This morning I had the great opportunity to speak with Dennis DeConcini, the three-term Democratic Senator from Arizona. DeConcini was elected to the US Senate, where he served from 1977 to 1995. He was a member of the Judiciary Committee and chaired the Select Committee on Intelligence.
DeConcini (Cont.): I'm not sure it will pass. There's been a lot of Republicans - I've talked to many of them - and some are opposed to it on philosophy, though they're very upset with the Democrats. One of them who is a very influential man, Senator Hatch, he really doesn't want to do it, but he feels like he's at the end of his rope with the Democrats.
I think it will be attempted, and my guess is that this very right leaning President - and his popularity with the Republicans - it may carry. It will be a big mistake. It will not bring down the Republic, but it will be a big mistake.
Singer: Going back to your text, you said that
if the President has a political agenda and nominates judges he expects will fulfill that agenda, then the Senate has a duty to determine whether the nominee will go so far as to forsake judicial independence to impose the President's political agenda through judicial fiat.
By all indications, it seems like that's what the President is intending to do. You were writing this at a time when there was a Democratic Senate and a Republican President. Do you think the minority has the right to block Bush's judges?
DeConcini: I think they have the right to do it, yes. Would I be part of it if I were there? Probably not, if I thought these people were qualified. I voted for a lot of judges that I disagreed with and I voted for eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices. I did hearings in the Judiciary Committee when I first went there, just because the chairman liked me and nobody wanted to do the non-controversial ones. And I did hundreds of hearings.
If I think they're qualified, and they don't express themselves in such a manner previous to the hearings on nomination that their agenda is purely political - as Robert Bork was determined to have been - I'd vote for them. I think that some of these judges that the Democrats [have held] up, I have not looked at their file, but I would probably vote for some of them.
Singer: There was an article in The New York Times Magazine this weekend on the so-called "Constitution in Exile" movement, a conservative/libertarian movement, that calls for overturning the last 70 years of jurisprudence since the 1937 series of Court rulings. If a judge from that school were to be nominated, would it be right for the Democrats to block in that case?
DeConcini: For me, it is impossible to give a yes or no answer, and I know that's what you'd like, because it depends on what they have said and done. And if they were a sitting judge, if their rulings were just absolutely contrary to jurisprudence and Supreme Court majority rulings, then yes, I might do that, as I did with Bork. But Bork... [it] was really the exception when I voted against nominees from the White House. I think I voted against another one from Texas, a Hispanic man (I can't remember his name). But even Lloyd Bentsen, the senior Senator, I believe voted against him. It just depends what their back record is.
When they appear before the committee, with the exception of Bork, generally they leave a very good impression that they understand what the game is, what the rules are. But when they're sitting on the bench not being considered to being promoted, or they're a lawyer in private practice making speeches on the side or representing the Republican Party, that tells you what they really think and what they really will do.
If they advocate changing the Supreme Court, impeaching judges because of the decisions they've made, then that would influence me immensely. If they opposed them because of philosophical reasons, short of taking drastic action, I would respect that. And I did in a number of cases. I used to read these files meticulously whether it was a controversial one. I wanted to at least satisfy myself that the person was not a Bork.
Singer: If I'm not mistaken, you supported Clarence Thomas in 1991.
DeConcini: I did. Probably the deciding vote on the Judiciary Committee.
Singer: Your former colleague, the current Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had in effect called - or maybe in as many words - called him an embarrassment to the court.
DeConcini: I think he called him an idiot. He said that Scalia would be fine for him for the Supreme Court, but he thought that Clarence Thomas was an idiot.
Singer: What do you make of that assessment?
DeConcini: Well, I disagree with my friend, Senator Reid, and he is a longtime friend of mine. But I disagree with him as to Clarence Thomas being an idiot.
Singer: You brought up the potential for impeaching judges. A number of Republicans, ranging from John Cornyn, the Senator from Texas, to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also of Texas, have, in one way or another, called for the impeachment of judges for ideological reasons. In other words to force judges to adhere to the Republican ideology. What do you think of the potential move by Republicans to do this?
