• Political Insider • Political Insider Live • First 100 Days Special Report • First 100 Days Photo Galleries • Live: "Free Media" • Subscribe to the OnPolitics e-mail update • Who do you want to talk to? E-mail us • Talk: OnPolitics message boards • Live Online Transcripts

Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, May 25, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT

Charles Babington, chief political correspondent for washingtonpost.com and Washington Post staff writer, was online every Friday at 1 p.m. EDT to discuss political news from past week.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Chicago, Ill.: Well Charles, what a difference two weeks make! Below is a item from your 5/11/2001 chat, where I asked the following:

---
Chicago, Ill.: What are the odds that Jeffords (Vt.) or Chaffee (R.I.), the only two Republicans to vote against the budget (with $1.6T tax cut), bolt the GOP for the Dems?

Charles Babington: The odds of Jeffords or Chaffee bolting to the Democratic Party? About zero, I'd say.

---

I will claim my props for having a sensation that Jeffords would contemplate a switch (Do I get an OnPolitics.com T-shirt for the foresight?). I suspect Chaffee isn't going anywhere, unless he wants his dad to spin in his grave.

Now a couple questions:
Does this raise the stakes for the 2002 elections or what?! (I am waiting for a deluge of direct mail money appeals) Which one or two Senate pick-up opportunities do you believe the GOP will most heavily target? How aggressive do you believe Bush and Cheney will be on the fundraising circuit going forward? Thanks!

washingtonpost.com: The offending transcript: May 11, 2001

Charles Babington: First: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I totally did not see the Jeffords switch coming, and I salute your foresight. (Send me your address for the OnPolitics T-shirt).
Given my recent track record, I'm hesitant to predict ANYthing now... Jeffords' switch doesn't really raise the 2002 election stakes, cuz they already were sky-high anyway. The GOP certainly will gun hard for Democratic senators Max Cleland in Ga., Mary Landrieu in La., Tim Johnson in S.D., and Max Baucus in Montana (just for starters). All those states went for Bush (mostly by large margins), so that's potentially fertile ground. A big question mark: Sen. Torricelli in NJ ought to be an automatic re-election for the Dems. But the federal inquiry into his fundraising practices looks pretty serious, and it's giving the Democratic Party unexpected nightmares.
Again, my kudos to you.

Madison, Wis.: What's with all these right-wingers denouncing Jeffords as a turncoat, always a Democrat at heart, and calling for retribution? Don't they realize they're demonstrating the very intolerance that led Jeffords to leave the party, thus proving his point? And proving it to, among others, the few moderate Republicans left?

Charles Babington: You make excellent points. I wonder what Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine think when they read such comments in the leading conservative publications. If either party decides to be purist -- that is, if Democrats embrace only liberals, or Republicans embrace only conservatives -- then that party is going to be in the minority. Too many Americans are in the political center for that to be a winning strategy.

Silver Spring, Md.: Which senators benefit the most by the switch of the control of the Senate?

Charles Babington: Tom Daschle, the new majority leader.

Burke, Va.: What is your view on the "Who Lost Jeffords?" meetings that will surely be going on in the few days? Did the White House just irritate and disrespect him enough? Did the increasingly conservative GOP Senate leadership push him aside?

Still find it hard to believe that this was the bolt from the blue that some GOPers are portraying it as. How could they be so complacent as to miss the warning signs?

Charles Babington: This probably will be debated a long time (hey, some folks still ask Who Lost China!), but I think your points are well taken. There always are rumors that some people (i.e. conservative Dems and liberal GOPers) are about to bolt. Those rumors are almost always wrong. The key here is that Jeffords HIMSELF began dropping such hints a few weeks ago (we now know). Yes, Lott, Bush, Cheney, et al, can and will be faulted for not picking up on those signs earlier.
That said, I'm not 100 percent sure they could have stopped Jeffords' defection at that point even if they tried. He apparently was feeling increasingly estranged from the party, for all the reasons he stated in his speech yesterday. I don't, for example, think Jeffords left the GOP because he didn't get invited to a White House reception for a Teacher of the Year (from Vermont). But I bet that little slight sort of crystalized his feelings about the Bush administration -- and the administration's feelings towards him.

Somewhere, USA: I must agree with Madison - I'm amazed to hear the talking heads on Hardball (is that a freakshow or what?) and in the papers claiming the Jeffords is a crybaby, who left the party because of hurt feelings. It's the same kind of simple-mindedness that got them into this fix.

As a left-leaning independent, I'm happy about the events of the past day, but I have to add this: if Toricelli is guilty of the things he's charged with, he should be booted out as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences. Period.

Charles Babington: Here's a test we should do: For every pundit who is denouncing Jeffords, let's go back and see what he/she said and wrote when Sens. Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched from D to R.... If they called them crybabies (and the much worse things that Jefford is being called by some), then fine, they are consistent and not hypocrites.... Don't hold your breath.

San Francisco, Calif.: Is this switch going to do anything to help California get out of its energy crisis. The economic ramifications of sky high power costs may end up bringing down the whole economy.

