Opinion on Jeffords switch

[toddler]

Living here in Vermont, Senator Jefford's switch to become an independent has received a lot of attention. I'm curious if it's getting significant air time elsewhere, and what your opinion of it is.
While I was initially against his move, having heard his motivation and how the GOP treated him, I now can't blame him.
I'm also laughing at how much of a power shift one senator from a podunk little state like Vermont has caused, just by becoming what his voting record has always shown him to be. I think my wallet may not appreciate this, while my children will.
What do you guys think?
Todd

 

[Knight9]

<font color=blue>I'm curious if it's getting significant air time elsewhere</font color=blue>

Well, it's getting air time here (Alberta)...so it would appear to be of significance!! Does seem odd that the move of one Senator can sway the balance of power so much. But when the split is 50-50 and all of a sudden it becomes 49-50-1...guess there will be two parties trying to get his vote now!!

Kevin

 

[hess]

John Adams believed that:
When it comes to the people, act liberally, be human.
When it comes to the peoples money act conservatively.
(I paraphrased)

Most Americans believe in these fundamental principles, and are therefore considered "middle of the road" moderates - regardless of their political party.
Sadly, many politicians, either with strong liberal or strong conservative viewpoints, run their campaign on a more moderate platform, making promises that they never intend to keep.
I think we are seeing this happen with President Bush and his administration.
Personally, I do not prefer Republican to Democrat, but rather ideologies that resemble my own, so I am not instigating a political war of the parties.
Jeffords appears to be a man of deep conviction, who happens to be unhappy with the current leadership of the Republican party. His choice must be applauded for what it represents - standing up for your beliefs, even if your are outnumbered.
Besides, Bush should have known better than to play hardball with "one of his own" when:
1) the Senate was split 50/50
2) he does not hold a clear consensus
3) he claims to be a uniter, not a divider
I for one, feel relieved that some of his power has been diminished.
hess

 

[skent]

Do you think its a ploy to gain national (worldwide) attention? Just because he was republican, He could have sided with the Demos anytime he wanted to and it would have drawn little attention. The republican tax cut bill passed the senate with 10 or 12 Demos voting FOR. A Rep to Ind switch would have made no difference. There are almost always repubs voting with demos and vice versa. (Maybe he just wanted to be on Meet The Press?)

Steve

 

[M. Sullivan]

Basically irrelevent overall. As a conservative Libertarian leaning type, about all I can say is so-long. His views are pretty far left. Feel his personal conviction spew was typical politico egomania--they're all crooks; had to be to get there. Got the biggest laugh from McPain whining about being nice and inclusive. Wish he'd jump next.

Grid-lock is good!!

 

[Boondox]

Jeffords is a man of deep convictions, hailing from a state where that is still respected. He's done well for us. And remember from your history that in 1791 Vermont was dragged kicking and screaming into the union...we've been stubbornly independent thinkers ever since.

Pete in Vermont

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[toddler]

Good for him or who cares so far.
Kevin, I don't think this is significant because anyone thinks it will change the way he votes. From what little I understand, putting democrats in the majority gains them power to choose committee heads. Orin Hatch for example is going to loose his (?)gavel, as well as some others. Trent Lott's name was mentioned a lot, so apparently this will affect him too, but I was distracted during that part of the news. If anyone can explain this power shift to me better (you reading this Glennmac), I'd appreciate it.
Todd

 

[hess]

The Democratic party now has the power to appoint senators to act as Chairpersons for the various Senate committee's (and, of course they will choose mostly Democrats, but will also include Independent Jeffords).
Republicans will continue to serve on these committee's, but it is the Chairperson who has the power to set the agenda. Therefore, by losing control of such a powerful position, senators like Lott, Hatch, et. al. will not be able to push the President's environmental package, educational package, missile defense plan, etc.
Instead, the Democratic leaders will have the ability to introduce their proposals, with the confidence that they have the votes to get them passed.
President Bush must now work with a Senate that suddenly opposes (at least by 1 vote) his conservative ideology.
It remains to be seen if he is really such a "uniter."

 

[Boondox]

And aren't the Dems in charge of the Judiciary Committee now as well...and doesn't that give them leverage over Bush's judicial appointments?

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[cowboydoc]

I personally think it was very wrong of him and not because of the democrats gaining control of the senate but because he hurt so many other people in the process. Men and women who worked their whole lives to chair committees, etc. were hurt in his actions. He didn't have to leave the republican party, he could have still voted his own way. If it wouldn't have hurt others I say fine but what he did to the rest of them is not right, democrat or republican.