Winning seats in the House: More than $100 million.

Taking back the Senate: More than $100 million

Jim Jeffords begging Senate Republicans to take him back: Priceless

Sorry, Jim

Is caucusing with them the same as changing parties? Or is it effectively the same?

I think it's the latter. He's independent, but for purposes of committee memberships and such he aligns with the Democrats.

By the way, it's interesting how this rag of a newspaper runs a rumor (which is what it is, until it's publicly confirmed by someone other than "sources") as an editorial.

Sorry, I think the cost of winning the house and senate is much higher...that is if you chose to inc the cost to our right to live as gay men and the to the enviroment....but hey isn't that what your $600. tax rebate was worth?

Joe in Philly is right. The Times is a rag, to be polite. Psst. Get the facts straight. Jeffords was not chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee when he was a Republican. That honor went to Bob Smith. And I agree also that this rumor is just that. Jeffords may have switched parties, but he is no Bob Smith.

To further clarify, when Jeffords was thinking about the switch, one of the biggest hurdles he faced was actually becoming a 'Democrat'. Because of his family's long history with the Republican party, he couldn't ever become a Democrat. So, that's why he settled as an independent, while being a Democratic ally.

It has been rumored that had the split been 50-50 after this election that liberal (is there such a thing?) Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island would switch sides. That is probably not going to happen.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: RJ in Huntington ]

imho, the world needs many, many more jim jeffords, and the senate could use about 99 more just like him. he is, in fact, a life-long republican, and as he stated in his press conference announcing his decision to become independent, "i'm not leaving the republican party. the republican party has left me." no truer words could have been spoken. the party banner her ran under 25 years ago, is not the party in power in washington today.

but most important, and why the world needs more like jim jeffords, he never forgot who he was in washington to represent -- who sent him there to do their bidding. he doesn't represent the republican party, he doesn't represent himself or his own best interests, he represents the PEOPLE OF VERMONT. and through thick and thin, he has remained true to their interests. he is no way a turncoat or traitor as was claimed on this board shortly after he became independent, because his allegiance wasn't with any party, but with his constituents. and that is why we need more jim jeffords -- so our elected senators will remember who they represent, whose interest they must look out for, and not become a lapdog to party leaders with no regard for local politics.

no, james jeffords is not a traitor. he is a patriot and a hero. he is a senator, a representative of the people, as the framers of the constitution intended him to be.

I think Jeffords is just an opportunist. If he REALLY had the strength of his convictions he would have switched to an independent label when the next election cycle came up. He was elected as a Republican ... IMO he decieved and betrayed all those who thought they knew what he stood for when they put him in office.

we didn't vote for james jeffords because he was a republican. we voted for him because of what he stood for. and he didn't deceive anyone. in fact, the deception would have come had he remained in the republican party, and allowed to happen all the things he stood against. he promised to help protect the environment, reduce government interference in our private lives, and look out for the little guy, and when he left the republican party he achieved all his campaign promises! there were no deceptions; there were promises kept.

you must understand that party labels don't mean a whole lot in vermont. currently, there congressional delegation consists of two independents and one democrat, so to say he was sent there as a republican is simply wrong. we sent him there because of what he campaigned on, the fact he was affiliated with the republican party was simply not held against him.

and i assure you, when he runs again, likely as an independent, we will re-elect him! his popularity has never been higher.

we didn't vote for james jeffords because he was a republican. we voted for him because of what he stood for. and he didn't deceive anyone. in fact, the deception would have come had he remained in the republican party, and allowed to happen all the things he stood against. he promised to help protect the environment, reduce government interference in our private lives, and look out for the little guy, and when he left the republican party he achieved all his campaign promises, by not letting a republican majority gut our environmental protections, rewrite the tax code to favor the rich, and pass descriminatory laws based on the most private details of our lives! there were no deceptions; there were promises kept.

you must understand that party labels don't mean a whole lot in vermont. currently, their congressional delegation consists of two independents and one democrat, so to say he was sent there as a republican is simply wrong. we sent him there because of what he campaigned on, the fact he was affiliated with the republican party was simply not held against him.

and i assure you, when he runs again, likely as an independent, we will re-elect him! his popularity has never been higher.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: thersis ]

double post -- my bad!
[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: thersis ]

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: thersis ]

[quote]Originally posted by thersis:
imho, the world needs many, many more jim jeffords, and the senate could use about 99 more just like him. he is, in fact, a life-long republican, and as he stated in his press conference announcing his decision to become independent, "i'm not leaving the republican party. the republican party has left me." no truer words could have been spoken. the party banner her ran under 25 years ago, is not the party in power in washington today.