Charles Babington: I don't know if Calif's energy crisis will be quickly affected. But you'll have Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), instead of Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe Bingaman is much more open to the notion of federal price controls on energy than is the Bush administration (which flatly opposes price controls). Could this new Senate force price controls on an unwilling White House? Would such price controls bring relief and stop rolling blackouts? I just don't know.

Boston: Charles, in regard to Chicago's remarks, it should be pointed out that you said that the chances of Jeffords bolting to the DEMOCRATIC party were about zero.

You were right. He's an independent now.

Charles Babington: Thanks, good point.... And it puts me in mind of the great line from Dumb and Dumber, when the lady tells the Jim Carrey character that his chances (with her) are about 1 in a million, and he says: So you're saying I've got a chance! Yess!!

Atlanta, GA: I get a kick at how much the media makes out Jeffords leaving. The Republicans didn't have effective control over the Senate anyway. Many Republican liberals were voting against Bush. If the Republican conservatives had effective control Bush's original tax proposal would have passed. Now, he can play politics with the Dem Senate to his advantage. Proposes bills and appointments that he knows will not pass or be approved satisfying his right wing supporters. The past presidents facing this situation benefited politically. Only George Sr. was not able to work it to his advantage. And you could argue that the recession did him in. Now the Republicans in congress can vote and propose bills that know are bad for the country but good politically. George W can use the bully pulpit to make the Democrats look bad.

It will be more partisan and no one will take responsibility for anything that goes wrong just like the last 6 years. Each party will blame the other for things not getting done.

Comment?

Charles Babington: My comment: You are surely finding a silver lining in a very dark cloud for the Bush administration and the GOP. The Republicans did control the Senate (though obviously with modified power-sharing agreements). Trent Lott was the Majority Leader, and he had the powers that go with that job. Sure, Bush's tax cut was somewhat modified ($1.35 trillion instead of $1.6 t), but the Congress -- even when the president's party controls it -- isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp.

Washington, D.C.: As a former Nevada resident, I'm curious about what these changes mean for Harry Reid.

How powerful is the role of Majority Whip? And does he stand to gain from the apparently quite important role he played in Jefford's decision?

Charles Babington: Reid apparently agreed to give up his right to be chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in order to clear it out for Jeffords. (Jeffords chaired a committee under the GOP leadership, and it wasn't likely he'd make the party switch and lose that). But I think you are right: Reid's status in the party will almost surely rise because of his role in pulling off the Jeffords coup... The majority whip is basically the Majority Leader's right-hand man (or woman). So for the most part, the job will entail what Tom Daschle assigns to it, and to Reid. Thanks

Athens, Ohio: Do you have any idea why Bush and Putin chose Ljubljana, Slovenia, for their June summit? Was it to give symbolic attention to Slovenia and others in their recent bid to join NATO? Or is something more benign than that?

Charles Babington: I'm guessing it's something of a neutral ground: A former communist satellite, but one that broke out fast and far when the USSR crumbled. It's not to celebrate Slovenia's NATO application, because Putin and the Russians generally oppose NATO expansion.... I went to Llubljana when I covered President Clinton, and it's one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen.

Vienna, Va.: Hello, Charles.....would you agree that this looks like just a simple case of "sold to the highest bider?" Not turncoatness. Not rebellion. Not being a traitor. Not necessarily following one's conscience. Not wondering what the people back home will think. Just pure and simple.."I'll get as much as I can as fast as I can while I'm in Washington". Not even Al Gore's campaign could be bought off THIS easy.

Charles Babington: Well, what did Jeffords get for ''selling out''? He was a committee chairman in a sharply divided Senate under the old regime. He'll be a committee chairman in a sharply divided Senate under the new regime. What did he gain?

Toronto, Canada: I always watch the American political scene with fascination. I think it is a surprise to most Canadians that the Republicans have the electoral strength they do given the increasingly intolerant image they portray.Are there really very many moderate Republicans left - who are sticking with the party in order to hang on to the memory of T. Roosevelt, Coolidge or Rokefeller?

Charles Babington: Much of the USA now is solidly Republican in presidential elections. That applies to almost all of the South and mountain west, and much of the Plains and Midwest. A GOP presidential nominee can almost take those states for granted and focus on a handful of battleground states to give him the 271 needed electoral votes. The Gore-Bush race focused on such states, including Missouri, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and of course, Florida. It's in these battleground states that a Republican nominee must show enough centrism to win a majority.

Silver Spring, Md.: With the Jeffords switch, are the moderates of the republican party going to have more of a say in shaping White House policy?

Charles Babington: They might have a slightly larger say. Sen. Lott, in trying to persuade Jeffords to stay, offered to create a new leadership slot for a ''moderate'' GOP senator (which of course he offered to Jeffords). Lott says he still will create such a slot. Perhaps the White House will make a similar effort to give an ear to moderates' concerns.

