Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, Zack Matheny and Robbie Perkins

Last week, I began a discussion on the topic of encouraging both Robbie Perkins and Zack Matheny to change their party affiliation, and find their rightful home in the Democratic Party.

Both Matheny and Perkins are liberal Republicans in the tradition of Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.  Some readers might not remember Jeffords.

During the early days of the GWBush administration, the Repubicans had a one-vote majority in the United States Senate.  But it was a tenuous majority because of folks like Jeffords.

When Jeffords was squeezed a bit too much by the Republican leadership, he became an independent and caucused with the Democrats.  The Republicans lost their majority status in the Senate.  He was thus aptly named Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.

We currently have a Republican majority on the Greensboro City Council, but not a conservative majority.  Our Republican majority is nominal only, in large part because Perkins and Matheny tend to "caucus" with the Democrats-- both on the council and in the wider community.  This gains them the approval of the News and Record editorial page, but alienates local conservatives who think they should know better.

I have thought about what small steps we should be taking to motivate both Matheny and Perkins to switch parties.  Should we do an online poll on the question?  Should we initiate an online petition?

Perhaps another avenue is to get with the county Republican Party leadership.  The leaders of the local party have a serious problem with respect to Perkins and Matheny.  Deep down, they surely know these two men are not truly Republicans, and in fact tend to undermine the possibility of Republican policy outcomes.

Over the years, as I watched my cousin lead the Republican Party back in New York, I observed instances when decisions had to be made about party officials and candidates who were in it for their own benefit, who were less than moral, and who were working against good policy.  These types of folks present enormous challenges for party leaders.  But ultimately, the party itself is undermined if people such as these are countenanced.  I watched my cousin gradually eliminate these kinds of folks, and the party was strengthened.

I am not sure how we arrive at a solution for the problem that both Perkins and Matheny pose.  Ultimately, the answer is to defeat them at the ballot box.  But until then, I only have one message for these two men.

Go ahead.  Be our guest.

Make our day.

Jump.

 

Comments

[Roch101]

I say we take Perkins and Matheny and throw them in a lake. If they sink, they are real Republican and can stay in the party (posthumously).

But seriously, with 29% of Guilford County voters currently registered as Republican I think your plan to narrow the scope of who is an allowable Republican's is brilliant. You'll be like these folks in no time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

[Joseph Guarino]

Roch, this is not about narrowing the scope of who is an allowable Republican. It is about differentiating between who is a Republican and who is a Democrat.

While I understand that both Perkins and Matheny adopt views and approaches with which you might agree a significant portion of the time, that certainly does not make them Republican. And the question is whether being a Republican means anything at all. I feel you should have to harbor a certain critical mass of Republican views before you can be described as Republican.

And contrary to all the hand-wringing that took place at that time, the Republican Party was not ultimately hurt when Jeffords jumped. The party is hurt most when its elected officials don't act like Republicans, because it despirits the base and weakens the sense of mission that party workers and donors should have.

[Roch101]

"I feel you should have to harbor a certain critical mass of Republican views before you can be described as Republican."

Right. And I'm just noticing that with people like Matheny and Perkins included, Republican registration in Guilford County is at 29%. By all means, work to chisel that down if you think there is some benefit.

[Joseph Guarino]

Perhaps, Roch, part of the reason the number is 29% is because being a Republican locally has historically not necessarily meant a whole lot. Who wants to belong to a club that is perceived to be lacking in principle?

I think the percentage would expand if we had better elected officials, not worse.

[jaycee]

Like to know where Roch got that percentage.
As I recall, last presidential election the vote was split pretty much 50/50.
Registration means nothing, it's votes that count.

[Jodi Riddleberger]

Love this post, Joe...

I would be very interested to know if and when GOP leadership would be willing to hold local "R" officials to the party's conservative values.

I would also be willing to sign your petition... as well as help circulate it.

[triadwatch]

remember that tony wilkins called out robbie awhile back on the aquatic center here is the link.

http://yesweeklyblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/tony-wilkins-and-greensboro-aquatic.html

[Joe Guarino]

Jaycee, I think the percentage allows for a greater number of Democrats, and also a significant number of independents.

Thanks, Jodi.:) We will need to figure out what to do about this abject situation.

Thanks, Keith. The party can't force these two men to change their voter registration status as Republicans. But the party can disavow, disown and repudiate them. And, in fact, it should.

[michele]

No one has commented on the best part of this post -- you posted a Van Halen video -- that actually says "Music Mastahh." Go, Joe. ;)

[Joe Guarino]

Needless to say, Michele, it doesn't happen every day.

For the life of me, I don't know how I knew about that tune. Must have heard it once or twice before.:)

[Spag]

Roch claims he is an "independent moderate". Now that really is laughable. There is nothing "moderate" about Roch at all. In fact, he comes across as farther to the Left than most of the other local liberals who inhabit the blogs and that is no easy feat.

His comments here reveal that while he may not be anti-Democrat (not liberal enough for him), he is certainly anti-Republican.

[Roch101]

Sam, your vapid rhetoric is tiresome. I offer specifics of my support for specific Republicans, issues I share with conservatives and my ability to cooperate across the political spectrum and you "disprove" it by saying, "nuh-uh."

It's really idiotic, to just stamp your feet and demand that you know better. But good for you for showing us what you count as thoughtful discourse. It's impressive.

[Did he really say that?]

"my ability to cooperate across the political spectrum"
...as demonstrated by his legions of supporters and admirers on both sides I would imagine.

[Spag]

Ah, good ol' "tiresome". Borrowed straight from the 'Cone Book Of Words You Can Use To Describe Your Opponent When Your Bxxxxxxt Is Exposed'.

Exactly what conservative issues/candidates do you support, Roch?