Republican Right Rips Jeffords

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 24, 2001; 10:00 AM

The right is furious with Jim Jeffords for handing the Democrats control of the Senate (which, since nothing on the Hill happens on time, he didn’t do until this morning).

It's hard to blame the critics, since the Vermont senator is single-handedly torpedoing his longtime party because he's ticked off at its leaders.

Oh, by the way, the Senate passed the Bush tax cut yesterday. But as CNN's Jonathan Karl said moments after the vote, the Jeffords uproar "has almost completely overshadowed what otherwise would be a huge victory" for the president.

It was quite a spectacle yesterday – everyone talking about Jeffords's decision but Jeffords. The Democrats looking happier than Al kissing Tipper (especially after Georgia's Zell Miller confirmed he wouldn't jump to the GOP). White House spokesman Ari Fleischer saying of course the administration wasn't trying to stiff Jeffords by not inviting him to a Teacher of the Year ceremony for a Vermonter.

And, as we predicted in this space yesterday, the Blame Game coverage has already begun – and it ain't pretty. By mishandling Jeffords, the White House has bought itself Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman as committee chairmen after just 125 days.

Few commentators note that this could be a mixed blessing for the Dems – since they'll now bear a share of responsibility for what happens (or doesn't happen) in Washington. Look for a slew of weekend pieces on this theme.

We'll get to the coverage in a second, but first let's look at the conservative reaction. The New York Post runs a front-page image of the senator in colonial garb under the screamer: "BENEDICT JEFFORDS."

National Review is practically apoplectic. First, Mark Levin:

"Vermont's Jim Jeffords is the RuPaul of American politics. For over two decades, Jeffords has been a reliable liberal dressed up as a Republican. Now he's outing himself.

"Jeffords is reportedly upset because the White House didn't invite him to some ceremonial event. You can be sure that when he announces his defection from the Republican Party, he will wrap his umbrage in righteous indignation and a painful process of self-discovery. That's the way of petty politicians.

"As a member of the House, Jeffords frequently abandoned his president and his party. In 1981, he voted against the cornerstone of Ronald Reagan's economic agenda – significant, across-the-board cuts in marginal income-tax rates. Jeffords's behavior followed him into the United States Senate. He voted for Hillary Clinton's national health-care plan even when many Democrats were jumping ship. He voted not to convict Bill Clinton for his high crimes and misdemeanors during the impeachment trial. And most recently, he voted with Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle to torpedo George Bush's $1.6-trillion tax-relief plan. . . .

"It took nothing more than Bush's gentle rebuke to expose Jeffords's true nature. The fact is that Jeffords isn't simply leaving the Republican Party; he's giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. Good riddance."

Next up, Jonah Goldberg: "Jeffords is, quite simply, a liberal. I know that if you call yourself a Republican these days, it automatically means, to some people, that you are a closet racist or fascist. But Jeffords is a squish of the first order, a classic RiNO – Republican in Name Only. We take some satisfaction when events confirm the natural order. . . . So, likewise, we should not rend our clothes and gnash our teeth when a big, squishy Rino wades into the bog of his native swamps.

"Still, it would be more admirable if he had left on this principle alone. As he hasn't yet announced his reasons for leaving, we must rely on news reports to glean his motives, and they all seem fairly petty. He wasn't invited to some Teacher-of-the-Year event at the White House. If Strom Thurmond passes away, he would end up being a senator in the minority party. Phil Gramm keeps eating the animal crackers off Jeffords's tray at the cafeteria. Etc. Etc. Still, if he must go, then let him go; political parties don't need indentured servants. . . .

"The White House and the GOP generally will be guilty of professional malpractice if they don't punish Jeffords for pulling the rug out from under them. I know that it's illegal to sew a half-starved weasel into his small intestine, but there are some other options."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page poses this question: "Why isn't everyone talking about what a big baby Jeffords is?"

And: "We won't begrudge Vermont's junior Senator for deciding the moment had arrived to cash in his 15 minutes of fame. But not everyone gets to wake up one morning and decide an inner voice has told him to overturn the results of a national election, an unprecedented legal struggle and a decisive Supreme Court decision to form a government."

In the American Spectator, Max Schulz declares: "Jim Jeffords has been the most liberal Republican in the United States Senate since being elected in 1988. Before that he had the distinction of being possibly the most liberal Republican in the House. And even to say he's been a 'Republican in name only' is to overstate the case. Because when something important is on the line, when his vote is needed most, it can almost always be found in the Democratic column. . . .

