The First GOP to Dem Party Switch of the 110th Congress?

Following changes in control over a chamber of Congress, it is not uncommon to see a member or many members of the newly-minted minority leaving their party in favor of the new majority caucus. Following the 1994 midterms, for instance, a number of once Democratic Representatives and Senators (Louisiana Rep. Billy Tauzin and Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby are two large names that come to mind) defected from their party. Although there has yet to be a Senator or Congressman who switched his partisan allegiance from the GOP to the Democratic Party since the 2006 midterms, the possibility remains that one or more still will. Writing in the Thursday edition of The Hill, Jackie Kucinich takes a look at the entreaties offered to one GOP Rep. by the Democrats.

[North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter] Jones's position on Iraq has drawn Democrats to him in recent years, and particularly in the last two months, since he was denied a subcommittee chairmanship on the Armed Services Committee.

While declining to identify which of "several" Democrats have approached him about switching parties, Jones said, as he has many times before, that he plans to stick with the GOP for now.

"Obviously there were some Democrats when I was not given the ranking member status of Armed Services [who wanted] to chat with me," he said, noting that Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) has said publicly that his party would support a swap.

"I [would] welcome him in the Democratic Caucus," Taylor told CongressDaily in January.

"You know it's my political nature to be ... I'm guided by my faith. Quite frankly, I'm strong pro-life," Jones said to explain his allegiance, noting that he didn't believe the Democratic leadership was in line with him on such social issues. "I just take each day as it comes; I certainly think about where I will be a year or two, three years from now, but that's God's plan, not mine ... I think at the present time, because of the pro- life issue primarily, I am where I need to be.

"But I am an independent. There are issues I vote with my party on; there are issues I don't," he said.

Jones is no stranger to the Democratic Party. His father, Walter B. Jones Sr. represented a similar portion of North Carolina for more than 25 years -- as a Democrat -- and when the younger Jones ran to succeed his father in 1992 he did so, unsuccessfully, as a Democrat. Two years later, Jones ran as a Republican and won, and has since maintained that same party allegiance in the House.

But at the same time, Jones is not the most partisan member of his caucus -- not by a long shot. While Jones' standing as one of the leading proponents of bringing an end to the Iraq War from either party has set him apart from most of his fellow Republicans, on a whole range of other issues he voted more like a centrist/conservative Southern Democrat than a traditional Republican. According to 2006 vote rankings from National Journal, Jones tended to vote more liberally than 53.5 percent of his colleagues in the House across all issues (57 percent on economic and foreign policy, 45 percent on social policy), ranking him more liberal than 10 Democrats and all but two Republicans. Similarly, CQ found that on party line votes during over the course of 2006 Jones was the third most likely Republican and eighth most likely member of the House to defect from his party's caucus, doing so about 36 percent of the time.

Now there is certainly credence to the notion that the political cover given to a political party by having a member of the opposing member on its side, thus giving it "bipartisan support", is more beneficial than the addition of one more member, particularly when that party's majority in a chamber is not so small as to be affected by a party switch in the other direction or a sudden retirement. That said, in this particular case House Democrats would well served by adding Jones to their ranks. The district Jones represents, North Carolina's third, leans about 15 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in presidential elections, according to the Cook Political Report's PVI, and as such is not likely to swing Democratic any time soon in the absence of a party switch by Jones. What's more, Jones is established enough in his district that he would likely be able to hold on to his seat even if challenged by the Republicans following a party switch.

It is worth reiterating that Jones not in line with the Democratic Party on every issue, most notably the issue of choice, and that, what's more, he would be one of the more conservative members of the party caucus in the House. That said, if you want to let Jones know that you would like to see him join the Democratic Party -- particularly if you are a constituent of his, but even if you're not -- send him an email through this form or give him a call (his official number is available here, his campaign number here).