DeConcini: I think it's a big mistake, and I think eventually it will really backfire on them. The American public doesn't pay a lot of attention to the everyday politics in Washington, DC, but I just believe that there will be some revolt by the American public eventually if the right wing continues to pursue what they pursue. They appear to be on that road, which as a Democrat, that's just fine. I may be wrong. It may be wishful thinking.
Singer: You were in the Senate at the time of the last major overhaul of Social Security in 1983. 1983 was a very bipartisan move, in part because there was divided government, but what do you make of the kind of unilateral--
DeConcini: I think it is a total subterfuge by the administration. I served three terms [in the Senate], and every ten years, the Congress has made adjustments to preserve - and maybe strengthen, maybe weaken, depending on your opinion - Social Security. And we've done that. In some cases we've raised the amount of income that would be taxed, we have adjusted benefits, we've raised the age.
And now for Bush and the administration and particularly Snow (the Secretary of Treasury) - he knows better - to indicate that the program is going to go broke, it's just absurd. That happened when Jimmy Carter was President, and there was a big scare. Carter wanted to be a reformer, and at the end of it when I voted that, I voted against it. I was for it because I believed the information that was put out by the White House. But later in doing my own research with other Senators and I voted against it. It did pass because the Senate was [more than 60] Democrats then.
But it's just absolutely egregious to do what these Presidents do. Carter tried it, and now Bush is trying it, too. In Bush's case, it's even worse because it doesn't fix the problem. In Carter's case, they claimed to fix the problem, by a number of pretty strong positions, including raising the taxes. But in this case, what he is pushing, primarily - the private accounts - doesn't fix the problem. It's a political set up, and the Bush White House is very good at it, far better than many, many of us Democrats ever thought that they could do.
Singer: What do make of the push for Social Security reform at a time when the bankruptcy of trust fund won't occur for another 30 years - and that's just the bankruptcy of the trust fund - but when Medicare will be broke much sooner, within the next decade.
DeConcini: That's a very cogent point, in my opinion Jonathan, and one that the Democrats have not been able to get across to the media and the public. Medicare - if there is a crisis, and there may be, depending on your own interpretation of a crisis, very close to that - Medicare should be addressed first.
I don't think they should not address Social Security. But to do what they are suggesting, and Bush is pushing so hard, it's just absolutely subterfuge as to addressing the problem, in my opinion.
Singer: I want to shift gears a little bit and look to your home state of Arizona. Your successor in Arizona, Jon Kyl, did not face real opposition in 2000 and as of yet, there doesn't appear to be a strong Democrat who has come out to oppose him in 2006.
Arizona is a state that could trend either way at this point. At this point it is certainly leaning Republican, but the demographics could move it in another direction. What can the Democrats do to turn things around in Arizona?
DeConcini: Two things. One is to find a quality candidate who can either have himself or herself, or put together, the finances. The Democrats have some good candidates there, good office holders. Whether or not they'll take on Senator Kyl, I don't know.
Arizona is a tough, tough state for a Democrat. It was tough when I ran, the last time in particular. But it's just a tough state, and you have to really have your ducks in a row if you want to win as a Democrat in Arizona. You can't be naïve about it, and many people who run for politics in states that are more Democratic if you're a Democrat or Republican, you just have to be a little more sophisticated and you have to really have a candidate.
Arizona has got some good candidates. Whether or not they'll take him on, I don't know. Jim Pederson, the state chairman, is a very, very wealthy individual who has a businessman background, very successful in business, and all of the credentials of a Democrat. He's the kind of candidate that the Democrats would have to get. Whether or not he's got the stomach for that, I don't know.
Singer: Looking at the Mountain West in general, the Los Angeles Times just had a piece yesterday talking about [beliefs that] the future of the Democratic Party could lie in that region, with Colorado, the Democrats making big gains there, Montana, a little bit north of you also the Democrats seeing games, and even Nevada, your neighbor, the Democrats seem poised to attack, and also New Mexico. Why is Arizona a little bit more difficult for the Democrats?
