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