Impeachment hits home

Could Sen. Chafee's impeachment decisions today affect him tomorrow? A look at the possible consequences for his reelection bid in 2000

by Jody Ericson

As a Republican senator from a solidly Democratic state, John Chafee knows he must take every election seriously, that there is always the possibly of an upset, of a candidate who will give him a run for his piles of money. Yes, Chafee is a moderate Republican and, at this point, a revered figure in Rhode Island who has accumulated a reservoir of good will during his 23 years in the Senate. Still, the next few weeks of the president's impeachment trial could prove to be a turning point for Chafee.

At the moment, it looks like he's under pressure to support his party on procedural issues. But the question is, When the trial is finally over, will he ultimately vote with those opposed to removing Clinton from office? If Chafee were to decide to oust the president, he would be one of the few politicians in the nation who could convincingly claim to have voted his conscience.

With the 2000 elections looming and the senator approaching his 80s, Chafee, a prudent and cautious man, is no doubt thinking about his political future like many other senators as he heads into the trial, set to begin on Thursday, January 14. So far, Chafee has taken the middle road, on the one hand not condoning what Clinton did with intern Monica Lewinsky but not coming out and pushing for the president's removal either.

On Imus in the Morning last Monday, Chafee said that "originally, I was in the censure camp," along with Senator Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island). But as the debate has worn on, Chafee said, he has come to see merit in the arguments against this, namely that a censure would be nothing more than a "piece of paper" Clinton could toss into the wastebasket.

"Obviously, if there's a guilty verdict, that takes care of it," the senator told radio talk-show host Don Imus last Monday. If the president is found innocent, censure is an option, "but let's just think that one over. We have time."

But as the trial progresses, Chafee may be forced to take a more decisive stand, not only in terms of what to do with Clinton but of how tawdry and drawn-out the senators should allow the trial to become, including whether they should have Lewinsky testify and to what extent. On Imus in the Morning, Chafee wouldn't predict the ultimate outcome of the trial. "After all, I am a juror. I took an oath," he said. But he did admit to favoring a limited number of witnesses, as "we don't want any mob scenes."

Like many Northeast moderate Republicans who come from a predominantly Democratic district, Chafee is undoubtedly torn between what Rhode Island wants (a short trial at the end of which Clinton remains in office) and what Washington wants (something more extreme but yet to be defined). And former Democratic consultant David Preston sees personal forces at work as well.

Given the generation and upper-crust family into which Chafee was born, the 78-year-old senator "probably takes a dim view" of what Clinton did, says Preston. But Chafee, whose office did not respond to a request for an interview, is also a staunch gentleman, a peacemaker adept at working the no-man's land between two hostile political parties -- a third layer that will complicate his upcoming decisions even more.

But probably the biggest reason for why Chafee will continue to proceed with such caution is that his choices could have real consequences in 2000. Tony Affigne, a professor of political science at Providence College, envisions two possible scenarios if Chafee is forced to take sides on the Clinton sex scandal. First, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, if he senses vulnerability within the Chafee camp, could reconsider his commitment to stay in the House for the time being to dedicate himself to his new leadership responsibilities.

Just two months ago, Kennedy was made chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. And he vowed then to raise enough funds for Democrats to take back the House in 2000. That year, Kennedy also will earn a plum spot on the Appropriations Committee, which has the last word on all spending decisions, be they well-considered or pork-barrel.

"Patrick's decision [to stay in the House] is firm," says Kennedy spokesman Larry Berman. "He feels the Democrats are in a good position to win back the House." But Affigne says the congressman is ambitious enough -- and his fund-raising base is secure enough -- to change his mind at some point and to "risk antagonizing a few Democrats" by striking at Chafee while the iron's hot.

"The goal is always to move up," says Affigne. "Winning a seat in the Senate is more important than being a chief fund-raiser." And if Kennedy could somehow link Chafee to the more extreme Republicans in Washington, he just might be able to pull off a win.

In a second scenario, Affigne says, opposition could actually rise up from within Chafee's own party if the senator ends up pardoning Clinton. For the most part, local Republicans are just like Chafee -- members of the "blue-blooded Yankee elite" who preach moderation, says Affigne. Still, the more radical few within the party could decide to run their own candidate in 2000 in retaliation for Chafee's not abiding by their views and taking a harsher line with Clinton.

"Anything is possible when you're dealing with very passionate, agitated people," says the PC professor. "It's always possible that a dissident group could take advantage of the national climate."

Preston agrees, and says that a Republican primary could be even more crippling for Chafee than a Kennedy challenge. "You can win a Republican primary very easily in Rhode Island," Preston says. He points out that only 12,000 to 13,000 Rhode Islanders vote in these elections, so it wouldn't take much to turn one around. A candidate would simply need to mobilize those right-wing factions whose views differ from Chafee's -- anti-choicers and gun owners, for instance.

"That's not a far-fetched idea if someone knew what they were doing," says Preston. At the very least, Chafee would win the primary but enter the general election weakened, which would give his Democratic opponent (Secretary of State Jim Langevin and Congressman Bob Weygand are two names that have been bandied about) a boost.

