Asymmetrical Information

There is nothing in the universe, absolutely nothing in the universe(null,zip,zero,nada, etc.,etc.,), in all it's infinite vastness, more useless than a United States Senator who has held office for more than two terms. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, I'd rather be governed by 100 used car salesmen selected at random from the Yellow Pages.

I think he should have resigned upon switching, especially since it was so soon after his election. That smells of fraud to the voters, IMO. He could have asked the governor to reappoint him, and all would be the same, but he should have made the overt act.

I point you to Phil Graham, who switched from the Democrats to the Republicans long ago. When doing so, he resigned his seat in the House and ran again.

Jane - The reasons Republicans were outraged at Jeffords defection is because it came so soon after an election in which Jeffords had accepted support from the national party. As you noted, he had extracted concessions for Vermont. All of these things were done with the understanding that he would be, at least nominally, a team player. (Not that he would vote with the party on every issue, but that he would vote with the part to elect the leadership and other "important" matters.) Instead, Jumpin' Jim was so "shocked" that Bush actually planned to make good on his campaign promises that he was "forced" to leave the party. Jim's problem was not that he had too much integrity. As the old saying goes, an honest politician is one that once he's bought he stays bought.

I saw JJ on C-SPAN during 'Jeffordsmania' at a town hall at Washington's 'Politics & Prose' bookstore.. a very friendly inside-the-Beltway bunch..

and... well, let's just say he didn't seem too bright.

By switching, Jeffords became a footnote in history, as opposed to what he would have been otherwise, which is nothing. Maybe for him, it was worth it.

"...like one of those frogs that boys inflate with straws before putting them in the road to watch them explode when a truck crushes them."

You had an... interesting childhood.

I point you to Phil Graham, who switched from the Democrats to the Republicans long ago. When doing so, he resigned his seat in the House and ran again.

Phil Gramm is an exception among very many party switchers over the past twenty years for having done that. Running in a special election as an incumbent with a big bankroll isn't the biggest challenge in the world, although it counts for something. I don't fault him either way. His switch clearly reflected the will of the conservative voters of his district, so it's not like he burned his supporters the way many switchers do.

I think we can all agree that what Rodney Alexander of Louisiana did last year sets the example for the most comtemptuous behavior of an elected official. He waited until the very last hour of the filing deadline to file for re-election as a member of a different party, thereby denying his party a chance to nominate a viable opponent to the seat which they thought they held up until that moment. He'd even denied party-switching rumors for months beforehand.

Other party switchers: Virgil Goode of Virginia, Richard Shelby of Alabama, the recently retired Billy Tauzin of Louisiana and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.

The main reason for the Gop outrage was that finally, a high profile switch hurt them. For years that had been practically bribing Democrats to switch the the GOP was plum seats on committees. Was there any GOP outrage after Dick Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched after accepting help from the state and national democratic parties

As for Phil Gramm, you can point me to him, but I can point you to people like Rodney Alexander (D/R/ LA) who was elected as a Democrat, told everyone he wasn't switching despite many published reports to the contrary, filed to run as a Democrat and then did switch, on the last possible day to file candidate papers. By doing this he froze out any democrat who was considering challenging him due to his rumoured switch.

If it's Vermont voters you are talking about, could their outrage be because, when they voted for a Republican, they thought they were getting a man whose positions would be different from the DNC? (Of course, I doubt that anyone could have expected that without ignoring more than half of Jefford's record. But how would either major party survive without gullible voters?.)

Listen, I think Vermont voters have a perfect right to be outraged. It's voters from, say, Maryland who had no right to a Republican senator from Vermont, but seemed to think they did. Although I see David Walser's point, I still think the people who have a right to be outraged would be contributors who funded his campaign.

I still think the people who have a right to be outraged would be contributors who funded his campaign.

Jeffords agreed to return any contributions to people who were upset with his party-switch. I did a G00gle search just now and it looks like people took advantage of that option.

On a theoretical level, cash refunds by an incumbent senator are worth somewhat less than that cash was worth during the campaign when it may have made the difference between winning and losing. Once someone has won, the wallets of lobbyists are open to them and these debts are easily repaid. But on a practical level, Jeffords' reelection in 2000 was never considered to be in doubt, not for a moment.

Rodney Alexander, meanwhile, won his election by the slimmest of margins. A lot of local volunteers worked their asses off to get him into Congress.

A petty turncoat and world-class mediocrity who lost his remaining political allies when the Democrats lost the Senate and Jumping Jim was no longer useful to them. He will quickly be forgotten by history, and deservedly so.

Good riddance to this unprincipled and dishonest man.

"Listen, I think Vermont voters have a perfect right to be outraged. It's voters from, say, Maryland who had no right to a Republican senator from Vermont, but seemed to think they did."

There's a large swath of the population that don't seem to recognize that Senators are supposed to represent their home states.

I remember a radio call-in show where someone was griping about Bob Dole, saying "He's not supposed to just represent Republicans; he's supposed to represent all Americans." I thought, no, he's supposed to represent Kansans.

