|
Jeffords Switches Parties
With Ben Bradlee
Vice President at Large, former executive editor, The Washington Post
Wednesday, May 23, 2001; 3 p.m. EDT
Sen. James Jeffords (R-Vt.) announced on Thursday morning that he is leaving the GOP. The announcement by Jeffords, a moderate Republican who publicly opposed President Bush's tax cut plan, would throw control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, and would give him the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Washington Post vice president and former executive editor Ben Bradlee was online Wednesday, May 23, to talk about Jeffords's decision, the effects of party switching and Senate control.
Editor's Note: Bradlee was orginally scheduled to discuss Memorial Day and his service during World War II. We will reschedule and keep you posted on the date and time.
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.
washingtonpost.com:
Good afternoon, Mr. Bradlee, and thanks for switching gears to talk about Sen. Jeffords' expected party switch. Can you think of any single event that could have rattled a new administration in quite the same way? What's your guess as to the future of the Bush agenda?
Ben Bradlee: If two of them switched parties, they'd be twice as worried, but that must just have just fried 'em. This is the real beginning of partisan politics, because now the Republicans are going to have to deal with the fact that they're in the minority in the Senate. But, and it's a big but, how long will this Democratic majority last? And I plumb don't know.
They're going to have to rethink if not the agenda, the way they're going to achieve the agenda. Judges, for instance. The candidates for various court appointments now will have to approved by a Democratic Senate committee. So I think you can say goodbye to people who are on the Republican extremes.
Chicago, Ill.:
Do you feel it is unethical for an elected official to win within a political party and then switch between elections? Or should that person serve out the term and then switch? The keyword is "ethical," since I realize the law allows it. Also, do you think it is unethical for Jeffords to receive something in return for the switch, i.e., a chairmanship of one sort or another? Finally, would it be unethical for Bush to offer a democrat some political pork if they switch to the republicans?
Ben Bradlee: I happen to think it's ethical, because I believe in voting for the man, not the party. And if you agree with that, he should serve out his term. This is a fine time to raise the question of ethics. We presumably don't vote for unethical men or women. And of course Jeffords is ethical. The real test of that is going to be when the Republicans offer him the moon to come back. A couple of post offices here, a couple of new schools there . . . But New Englanders really are different -- they're independent, they're crusty -- they're not going to be told by the Trent Lotts of this world anything about ethics.
I don't think it's unethical -- it's just realistic for him to offer some pork. The real ethical question will come with Jeffords' decision what to do.
Bowie, Md.:
When I was growing up ('60s and '70s) there was an important liberal wing of the Republican Party and a large conservative wing of the Democrats. Today they've almost disappeared, and it's been my opinion for many years that the lack of ideological breadth within the parties has been an important source of the low quality of politics the last two decades. (The Jeffords split on the tax cut brings to mind the split about Phil Gramm in the early '80s.)
Do you think that the parties themselves have become less tolerant of dissent than in past decades and that has made the forming of consensus more diffiult?
Ben Bradlee: Today marks the first time this liberal wing is really reappearing. You've got Chafee in Rhode Island, you've got Jeffords now -- but Jeffords was always in that wing. I don't think that Jeffords is a radically liberal, compared to some of the radically conservative Republicans in the Senate.
If there really is a 50-50 split, they've got to be tolerant of dissent, or something like Jeffords' actions will recur again. And the same is true for the Democrats. If they get too rigid, you'll see some Democrats switch. And all the switching of parties in the last umpteen years has been Democrat to Republican. I think there's been only one Republican who switched over to Democrat.
Annandale, Va.:
WOW! A fascinating week of politics to say the least! Why do you think Sen. Jeffords left the GOP? What will be the immediate and long term impact on Capitol Hill? Also, what do you think the impact of Sen. Jeffords leaving the GOP will have on the midterm 2002 elections?
Ben Bradlee: I think Jeffords left to show his displeasure at being taken for granted by the Republicans, and to protest what he considers to be an unrealistically conservative agenda. He hasn't become a Democrat -- yet.
It's so fluid now -- you've just got a one-vote majority, and that isn't any safer for the Democrats than it was for the Republicans. I think Vice President Cheney's life will change more than anybody else's. His legislative influence will be substantially less. His influence will still be enormous because Bush has given him so many responsibilities.
On the midterms: it really is too soon to talk about that, but you can be sure that there are plenty of candidates who will watch this so closely that it'll curl their hair.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Ben: What do you think about this scenario? The day after Sen. Jeffords changes parties, the prosecutors start turning up the heat on Sen. Torricelli to cut a deal to avoid jail time. Torricelli resigns in disgrace with his pension and a free man, and then Acting Gov. DeFrancesco appoints a Republican senator from New Jersey and it's back to 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. Of course, every big Democrat fund-raiser will be expected to dig down deep and start contributing to Torricelli's defense fund. Hopefully the newspaper will monitor that situation.