---

I need to verify this, but I think Jeffords ran for office as a Republican more than once in the past 25 years. In fact, he ran as a Republican in 2000 and accepted support from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. I had friends at the NRSC who worked on the campaign. Jeffords also supported Bush for President. So presumably the GOP packed its bags and "left" Jeffords between November of 2000 and Summer, 2001. I'm not sure what changed so dramatically in those six months.

it's quite simple, really. the candidate jeffords supported ran as a compassionate conservative; as a uniter, not divider; as someone who would reach across the aisle to get things done. what changed is that the republican promises came to be exposed for what they were -- campaign lies. and jeffords did what any principled person would do, he dissociated himself from those lies.

jeffords did not support a candidate whose stump speech said, "i will renounce kyoto. i will question the scientific concensus as to what is causing global warming. i will give huge tax cuts to the richest 1% of americans. i will let the oil companies write my energy policy." and just as jeffords did not support a candidate who said these things, neither did he support a president who said these things.

a lot changed. the lies were exposed.

I think we need more people like what thersis describes jim jeffords to be - in politics and everywhere else.

[quote] He was elected as a ... IMO he decieved and betrayed all those who thought they knew what he stood for when they put him in office.

---

You mean, kind of like Nighthorse Campbell & Richard Shelby? I guess the difference is that these two in switching parties found god's truth, while Jeffords in switching became an apostate.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

[quote]Originally posted by thersis:
it's quite simple, really. the candidate jeffords supported ran as a compassionate conservative; as a uniter, not divider; as someone who would reach across the aisle to get things done. what changed is that the republican promises came to be exposed for what they were -- campaign lies. and jeffords did what any principled person would do, he dissociated himself from those lies.

jeffords did not support a candidate whose stump speech said, "i will renounce kyoto. i will question the scientific concensus as to what is causing global warming. i will give huge tax cuts to the richest 1% of americans. i will let the oil companies write my energy policy." and just as jeffords did not support a candidate who said these things, neither did he support a president who said these things.

a lot changed. the lies were exposed.

---

So Bush did not make a stump speech that confirms your perceptions of his policies? Perhaps your perceptions are wrong? Just a thought.

At any rate, Jeffords voted for the Bush tax cut, as did many Democrats. Bush, you see, reached across the aisle to get things done, just as he did on his education bill, which was practically written by Ted Kennedy. Some Democrats also supported Bush's energy policies, including ANWR.

Be that as it may, here is an AP account of Bush's campaign promises, posted just before the election. You will find that his opposition to Kyoto, his support for oil drilling in ANWR, his tax cuts, etc. are all mentioned. Perhaps Jeffords was denied access to the AP by the E-vil Republicans.



Bush Campaign Promises, according to AP

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

None of us really know why Jeffords made his decision, but from what I read at the time, I did not get the impression this was a man out to either get publicity for himself or gain a committee chairmanship. It is possible he was disenchanted with the Repubs before the 2000 election, but stayed precisely because of loyalty. Who knows what finally prompted him to switch.

From what I remember, the reason James Jeffords left the Republican Party was because he voted several times against the party shortly after the 2000 election, including at least one crucial vote. Shortly after, Bush and other Republicans retaliated politically against him. For example, there was some publicity thing in Vermont that included Bush and some Vermont politicians, but Jeffords was deliberately not included. Shortly after this, he became an Independent.

As for Richard Shelby, he had been siding with the Republicans for a while before he switched parties. After a crucial vote, Clinton somehow diverted funds earmarked for Alabama elsewhere (this doesn't seem possible, but that's what I remember). Clinton thought it necessary to apologize to Alabama's other senator, Howell Heflin for this diversion of funds. Although this may not have been the reason, Shelby became a Republican shortly afterwards.