Representatives represent their home states, senators are supposed to look out for the whole country (or at the least, the governments of the home states). Different houses, different jobs.

Where does Jane Galt get off backing the milk
cartel? My state got dragooned into this
anti-consumer conspiracy by Democrats who made
it their reward to Jeffords. Now we pay
considerably more for milk. Thanks, Jim; way
to go, Jane!

Jeffords agreed to return any contributions to people who were upset with his party-switch.

That's not really terribly helpful.

It isn't just that they gave him money; it's that they didn't have that money available during the election, when they could have backed one of Jeffords' opponents.

It's like if I give you money to buy me tickets on a cruise ship, and you not only fail to buy them, but don't even return the money under the ship has left port.

It isn't just that they gave him money; it's that they didn't have that money available during the election, when they could have backed one of Jeffords' opponents.

That's a correct point in theory. In practice, Jeffords was and is widely popular among Vermonters and would not have been defeated by a conservative opponent if he'd divorced his wife and civil union'd Bernie Sanders on his way to change his registration. The value of a dollar given to Jim Jeffords before the election is pretty close to its value after the election.

It's like the Richard Shelby situation. Yes, if Democrats elsewhere in the country had known he was going to switch parties, they could have backed a liberal Democrat to run against the incumbent Senator in Alabama in the primary and then go on to win the general. The world may never know what might have happened if they'd had the chance...

ron said:

Representatives represent their home states, senators are supposed to look out for the whole country (or at the least, the governments of the home states). Different houses, different jobs.

Close. Representatives represent their home districts. Senators are supposed to represent their home states. Originally they were supposed to jealously guard against encroachments into the states' rights by the federal govt. (or as ron says, they represented "the governments of the home states"), but that's been pretty much a dead letter since the 17 Amendment took effect.

Just out of curiosity, where does the "look out for the whole country" come from? It seems to be a fairly common opinion. Is this something they're teaching in school, now? Is it a liberal talking point I've not heard?

Mycin

An important point to remember about Jeffords was that he had a nice committee membership which he was about to lose, thanks to term limits imposed within the Republican caucus.

Once he was no longer a Republican, this ceased to be a problem. It's nice that it just happened to coincide with his sudden impulse of principle, isn't it?

Anonymous coward, I think you've misunderstood me; I'm *happy* that Jefford's switch cost him votes on milk price supports. Although, clearly, not enough.

An important point to remember about Jeffords was that he had a nice committee membership which he was about to lose, thanks to term limits imposed within the Republican caucus.

Senators who have lost one committee chairmanship to term limits have been given another chairmanship of a different committee.

I know people really dislike Jeffords for what he did and how he did it, and I'm sure I'd feel the same way if a Democrat ever switched parties to join the Republicans and was rewarded in some way (not that this ever happens), but it seems contrived to me to cast Jeffords' move as extraordinarily cynical and motivated by greed. He had strong disagreements with Bush on major policies and had consequently been snubbed for a ceremony honoring one of his signature issues, education. He had always sought full federal funding of special ed and was at odds with his own party on that, as well as other issues. His switch made sense on a philosophical level. I understand why people disregard those issues to look for a smoking gun in the form of a gavel or a suitcase full of cash, but Occam's razor still applies.

While, we are it, let's bury the notion that Phil Gramm did the honorable thing by resigning and calling for a special election. There was simply no possible way for him to lose, since, although he may not have technically been the incumbent, for all intents and purposes he was, since his resignation was followed very quickly by the special election, giving him the benefit of name recognition and free mailing and staff aides doing constituent work for him to curry favor with voters during the election year. Gramm resigned on 1/5/83 and the special election was held on 2/12/83. It was impossible for a challenger to mount a successful campaign against him in such a short time, since Gramm had just been reelected a few months earlier. All he was looking for with the special election was some holier than thou reason as to why he did't cheat the voters.

The reason the "outrage" over Jeffords was/is greater than for other party switchers is that Jeffords's switch changed control of the Senate from one party to the other. The consequence was much greater than when Campbell or Shelby switched (the other way). The greater stakes involved were reflected in the reward offered. Jeffords got a chairmanship, something a new party member would not normally see.

Where is it, that because of Phil Gramm's popularity, he loses any credit for doing the right thing when he switched parties? I don't see it. Regardless of the circumstances, Gramm did the right thing, which I would prefer any Congressmember to do when switching parties.

US Republicans didn't think they had a "right" to Jeffords the Republican. They were mad at him because they saw it exactly as what it was, a low-down, petty trick designed to create for himself a unique position as power-broker in the Senate.

The fact that in the end it wouldn't work was obvious to anyone with foresight.

The right thing, IMHO is not to switch parties. I think its wrong to do it after having won an election, whether done by a Republican, Democrat or Independent. I think that when you run with a party's endorsement, you are essentially making a statement that you will serve a full term as a representative of that party. What Gramm did was essentially agree to a show election to give a false blessing to his actions. The special election was a joke. It was called roughty a month after he switched. That doesn't leave any time to recruit a credible opposition candidate, hire a campaign staff, raise enough $$$. How anyone can think it was honorable is beyond me.
Most of the same complaints about misleading voters, donors, party leaders, seeking favoritism, can be raised against those who switched to the GOP, but conservatives never seem to make them.