Ben Bradlee: Love it. Great scenario. Love it.
Detroit:
Mr. Bradley, can't Senator Jeffords expect some retaliation from the Republicans? I read in the WA Post, I think, of some threat against a bill he supported a couple weeks ago. What kinds of retaliation can he expect? And do you know what his own chances of reelection are as a Democrat?
Ben Bradlee: I would say his chances of reelection were great, although he's got five and a half years to go. But I don't think it makes any political sense for the Republicans to punish him, because that will just make the incumbents really mad.
Alexandria, Va.:
He's 67, just reelected to a six-year term, and likely to call it quits come 2006. Or if not, the switch virtually insures his reelection; the Democrats won't run a serious candidate against him, and he can shellack any Republican in the state (the few that are left). His party treats him like he has a contagious disease. He can work a very fine deal with the Democrats, allowing him to be more influential than ever. Why oh why wouldn't he do what it appears he will do?
Ben Bradlee: I think you have your answer. He's going to do it.
Springfield, Va.:
Mr. Bradlee -- while Sen. Jeffords might be considered the Benedict Arnold of the Republican Party, they had it coming. The right wing has pushed away the moderates, Jeffords, Chafee, even John McCain. Question is, who gets held responsible? Trent Lott?
Ben Bradlee: I agree with that. Although I don't think Chafee or McCain will switch. I really don't see McCain switching. The world waits on his every word now; if he becomes a Democrat now, they'll take him for granted.
I think Trent Lott played an important role in Jeffords' departure. By coming down on the side of the right wing, he lost the liberal wing, or at least he lost a leader of the liberal wing.
Cambridge, MA:
What is the precedent for this kind of thing?
Also, would there be a possibility for the rise of a third party between the Dems and Repubs, taking the "liberal" Republicans and the "conservative" Democrats? A party that would cater to the James Jeffords and Zell Millers of the world (and not the Ross Perots and Jesse Venturas)?
Ben Bradlee: Third parties don't work in this country; they really don't. But it seems to me that the reason Clinton was successful was that he steered the Democrats into the middle and stayed there. Under Bush, the Republican legislators at least seem to be steering the Republican Party to the right. And that doesn't work in this country. The clear majority lies in the middle.
Wesley Heights, Ohio:
Some starting to speculate that Jeffords' delaying the announcement is merely him trying to get some consideration from the GOP to stay. That in fact this all may have been an attempt to reposition himself within the GOP.
What's your opinion of this or is he securely taking the Independent road? Why would he change at (near) the last hour his venue and time of announcement if he isn't trying to gain something from either the GOP or the Dems?
Ben Bradlee: Too late. Might have worked three weeks ago. Won't work now.
Washington, D.C.:
In light of the wooing both parties are doing of Sen. Jeffords (offering committee chairmanships and the like), which type of lawmaker will get more from his/her party when it comes time to get money for a reelection campaign: the loyal member who votes in lock with the rest of the party? Or the centrist "maverick" who could go either way on any given vote?
Ben Bradlee: You don't need all that much money to run as a senator from Vermont, but I suspect there will be some money available for the Republican who tries to knock him off in the primary. Maybe a lot of money.
It so depends on the guy. I think Jeffords will not have any trouble raising money to run for office.
Brooklyn,. NY:
Mr. Bradlee,
Loved your autobiography!
What do you think President Kennedy's reaction would have been to the last election, former President Clinton,and the extreme partisanship of Washington politics.
Ben Bradlee: Kennedy would have been incredulous about a two-term sitting vice president losing to a governor of Texas, and especially this particular governor of Texas. But he would have gotten a real kick out of Jeffords changing parties. Those Boston Catholics never did trust the New England WASPs.
Chapel Hill, NC:
How much impact did the lack of an invitation to the White House for the event honoring the Teacher of the Year (a Vermonter) have in putting the nail into this coffin?
Ben Bradlee: I can't believe that that tipped the scales. But it's got to be the dumbest single political act yet committed by those people in the White House who are managing party politics in the Congress.
Northwest:
OK, so who's Deepthroat?
Ben Bradlee: I forgot.
Santa Monica, CA:
What is the likely next move for the Republicans and the White House?
- is a rollback of Diary Farm support in Vermont a real possibility?
- is pressure on the Georgia senator to jump from Dem to Repub camp likely to work?
Ben Bradlee: The Republicans better be ready, because even Strom is going to move on, and they've got to have a Republican candidate who can replace him. And I don't think they have one yet.
On Miller, the word is that he's not going to become a Republican. But they ought to have a pair of eyes on him at all times, and make sure that he's happy in his work.
Brookline, Massachusetts:
Ben, given his opposition to the Bush tax plan, plus the recent snub from the White House and his concern with the direction in which the republican party is going, why would Jeffords wait until after the Senate votes on the tax bill to change parties?
