As a Pennsylvania state legislative leader, I have suffered a demotion from Majority Whip to Minority Caucus Chairman for the past twelve years because several Democrats switched to the Republican Party in 1993 and 1994 and turned the Pennsylvania House over to the Republicans. Two of those converts were then defeated by Democratic nominees, but two others were not, and having the majority helped the Pennsylvania Republicans gain other seats.

So I read the story of Jeffords' abandonment of the party that elected him, and his turning control of the U.S. Senate over to the Democrats, with a sense of having seen this before. Policy differences lead to personal confrontations and personal slights which, in turn, raise new questions about partisan commitments. The chance to play a starring role in the new party seems preferable to being an outcast in the old party. The change is made, and old alliances and friendships are sundered, while new ones are made.

Running for re-election after a party switch can be tricky, but Jeffords, with four years left on his Senate term, "doubted" that he would be running again in 2006. In fact, he did not run again this year. With re-election clearly not a top priority for him--"it was the furthest thing from my thoughts at that point," he says--a major obstacle to swictching parties was removed.

The Jeffords switch came in May, 200l. George Bush had been elected President in key respects by a 5 to 4 U.S. Supreme Court decision stopping the counting of votes in Florida where Bush held a lead of only a little more than 500 votes. The Democrats had gained four seats in the U.S. Senate in the 2000 elections, and the parties were now evenly divided in the Senate. It seemed quite possible that the Democrats had a future of surging ahead.

Further, although he does not mention it, his home state clearly was trending Democratic, with Howard Dean as Governor, Patrick Leahy as the other U.S. Senator, and Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist who often sided with the Democrats, repeatedly elected with Democratic support as an Independent. For some reason, Sanders' name is never mentioned in this book; in 2006, he was the winning Democratic-backed candidate to succeed Jefords.

Jeffords had leverage in the budget negotiations, and was determined to use it. He decided his top priority, as chair of the Senate committee dealing with education, was giving new life to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by increasing special education funding by removing $200 billion a year from President Bush's tax cut and paying "40 percent of the national average per public expenditure for each disabled child's education."

This formulation comes out to about 20% of total national special education expenses.

Jeffords was motivated by personal values and constituent accountability in pushing his educational program. He did not share the belief that tax cuts for the wealthy were the highest Republican priority.

"But how our children lag behind their international peers strikes me as a bigger long-term threat to our national security and stability than the rate of taxation paid on multimillion dollar estates," he writes. "In my mind, the education we give to all our children is far more important than the size of the fortunes left to a fortunate few...."

"But tax cuts had not been what animated the people of Vermont I talked to on the campaign trail in the fall," he says. "They seemed to be far more concerned with meeeting human needs."

Ultimately, the Senate Republicans were able to regain the Senate control in the 2002 and 2004 elections, returning Jeffords to minority status and reducing the significance of his action. This book makes clear Jefford's enjoyment of being in the limelight, even though he was somewhat uncomfortable at times there. I cannot help but believe that the "Who Lost Jeffords?" question was likely a contributing factor in Trent Lott's being removed as Senate majority leader after the 2004 elections.

This is a good short book for anyone interested in the differences between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate, the history of Vermont Senators, or the personal dynamics of the U.S. Senate, to read carefully. Jeffords clearly identifies with the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Vermont Senators George Aiken and Ralph Flanders, critics of the War in Vietnam and Sen. Joseph McCarthy repsectively. It is the modern Republicans he has difficulty with.

"There was an admixture of religion, a sense of stewardship, and plain common sense," he writes. "....(T)he issues that gave birth to the Republican Party are still among our most important challenges. Will we strenghten public education and the ladder of opportunity it provides? Or will be decide through our funding decisions that this is not a very high federal priority? Will we leave the land better than we found it for our descendants a hundred and fifty years hence? Or will we be blinded by the ensuing crises and leave it despoiled? Will we accord full rights to all Americans? Or will we continue to condone the denial of the protections of our laws to those who are gay?

"It is clear what I hope for. This is the kind of Washington I hope to forge with what little influence is available to me. We have crying needs in our society that we must tackle rather than ignore. And we can never even begin if we are consumed by trying to take petty partisan advantage at every opportunity. The American people will not stand for it."

When the Republican Party lost Jeffords, they lost a lot. He is typical of some voters. And I believe listening intently to his views would add a great deal to the Bush Administration and any successor administration. The negative, petty, and personal attacks on Jeffords that helped motivate him to leave the Republican Party are a case of a the quest for power overwhelming more lasting and important factors.

Senator James Jeffords of Vermont was a man with a difficult decision to make. He was going to leave the Republican Party - and eventually did on May 24, 2001 - when he could no longer keep his political allegiance with those he previously had. His believed his thoughts to be different than that of the Republican party at the time, and he felt that it would only worsen.

In My Declaration of Independence, Jeffords discusses the days leading up the decision, the catalyst being his ardent support for an education proposition that others were/are ignoring.

Jeffords attempts to let the reader understand his frame of mind leading up to the decision and the speech, leaving his Republican party, friends, and colleagues. His decision was a difficult one, with many of his family members and staff facing an uncertain political future.

His decision would change the political landscape, shifting power from the Republicans to the Democrats; Jeffords knew it. And it is this reason why the book was slightly disingenuous to me. The decision, the shift, the process all seemed to be about Jeffords. It seems to me that the wiser decision would have been to change from the inside, attempt to influence those with whom he has some influence.

While I may not agree with his politics or his decision, I can still admire and respect the man for his willingness to stick to his guns. The pace, the descriptions, and the inside look at political machinery was well worth the read.

The only major problem I have with this book is that it points to a problem with the way American representatives are elected: Their actions don't necessarily reflect what their constituents want. By changing parties, Jeffords abandoned many of those who voted for him. The fact that he wore rose-colored glasses for a good period of time after the event doesn't change a thing; he made a lot of people very mad, and betrayed the very ideas that many used their votes to support. I admire the man, but not the decision.

I enjoyed reading this book. It didn't take long and Senator Jeffords has much to say. I liked that he appears honest (am I kidding myself?) and was sincere in voicing his own opinions, which in this day and age can be political suicide. I am planning on passing this book along to others.