"He's often given credit for being courageous, a maverick. But the only courage he seems to have shown has been in opposing the first Clinton tax package (oh, how he must have agonized!). He made up for it though, waving pom-poms and doing flips for the Clinton health care plan before that tribute to socialism was even put on paper.

"On all the big ones, Jeffords is a solid, down-the-line Democrat with a capital D. So why would anyone be shocked if he made it official? Jeffords is like the couple that shacks up for 20 years and then ambles down to the courthouse to get the justice of the peace to pronounce them man and wife. What's the point? The shock is why they do it at all."

Whew.

Now for the inevitable finger-pointing. The New York Times: "Senator James M. Jeffords apparently got away, and he got away without anybody in the administration noticing that he was heading out the door. Senior administration officials and prominent Republicans close to the administration said that until late Monday, the White House was not taking seriously the chatter on Capitol Hill that Mr. Jeffords, of Vermont, might be bolting the party."

Helloooo?

"By the time Mr. Jeffords was summoned on Tuesday to meet with Vice President Dick Cheney and, later, with President Bush, he had already made up his mind, said several Republicans knowledgeable about the meetings. The encounters ended up being gestures of reciprocal etiquette, these Republicans said, and not intense bargaining sessions. The situation had somehow moved beyond that.

"‚'They didn't have in place an adequate radar system to warn them of any imminent danger or if any of their guys were unhappy,' one administration adviser said. 'In a 50-50 Senate, that's a big mistake.'

"But it was not the only one, said prominent Republicans and administration advisers. . . . Several of these officials said that the administration was not sufficiently attentive, and that this error was compounded by smugness – by an assumption that Republican lawmakers would and should fall merrily in line behind a new president when he pursued an important priority."

Poppy is also on the case, the NYT notes: "Robert T. Stafford, a former Vermont governor, United States senator and a Republican confidant of Mr. Jeffords, said he had received two phone calls from President Bush's father, asking for his help in reeling the wayward senator back into the fold. 'I was on the phone with him when you knocked,' Mr. Stafford, 88, told a reporter who visited his home in Rutland. 'He said his son would appreciate it if I could intercept him before he made his decision,' Mr. Stafford said of Mr. Jeffords. 'But it's probably too late for that. I told him in my opinion, his mind is made up.'‚"

The Washington Post sets the scene: "When President Bush sat down in front of the Oval Office fireplace with Sen. James M. Jeffords on Tuesday afternoon, he posed the question directly. 'Is there anything I or my administration has done to make you feel slighted?' Bush asked the Vermont Republican.

"‚'No,' Jeffords replied, according to White House aides.

"But the truth was that Jeffords's slow-motion decision to leave the GOP, which he is expected to announce in his home state this morning, was the product of both the senator's increasing alienation from the policies of his party and miscalculations by Republicans in the Senate and the White House over how to handle him.

"‚'This is a self-inflicted gunshot wound,' a senior GOP official said yesterday of his party's fumbling. . . .

"If there were warning signs, the White House missed them. A top White House aide said Bush's high command did not realize until Tuesday – hours before the Oval Office meeting – that Jeffords could defect."

On to Bush's agenda. Says USA Today: "The expected decision by a soft-spoken senator from one of the nation's smallest states to bolt the Republican Party is transforming the capital's political landscape and complicating life considerably for President Bush.

"Bush's proposals to build a missile-defense system and create private Social Security investment accounts would be more difficult to enact. His nominations for the Supreme Court and other federal courts would face tougher scrutiny. And his ability to brush aside questions from congressional Democrats on issues such as the secrecy of his energy task force would end. Up to now, Democrats have lacked the power to issue subpoenas and launch investigations. . . .

"The difference between a 50-50 Senate under Republican control and a 50-49 Senate under Democratic control could mean the road ahead for Bush isn't just bumpy. It would be strewn with land mines. . . .

"Some Republicans fault the administration's hardball tactics after Jeffords opposed Bush's budget for possibly driving the liberal senator from the GOP – breaking the party's weakest link. White House officials may have to rethink legislative strategy, forge new alliances with moderate Democrats and intensify efforts to persuade a Democratic senator to change teams. And, presumably, they'd have to soften their tactics to make sure no other Republican leaves the fold."

The Los Angeles Times says that "the White House faced a barrage of questions Wednesday about its treatment of Jeffords. . . .