DeConcini: Those states you mentioned are difficult, too. I belong to a group - (what's it called) Western Democrats Association, or something, with former Democratic Governors and Senators. Our problem in the West, and to me it's a little bit less in Nevada because of Harry Reid, but certainly in Utah and New Mexico, with the exception of Bill Richardson there, the national Democratic Party and its platform and its last candidate John Kerry will not listen or do not want to listen or don't know how to listen to issues that affect the West.
Bill Clinton did. He carried Arizona, after 1948 the last time it ever went Democratic. He invested the time, the resources and paid attention to it. Kerry and the Democratic Party generally [don't] do that. The exception there is Nevada because of Harry Reid's position.
Singer: There have been some turnarounds, with the legislature in Colorado, and of course Janet Napolitano is your Governor, so there is a Democratic Governor. Do you think that with the demographic changes in your state - I know that there are still a lot of conservatives moving in because it's a Sunbelt state, but there's great growth in the Hispanic population - do you think there's a chance for transformation in the next decade or so?
DeConcini: Yes I do. Two things come to the fore here. One is you mentioned the Hispanic population and its increase. Two is smart Democrats, and Napolitano is really one of them.
I nominated her to be US Attorney, and she had held no political position before, but had been active in the Democratic Party. And I offered her some advice - she might have already planned on doing it - but having been a prosecutor in Arizona, I told her to stay close to the police and represent them. She did that. And when she ran for Attorney General, she had Republican sheriffs all over the state and chiefs of police supporting her, because as US Attorney she paid attention to the law enforcement.
Now that's, to me, smart, practical politics assuming you believe that's the right thing to do - and I believe she did - and she did that as Attorney General for two terms. She was liberal in the areas that were fundamental to her - women's issues, reproductive issues, and minority issues - but she was very pro law enforcement and business deregulation. And so she was able to conjure up very good support from a lot of Republicans, and that's what you have to do to win in Arizona, in my judgment. I was fortunate enough to put that together.
Singer: Can I ask you just one more quick question?
DeConcini: Sure.
Singer: You brought up the challenges of connecting the national party to the state parties, in terms of the different issues of importance. We see in Pennsylvania this year, the leading Democratic candidate, Bob Casey Jr. - whose father was not allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention - and who is a pro-lifer, it looks like he has a good shot at getting the Democratic nomination. And even moreover, Senator Hillary Clinton has come out and talked about the need to moderate at least the way to talk about abortion. You, if I'm not mistaken, are pro-life -
DeConcini: I am.
Singer: Do you think that is enough? To moderate the language and embrace some more of these candidates?
DeConcini: Good question. It certainly is an important step. And there are no political two people in the United States that are smarter and more strategic and convincing than both Clintons, in my opinion. Doing that several months ago was quite impressive, in my political scale, of her capabilities as a politician, and I say that respectfully.
The Democratic Party, it's a perfect example of what you point out, refusing a popular Governor of Pennsylvania, a crucial state, a platform to speak at the national Democratic Convention because he was pro-life. That is what loses votes immensely, if people even pay attention to it. But that depicts, to me, how the Democratic Party is not inclusive as much as we like to say we are. It is exclusive. If you're not on 100% with the women's issues, then you can't speak at the national convention. That's absurd. It sounds like the right wing Republicans?
Singer: But what about the resurgence of his son, who looks like he will be the choice to face Rick Santorum?
DeConcini: Well I know his son. He's a bright young guy. I only met him once. I knew his father much better, talked to his father, and been on appearances on pro-life positions before. I don't know will he do it or not. But he has a name, he has a legacy there. But if he gets captured in the abortion issue and lets them - the Democrats in the primary - brand him as "that's the issue he will bring to Congress," he won't get the nomination.
I was pro-life, but I never ran as a pro-life Senator. I explained my positions and went to something else: the Equal Rights Amendment, childcare assistance, leave of absence for working mothers, and all kinds of other issues that I had a long history with. But I just wouldn't dwell on that or respond to trying to make me a one-issue candidate, a pro-life candidate.
[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]