In my last post, I mentioned how Senate control went to the Democrats right after Senator Jeffords switched political parties. It really amazes me that the Democrats were allowed to jump on the committee chairmanships so quickly, after all Jeffords was elected as a Republican, so in a sense, the Senate Democrats were wresting control of the committees in a coup. In addition to voting for the man, the voters may also have been voting for the Republican party he represented. Here in New Jersey, I met lots of people who agreed with me and thought the Lautenberg deal was a dirty cheap shot, but who voted for him anyway, just because they didn't want the Senate to fall into Republican hands. Now, lets imagine that the election actually ended in a 51-49 split in favor of the Democrats, and Senator Lautenberg switched parties to the Republican side. Would he be serving the interests of New Jersey voters? Of course not - because there is clear evidence they voted for him only because he represented the Democratic party.
Phil Gramm, the retiring Senator from Texas, switched parties back in the 80s (I lived in Dallas then and I remember this). Rather than just put a "D" after his name, he had the grace to resign from office altogether. There was a special election where he ran as a Republican and the voters reelected him as a Republican. That was an honorable thing to do -- put your job on the line for your convictions. The people of Texas clearly chose the man over the party there, and Phil Gramm served with honor.
My opinion is that the behaviour exhibited by Phil Gramm is the only way to justify a complete turnover of party control in the Senate. The actions of Jim Jeffords were dishonorable. He may have been true to his own convictions, but he spit in the eye of every voter of Vermont who voted for him as a Republican, expecting him to serve the party.
Posted by joelfuhrmann at November 9, 2002 05:03 PM