I don't recall there being any infantile political games associated with Ben Nighthorse Campbell's switch to the Republican Party.

Sorry, no links, nor references. This is just what I remember.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

From what I remember, what finally moved Jeffords to quit the party was when Bush/Rove disinvited him from a ceremony honoring Vermont's "Teacher of the Year", though I think this was just the final straw. The underlying reasons were certainly ideological, in that he figured that the party had moved unacceptably to the right & that since the Shrub took the presidency, there was no longer a place in the party for moderates like himself.
Shelby's reasons were ideological also, though the timing in his case smacks more of opportunism than Jeffords. Jeffords already had a committee chair: quitting the Republican Party didn't gain him anything in particilar (except the admiration of conscientious Americans!). The Democrats only encouraged him by making a deal that would allow him to keep his chair as an Independent while the Democrats held the majority. Whereas Shelby switched parties right after the 1994 elections, when it became clear that the Republicans would have the majority in the new Congress. Ironically, in 1993 Clinton pulled a stunt on Shelby similar to what Bush/Rove pulled on Jeffords: after Shelby publicly criticized Clinton's budget proposal, Clinton disinvited him from a White House ceremony honoring the Alabama football team's 1992 national championship.

Nighthorse Campbell is more of a turncoat than Jeffords. There had been strife within the Colorado Democratic Party at the time that Campbell switched. For me, a principled man does not get a 90% rating from the Americans for Democratic Action to nearly zero the next when he becomes a Republican. Campbell was one of the most liberal members of the Senate when he was elected senator and when he switched he all of a sudden became much more conservative.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
You mean, kind of like Nighthorse Campbell & Richard Shelby? I guess the difference is that these two in switching parties found god's truth, while Jeffords in switching became an apostate.

---

I'm not familiar with these two - but if they ran as one party & switched mid-cycle then my previous opinion goes for them too. If I buy a can labeled Chicken Noodle soup at the store, I'm gonna be pissed off when I get home & find out its Split Pea!

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by copman:
I'm not familiar with these two - but if they ran as one party & switched mid-cycle then my previous opinion goes for them too. If I buy a can labeled Chicken Noodle soup at the store, I'm gonna be pissed off when I get home & find out its Split Pea!

---

To the best of my recollection, the only truly principled party-switcher of the recent era was -- of all people -- Phil Gramm. He was elected to Congress as a conservative Democrat, sponsored the Reagan budget and tax cuts, and decided to switch parties. So, in 1983, he resigned his seat and ran for re-election in a special election (winning in a huge landslide). He then ran for the Senate in 1984 and won more narrowly. (Texas had the two-party system back then.)

No one else has had the guts Phil Gramm did, although I suspect that Jeffords (and Shelby back in 1994) would have won by landslides had they run after their party switches.

Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell is a different issue entirely. Colorado has rather polarized politics. The Dems there are hard left and the R's tend to be hard right. Neither party puts up many moderates. Campbell was too conservative for Colorado Dems and has been too liberal for the R's. Being the rare Colorado moderate, he would be at risk in a primary in either party.

ump, your well reasoned and articulated summation of james jeffords, a man you've never met, i presume, was as breathtaking in its eloquence as it was devoid in its merits. now don't get your panties in bunch just because it turns out not all ducks can fly.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: thersis ]

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: thersis ]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

There's no need to meet someone to render a bad judgement about him. I've never met Elmo, but from what I've heard he's pure evil. If meeting Jeffords is a requisite for criticizing him, I think the same standard should hold for praising him as well.

Edited to remove Hitler reference

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
... Hitler....

---

Godwin's Law invoked. Thread over.

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/ent...dwin's-Law.html

>>
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
<<

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


Godwin's Law invoked. Thread over.

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/ent...dwin's-Law.html

>>
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
<<

---

I didn't compare anyone to Hitler. I just used him as an example. I reserve Hitler comparisons for truly horrible people, such as Al Gore. I edited my post, if that helps.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


Godwin's Law invoked. Thread over.

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/ent...dwin's-Law.html

>>
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
<<

---

You lefties and your centralized, bureaucratic regulations are ruining our society.