Philadelphia, Pa.: Since the Jeffords' defection yesterday afternoon, a steady stream of administration officials (such luminaries as Rove, Hughes, and Matalin) have appeared to rebuff suggestions that they somehow dropped the ball (which they did, but that's a moot point). These mouthpieces are hewing to the typically stringent Team Bush line, stating that they simply have no clue as to why Jeffords felt as if the party has become an extension of the Jefferson Davis Association for Secession. Furthermore, they point out that Jeffords can do as he wish, but he does so at his own peril, because apparently the Bushies and Senate conservatives represent the "true" interests of "main street", or, at times, "mainstream", America (I wonder which one is correct?).

My question is, although I understand (not) that journalists in general feel that we must get beyond the election controversy, how come no one is offering the most fundamentally operative retort available here? Mainly, how can these Bush automatons claim to represent the country's interests when liberal-to-moderate voters gave the other candidates 52% of the vote as compared to Bush's 48%? Doesn't make any sense and reinforces the notion out there right now that journalists are wary of confronting the administration head-on.

Charles Babington: I'm not sure where you get your 52-48 statistic. My guess is ''liberal'' and ''conservative'' poll findings will vary a good bit, depending on which question is asked (abortion, military, tax cuts, school vouchers, etc.). Here's the larger point: For either party to gain majority status, it has to make its tent bigger than those on the political margins would like. The Senate Democrats tolerate Zell Miller, even though he (gleefully) votes with Bush on almost every important issue (tax cut, John Ashcroft, etc.). Similarly, Republicans must embrace moderates to win and hold a Senate majority or the White House. Jeffords, rightly or wrongly, felt moderates no longer were welcome, and he left.

Fairfax, Va.: This is the first time I have been optimistic
about the future of the country since the election.

How does this effect the nominations for the supreme court?

Charles Babington: Makes it tougher for Bush to nominate a strongly conservative judge.

Columbia, Md.: Jim Jeffords supported John Anderson for President in 1980 (in the primary, not the general, but still...). He was the only Republican who opposed the Reagan tax cuts in 1981. He was a founder of the Congressional Solar Coalition (bet you didn't know there was one). What on earth did he have in common with today's GOP? Why did he wait so long?

Charles Babington: Good question... What he said yesterday is that he felt long and strong personal ties to the GOP.

Akron, Ohio : Don't give him the T-shirt. Jeffords didn't leave for the Democratic Party. He's now an independent. Give me the T-shirt for pointing out the mistake.

Charles Babington: I'll play Solomon: Gonna split that T-shirt right down the middle.

Swarthmore, Pa.: I've been trying to figure out how the Jeffords defection will affect the other Northeastern GOP moderates in the Senate -- like Chaffee, Snowe and Collins. Do you think this will make more or less likely to dissent from conservative Republican orthodoxy; more or less vulnerable to political challenge in their home states?

Charles Babington: I'm not sure it will have any great effect on those three senators. They will stay tuned to their own state's politics (not Vermont's). And they probably will continue to raise the issues they've raised before. The biggest change: Bush, Lott, et al, will probably listen a bit more closely.

Greenville, S.C.: With the Senate's change in power, we've been hearing how Trent Lott hasn't been a popular Majority Leader, even within his own party. Do you think he will survive as Minority Leader, and if not, who do you think would replace him?

Charles Babington: Given my track record on Jeffords, Lott should tremble to hear this: I doubt he'll be deposed as Republican Leader, at least any time soon.

Kerrville, Tex.: How can Jeffords just switch parties? The voters of Vermont elected a Republican as their senator. Wouldn't this seat have to stay Republican until the next election even if it is empty?

I remember when Sen. Phil Graham switched parties. He resigned his seat as a Democrat and then ran again in the special election as a Republican. Besides the other significant political ramifications, how does what Graham did compare to what Jeffords is doing?

Charles Babington: You're right about Phil Gramm (not Graham) of Texas. He resigned his House seat as a Democrat, and ran in a special election as a Republican. (He later was elected to the Senate). But that was Gramm's choice. Other senators -- most recently Richard Shelby of Ala. and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colo., have switched parties while in the Senate. They both went from Democrat to Republican. There's no rule or law against it.

Mt. Rainier: With Sen. Jeffords stepping out of the Rep. 'big tent' (ha!), the conservative nut cases are ranting and raving like Talibans who have seen an unveiled woman (gasp). I appreciate seeing a politician act on his principals, and seeing the right wing go ape is icing on the cake.

Charles Babington: Well, the liberals are certainly enjoying this, aren't they?

New York, N.Y.: what would have happened had strom thurmond passed away last month and the balance of power in the senate hung in the balance? would we have another florida situation with democrates and republicans battling it out in court? at least with jeffords switching there is a relatively peaceful transfer with much less controversy.

Charles Babington: The death of a senator wouldn't result in the situation you suggest. His/her state's governor would name a replacement. In Thurmond's case, the S.C. governor is a Democrat. He'd name a Democrat to succeed Thurmond , and the Senate, in such a case, would become 51-49 Democratic (assuming Jeffords had stayed put).

Charles Babington: We're out of time. Thanks for the many good questions. Sorry we couldn't get to them all. Hope you'll return next week. Happy Memorial Day.

washingtonpost.com:

That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Tech Support with Rob Pegoraro at 2 p.m. EDT
Film Talk with Rita Kempley at 2 p.m. EDT

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

   |       |