Do you think that he will wait, or do you think that he will make the change effective immediately?
Thanks.
Ben Bradlee: I don't think it really made any difference to him. The tax bill was going to pass, regardless of what Jeffords did. It looks to me like he delayed it for a day just to get up to Vermont and explain it to voters while he was in the state, not when he was in some Washington TV studio.
Washington, D.C.:
What do you figure held Jeffords back from making the announcement today? Do you think he is waffling or was this announcement just fumbled a little?
Ben Bradlee: I think he wanted to wait so he could explain it to people. It looks funny to tell them about it from Washington. But he's just proved that he isn't a pussycat who's going to jump when anyone whistles.
Peoria, IL:
Is one senator switching parties really all that significant? Yes, it will give Democrats control of the senate, but with only a one vote margin. It will still be the same situation we have now, where any one or two senators will still be able to cause headaches for whoever is in charge. The Democrats won't be able to do much with a one vote margin, any more than the Republicans could with a tie. Perhaps they can wreak a little havoc with nomination confirmation votes, but only if they can keep their entire caucus together, which is something they couldn't do even on the contentious Ashcroft nomination. American voters have voted for divided government for a decade now, and the voters show no signs of changing their minds. This is not the kind of political climate where any one party runs the show.
Ben Bradlee: But the change of one vote is significant only when it changes the party in control, and then it's extremely significant. We now have divided government again. And if the Democrats play their cards right, it's going to help them for 2002.
Parkersburg, WV:
Maybe its because of my Vermont blood but I've always considered Sen Jeffords to be a man who lives by his principles and follows the dictates of his conscience. How is he viewed in Washington?
Ben Bradlee: In my view, he is a man of his principles, and he's just proved it. But I'm pretty sure I'm not a majority. The Republicans are going to be throwing darts at him for years to come. And if they should get back in power, they're going to make him pay. It isn't just an invitation to the White House that he won't get.
Boston:
Ben, about the timing issue: If Jeffords made the change effective immediately when he announces his decision tomorrow, could the Democrats in the Senate make procedural changes that would stop the tax bill in its tracks for a while and increase the liklihood of amendments to it, or would the procedural rules that were in place when debate started on the tax bill have to stay in place?
Ben Bradlee: They've got to get a conference committee to agree on that bill, and certainly the Democrats are going to try to change it. But I'm not sure that Jeffords will vote for all the changes that the Democrats want. I think it would be a great mistake for the Democrats to count on Jeffords being obedient to their wishes.
washingtonpost.com:
Let's talk about the committe chairmanships. With Democrats at the helm, Appropriations would go to Byrd, Armed Services would go to Levin, Foreign Relations goes to Biden, and Judiciary goes to Leahy. How big a change is that?
Ben Bradlee: I think that the Judiciary change will be the most important, because the Democrats will have more control over future judges. Biden will be more visible, certainly. But I'm not sure that there will be an enormous change there. Probably some appointments will get voted on sooner. I would guess that Bush's energy policy is in more trouble than before.
This will all become clearer after the first couple of weeks of hearings. West Virginia will do better in Appropriations under Byrd than they were going to do, and Ted Kennedy will be really important, although Bush seemed to be wooing him pretty good.
Washington DC:
This is off the subject, I know. Way off. But is The Washington Post taking any steps to insure it remains independent after Katharine Graham decides to step down?
Ben Bradlee: No one, repeat no one, can do anything to make The Post be anything other than independent. Generations of editors and owners have put this newspaper on a course that it would take an earthquake to move.
Saint Paul, Minnesota:
Mr. Bradlee - Do you think this move has upset the retirement plans of a few members of the Supremes?
Ben Bradlee: Surely. Surely. And it has changed the list of Supreme Court candidates fundamentally. It will be that much harder to get some doctrinaire conservative through the Senate.
Boston, MA:
Mr. Bradlee, is there a rift developing between moderate Northeast Republicans and the more conservative Southern bunch? Is Jeffords' move, and a potential one hinted at by Sen. Chafee, a sign of this? Is the Bush Administration snubbing the Northeast GOP? If so, what does this say about Mr. Bush's rep as a 'uniter not a divider?'
Ben Bradlee: The Northeast has always been more liberal than the South, and it has always been home to liberal Republicans, from Lodge and Herter and Saltonstall and Bradford and Weld. It would seem to me to be a mistake for any Republican to snub the Northeast. Trent Lott couldn't be elected in New England.
Chicago:
In one reponse, you say you "don't think it makes sense -for the Republicans to punish" Jeffords, in another answer you say the Republicans "will make him pay." Putting the two together, I wonder, dear Mr. Bradlee, why don't you just anounce that you think the Republicans "don't make sense." Then at least it would be clear enough where you are coming from.
Ben Bradlee: Picky picky picky.
Ben Bradlee: We've run out of time. Thanks everybody. See you next time.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
