5:50 AM on May 26, 2001