I've always suspected that Jeffords defected only because of the notoriety it earned him by switching control of the Senate. Had it been less consequential, he probably would have preferred to remain a Republican thorn under W's saddle.

Do tell us more about the frogs, Jane.

"Listen, I think Vermont voters have a perfect right to be outraged. It's voters from, say, Maryland who had no right to a Republican senator from Vermont, but seemed to think they did."

Come on, we Marylander's need to be represented by somebody - our Senators are too busy being toadies for the ACLU and People for the American Way to actually care about representing the State of Maryland...

Perhaps part of the reason people see nefarious motives in Jeffords' switch is because they are pretty obviously there.

Jeffords stayed in the Republican camp all through the Reagan years, through the leadership of Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan's convention speech. Then all of a sudden, the conservatism of Bush (milder by far than Reagan) pushes him beyond the brink, and it's just a coincidence that his switch just happened to occur at a time when it conferred the maximum political benefit to himself?

You can rattle off the names of Democrats who switched under similar circumstances, and it's a fair point. But none of those newly-minted Republicans was ever pictured in a silly pseudo-heroic pose on the cover of a national magazine, in which the "principle" of their action was breathlessly extolled.

What bothers me most about Sen. Jeffords is not so much his switch or the motives he had. It's the fact that he made a pretty base political calculation, and been rewarded for it with media coverage that would embarrass Mother Teresa.

What bothers me most about Sen. Jeffords is not so much his switch or the motives he had. It's the fact that he made a pretty base political calculation, and been rewarded for it with media coverage that would embarrass Mother Teresa.

Is this a reason to be mad at Jeffords or the media, though? Of course Jeffords got more (and better) press for his switch. None of the others upset a delicate balance of power in one of the legislative chambers in Congress. I am sure Jeffords motives weren't 100% pure, no one's are. But he also wasn't any worse than Billy Tauzin, Phil Gramm, Buddy Roemer, Virgil Goode, Rodney Alexander et al.

(milder by far than Reagan)

That's the crux of the dispute. I think the political situation in the country is very different and the shift from Reagan to Bush went in a direction away from where Jeffords was standing. Note that Vermont happily voted for Reagan, but turned heavily against George W. Bush in 2000 and even moreso in 2004. It's not a stretch to say that Vermont didn't leave the Republican Party--the Republican Party left Vermont. It's been a good trade-off for the Republicans, but it's a trade-off nonetheless.

As a second point, 2001 was Jeffords' first experience in Washington as a member of a majority caucus with a President of the same party. It's easier to be out-of-step with your party when you have someone in a position of power from the other party to work with. But with Bush-Cheney in power and Republicans running the Senate by a margin of 1, Jeffords was suddenly called on to carry water on many issues he disagreed with in the interest of party unity. He regularly avoided disputes or took the Democrats' side in the past. As a Republican senator in 2001, this was no longer possible, and the expectation of his cooperation was communicated by the White House when they snubbed him at a ceremony honoring a Teache rof the Year from Vermont.

Anyway, lest this be a total disagreement, I agree that Jeffords was no shining intellectual light in the Senate and that his treatment in the media was much more flattering and omnipresent than anything the Democratic switchers have gotten, which understandably annoys people he was leaving.

Switching parties without resigning the office and submitting oneself to a new election is fraud.

Any politician who does this is announcing publicly he cannot be trusted. An electorate that accepts such will roll over for any tyrant.

Willie B. Good says about the Phil Gramm situation: "What Gramm did was essentially agree to a show election to give a false blessing to his actions. The special election was a joke. It was called roughty a month after he switched. That doesn't leave any time to recruit a credible opposition candidate, hire a campaign staff, raise enough $$$."

That wasn't precisely the case. Gramm had faced a challenger in the 1982 Democratic primary. Said candidate would have been able to run again in the 1983 special election. I don't recall if the same guy ran in the special, but there would have remained some campaign infrastructure -- if nothing else, a donor list.

Simon,
A lot depends on how good of a primary challenger this person was. Far more often that not, primary challengers to incumbent congressmen are political lightweights with very little in the way fundraising and staff help. If Gramm's 82 democratic primary challenger was of this type, then it didn't matter if he could have run, or did run in the special election. Again, 30 days is just about an impossible amount of time to get a congressional campaign together, unless you are a very important figure in local politics. The fact that whoever this person was didn't beat Gramm in the primary strongly suggests that he or she was not an impressive figure. As for staff remaining, this is highly unlikely, even on really competitive races, the staff of losing candidates tends to disappear very quickly, often starting on election day itself. People in that business tend to move on to other campaigns, work for the state or national party, join a consulting firm, etc. when its clear their candidate has lost. And again, 30 days or so just isn't enough time for anyone but the most impressive figures to get a credible campaign off the ground. Look at it this way, serious candidates who are thinking about running in 2006 are already starting to fundraise NOW. Granted money has become more important in the past twenty years.

Comments are Closed.