Display:


Re: The First Party Switch of the 110th Congress? (none / 0)

Yeah, there is one who would switch.  Leiberman to republican


by vwcat on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:13:48 AM EST

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch? (3.00 / 1)

He'd be welcome.  Its always nice to have one more.  And you know what?  His voting would probably change for the better, somewhat.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:25:39 AM EST

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch of the 110th (none / 0)

Since his father was a Democrat for so many years and since the congressman has seen how the GOP reacts to dissent I would hope he would seriously consider switching to the Democratic Party.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:28:58 AM EST

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch of the 110th (none / 0)

It's rather frustrating that no one has switched so far.  I remember after 1994, people couldn't WAIT to switch!  But, for us, no one wants to move...

Thanks,

Mike


by lordmikethegreat on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:43:29 AM EST

Oh how the times have changed (none / 0)

This was the guy, after all, who came up with the notion of "freedom fries".


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:30:27 AM EST

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch of the 110th (none / 0)

Does it matter for us if he switches parties? He'll vote the same and we have the majority either way-- and he's not protecting the majority if he's just as likely to bolt if we lose the house. I don't see the point.


by AaronE on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:56:36 AM EST

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch of the 110th (none / 0)

I would note one thing that I didn't mention in the post above: Party switches by politicians, particularly ones popular among their constituents, can foster party changes by their supporters. The South did not become Republican from the 1960s on solely because of shifts in policies by Republican politicians in the region, it shifted, at least in part, because some of the leading Democratic politicians like Strom Thurmond, John Connally and others changed their partisan allegiances from the Democratic Party to the GOP.

Today we are already seeing the fruits of party switches towards the Democrats, most notably in Kansas, and future party switches by Republican members of Congress in other states could hasten a move of voters from the GOP to the Democratic Party.


Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.
by Jonathan Singer on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch of the 110th (none / 0)

I agree. Party swtichers in the South could start an important trend. In the South we need to reach the conservative and moderate voters who in the past voted for Carter and Clinton
(and then Reagan and Bush). At this point in time the war is as unpopular in the South as it is in the rest of the nation. If we could get anti-war voices in the GOP to switch we have some swing back toward the Democrats.  
BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jones (CFL-NC) (3.00 / 1)

Walter Jones can stay where he is.

We've got enough theocrats already, thanks.  Are there any nice secularist Republicans who want to make the jump?  You know, ones who weren't all gung ho about the war while hating abortionist doctors, activist judges, and homosexual agendas?

Jones would serve best by joining the Connecticut for Lieberman party.

We need to primary this asshat in '08.


by Screwy Hoolie on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:37:13 AM EST

Also... (none / 0)

On another note, they're talking about this at BlueNC.


by Screwy Hoolie on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:39:05 AM EST

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch (none / 0)

I would think that Castle, Shays, and Gerlach in the House and Specter and Snowe in the Senate would be more likely and more reliable Democrats than Jones would be, but maybe not.  Plus, considering those five represent blue districts/states, they may think they have more of a chance being elected in a general election than in a Democratic primary against a more liberal candidate.


Follow the 2010 election cycle in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
by TheUnknown285 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:21:14 AM EST

this could be big (none / 0)

First of all the fact that this story is being made public to me shows that a trail balloon is being floated.  Also I wonder if Jones, who the GOP establishment has twice passed over for a U.S. Senate run is think about runnig as a Democrat in 2008.


by THE MODERATE on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:52:15 PM EST

Re: The First GOP to Dem Party Switch (none / 0)

Forgive me if I'm confused, but hasn't there been several diaries about the Blue Dogs Democrats and how they seem to be able to repress the Progressive voice in the Congress?  Wouldn't this guy fall into that category.  I know we are a big tent, but do we  just want to increase our numbers to increase it or are we looking to refocus the direction of the Democratic Party?  If we are going to actively recruit more Blue Dogs, then why are we picking on any of the Blue Dogs?


by Kingstongirl on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:56:58 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.