"‚'Frankly I think it's a little bit of an absurd story line,' insisted one senior presidential confidant, who asked to remain anonymous. In any case, one Washington Republican operative, who is in frequent contact with senior White House officials, said that top Bush aides initially were stunned by Jeffords' intention to bolt.

"But by Wednesday, the GOP source added, they had turned defiant, blaming Jeffords for the soured relationship rather than questioning their own conduct or that of some Senate Republicans who were severely aggrieved by Jeffords' independence and who exerted enormous pressure on him to toe the party line."

And in the all-politics-is-local category, the L.A. Times says: "James M. Jeffords has never mattered much to Californians. Until now.

"The Vermont senator's widely anticipated decision to abandon his fellow Republicans and put Democrats in control of the Senate could have big implications for California, particularly on energy and environmental policy, lawmakers and lobbyists said Wednesday.

"The change, which Jeffords is expected to announce today, could increase political pressure on the Bush administration to respond more aggressively to California's electricity crisis, these insiders said."

The Wall Street Journal weighs in: "To some observers in both parties, it is precisely the sort of wreck that Mr. Bush and his aides should have anticipated given the negligible political mandate he received last fall, when he eked out an Electoral College majority but lost the popular vote to Democratic rival Al Gore. After all, the same hardball tactics the Bush team used, first in an attempt to force Mr. Jeffords's acquiescence and later in an attempt to punish him, had also backfired on President Clinton just a few years earlier, when Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama abandoned the Democratic Party. . . .

"Mr. Jeffords's decision, which he is expected to announce Thursday morning to constituents at a Burlington, Vt., hotel, would be as historic as the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that made Mr. Bush president last December. Since the late 19th century, 16 sitting senators have changed their party affiliation. But none of those defections in a single stroke shifted control of the chamber and injured a president of the defector's own party."

In a Democratic Senate, says The Post, "President Bush would be deprived of control over much of his ambitious legislative agenda, thwarting his conservative vision of government on issues ranging from Social Security to the federal judiciary to the nation's health care system.

"At the same time, conservatives and liberals alike predict that Bush would need to abandon the unilateral governing style that has marked his first months in office and produced a rapid victory on the tax plan that has been his top priority. Instead, future success would hinge on his ability to work collaboratively with Democrats, giving them the equal say in setting the federal agenda they believe they have deserved since last fall's disputed presidential election. . . .

"The Senate would remain narrowly divided – as it has been since Bush came to office – but Democrats would gain enormous leverage. They would acquire committee chairmanships, control over when bills are brought to a vote, and the ability to appoint members to the conference committees. . . .

"Politicians of both parties and outside policy analysts predict that the Democrats probably would move quickly to bring to the Senate floor a version of legislation to protect patients in health maintenance organizations that goes beyond what Bush has said he would support."

The Boston Globe provides this mood check: "In private, White House officials and other Senate Republicans expressed anger and disappointment in Jeffords, whose departure would be the biggest blow to the Bush presidency so far. One senior Republican adviser described the atmosphere as 'so depressed.'

"‚'It's quite likely that the tax bill will be the first and last piece of conservative legislation to pass,' said Marshall Wittmann, a policy analyst at the conservative Hudson Institute. Wittmann called the divided Congress 'a combustible situation' and Jeffords 'the ultimate skunk' at the GOP party."

Salon, unlike the conservative journals, slams the president and Hill leadership, with help from disgusted GOPers: "Republican congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut offered this blunt and angry assessment: 'If I were in the Senate, I would want new leadership.' Shays places the blame squarely on Lott and his deputy Mitch McConnell, who have proven unwilling or unable to work to keep a moderate like Jeffords within the fold. 'This kind of retribution for Senator Jeffords voting his conscience is foolish and reckless,' Shays says in disgust. 'Childish.' . . .

"Jeffords' defection is also the latest indicator that the supposedly secure and steady hands of Bush's team are in fact shaky. The first blunders came in foreign policy: the utterly unnecessary crisis with China, the administration's conflicting statements on the Mideast and Balkans. But now the blundering has come home to Washington. Bush and Lott have between them managed to lose the Senate over a simple matter of respect, the most basic political currency in Washington, and one that often transcends ideology. Their willful disrespect of Jeffords turned a policy disagreement into a personal grudge match, and finally into a political crisis."

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Take it away, Aretha.

Return toTBC  GLBT News
http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/News.html