It's not like Senator Chafee hasn't been in predicaments like this before. Indeed, there has never been a shortage of qualified candidates willing to take on the most senior member of Rhode Island's congressional delegation. In 1982, Julius Michaelson, a Democrat and former two-term state attorney general, almost pulled it off, using the recession and Reaganomics (then a negative term) as a wedge issue and losing by only 9000 or so votes. In 1988, former lieutenant governor Richard Licht ran a tight campaign against Chafee, and came within eight points of beating him.

But, overall, the 1994 race between Chafee and then-state Representative Linda Kushner seems to be the most portentous. When Kushner decided to run against the senator, she perceived him as vulnerable, she said -- as stale and out of touch with Rhode Islanders. In fact, Darrell West, a pollster and political-science professor at Brown University, noticed Chafee's job performance ratings sink throughout the summer of '93 as voters wondered how the senator was spending his time in Washington.

But then something occurred that fall that turned it all around -- a juicy, divisive issue that allowed Chafee to shine. The Clintons had introduced their health-care reform plan, and Washington was exploding with the controversy. Chafee, as chairman of the Senate Republican Health Care Task Force, emerged as one of the few heroes in the debate when he tried to forge a compromise. Proving once again that reason and politics aren't always opposites, Chafee quickly regained ground at home when he authored the main GOP alternative to the Clinton plan.

Today, because of compromises like these, Chafee is considered one of the party's truest moderates. He is supportive of abortion rights, and in the past, he has pushed for a handgun ban. In 1994, when Chafee was named chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he was hailed as one of the greenest Republicans in Washington, a reputation he continued to live up to in his new post.

But Chafee's refusal to always vote along partisan lines (including his decision in 1987 not to back failed US Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork) has had its downside as well. In 1990, Chafee lost the chairmanship of the Republican conference -- a third-ranking slot in the GOP leadership -- by a single vote after conservative Republicans complained that he was too liberal to serve as their spokesman.

As the GOP has continued to shift to the right over the years, Chafee has held on to his image as one of the few Republicans who could bring the party back to its senses. And, in some ways, the pendulum has indeed swung back toward the middle, as right-wingers were brutally reminded in November '98 that there's only so much venom voters can take.

Today, Chafee is not the only senator trying to walk the line between two warring parties. In fact, other New England senators, such as Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut), have taken on a higher profile as peacemakers in recent weeks in their quest to forge a compromise on the Clinton trial.

Last week, Chafee did go more public, with the Imus show and an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. But in general, he has spoken his mind only when asked. Is it political strategy or a personal repugnance for everything having to do with cigars and thong underwear that's holding him back? Or is it that, as an old-fashioned Rockefeller-style Republican, Chafee must watch two flanks: his position within his party in Washington and his standing with voters at home?

As most people know, Chafee won't try to simply bluff his way through this latest controversy. Indeed, his refusal to con voters has been well-documented, most notably when he lost his reelection bid as governor in 1968 because he wouldn't promise not to raise taxes. (His opponent, the late Frank Licht, did make such a vow, though -- and then raised them once in office.)

If history repeats itself with the Clinton scandal, Chafee may wait until the battle lines are clear before offering a third option. Then again, because he has kept to himself about Clinton, he has emerged as a potential swing vote in the trial, and this gives him enormous leverage. He and three other moderate senators from New England -- James Jeffords of Vermont and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- are now considered key to the proceedings, as Democrats, if they all vote together, need only six Republican votes (a simple majority) to dismiss the charges or to essentially control the proceedings.

On Meet the Press, Chafee came out against cutting the trial short, before witnesses could be called, and forcing a vote on impeachment. Still, he is mum on the possibility of dismissal. "Chafee is the king-maker," says Brown's West. "He should ask Clinton for some Rhode Island grants now. He really should."

Indeed, both Preston and Affigne agree that, to this point, Chafee has played the situation well. "So far, he has done a good job of maintaining some independence," says Affigne, who advises the senator to continue on this path. "His best strategy is to say little during the trial and to listen carefully to what's being said in the Senate and to the letters to the editor back home in the Providence Journal. He needs to keep his options open until the trial is over."

Because, according to Affigne, the impeachment trial of President Clinton may not turn out to be as meaningless as everyone says. "If any new evidence is revealed, it could move the public in either direction," he explains. "People could turn more strongly against the Republicans, or if the White House overplays its hand and drags out the trial, there could be a backlash against Clinton."

Preston says that "as long as Chafee does it in a dignified manner," the senator would survive even a vote to remove Clinton. And Joan Quick, who chairs the state Republican Party, agrees.

"I don't see it [the trial] as an issue in 2000. He's a senior senator from here, and we tend to treat our senior senators with a lot of reverence and dignity," she says.

In fact, while some people cite Chafee's age as a possible negative in his reelection bid, Quick says it has served him well in recent weeks, giving him a perspective that other senators don't have, along with the inherent respect of his colleagues.

"I'm very proud of him and the role he's taken," says Quick. "On Meet the Press, he really took the lead on all six senators."

But Affigne maintains that, until the trial is over, it's hard to predict where Chafee will be a year from now. "Nobody knows what will happen with this trial," says Affigne. "It's a tricky unsettled and uncertain moment in American history."