Transcript: Election 2024: The Stakes with Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)

REP. SMITH: Well, thanks for having me. I appreciate the chance.

MS. CALDWELL: So when we booked you to talk last week, we were going to mostly talk about President Biden and if he should get out of the race. We all know what happened, and so I want to go to that topic a little bit later.

First, I want to ask you about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is scheduled to deliver an address to Congress tomorrow. This has become quite controversial, and so I want to ask you to start, do you plan to attend?

REP. SMITH: No, I do not.

MS. CALDWELL: Why?

REP. SMITH: Because I never attend joint sessions of Congress. I’m weird that way. I don’t know. It’s a weird thing. I’ve been here 28 years. I don’t know how many opportunities that I’ve had. I have never once gone over there for a joint session of Congress. So it’s not so much a boycott. I am very, very opposed to what Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing in Israel. I think he needs to do more to get to a peace deal in Gaza, and certainly how he is continuing to press in the West Bank and undermining the ability to come up with an alternative to Hamas, I mean, that’s the biggest problem here.

And look, I support Israel, and I support Israel’s right to defend themselves. I support how they have, you know–I support the fact that they were attacked and they need to respond to that. But there has to be a future for the Palestinian people, and I’ve met with Prime Minister Netanyahu as recently as three months ago when I was in Israel. And I think he’s just fundamentally wrong on the biggest security question facing Israel, and that is the need for a Palestinian state. He’s of the opinion that Israel can’t be secure if there is one. I’m of the opinion that it can’t be secure if there is not one, and we need to start working to build that alternative to Hamas. So I’m very concerned about his policies, even as I continue to support Israel.

MS. CALDWELL: Do you have any indication that he is going to shift his position, even subtly, tomorrow when he addresses Congress?

REP. SMITH: Not at this point, no. I know the White House is going to continue to work on that. But look, I mean, Israel is close now to stumbling into a war with Hezbollah and Lebanon to the north, and their ability to absorb that is seriously in question. I mean, this is an existential threat to Israel’s existence.

And there’s a path here to a more peaceful future that involves the coalition that has been so much talked about between Israel, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, and others, but we can’t get to that if there’s not a future for the Palestinian people. You cannot simply ignore the challenges that are faced in Gaza and the West Bank right now for the Palestinian people, and that is regrettably what Netanyahu is doing to date.

MS. CALDWELL: What do you say to your Democratic colleagues who are intentionally not attending the speech tomorrow, that they are in fact boycotting? Because there are a lot of them?

REP. SMITH: That’s fine. I mean, I think that’s a perfectly reasonable choice in this setting, and look, you know, I’m more focused on the policies than the theater, which is why I wouldn’t have invited Netanyahu in the first place. It becomes just a theatrical moment. But once that was done, I’m not going to add to that. I’m going to stay focused on here’s what Israel should change about its policies going forward, so that we, you know–so that we can have a stronger, better alliance, and so that there can be a more peaceful future for the Israeli people.

The substance of the issues that I was walking through a moment ago is what should be our focus, not whether or not Netanyahu is giving a speech.

MS. CALDWELL: The Biden administration has continued to send weapon shipments to Israel. Do you continue to agree with that?

REP. SMITH: Yeah. Look, I mean, the trap that we’re in here is Israel is, without question, threatened. They continue to be threatened by Hamas. The Hamas has been significantly weakened, and I think that threat from Hamas would be weakened further if a ceasefire could be achieved in Gaza. But they’re also threatened, as I mentioned, by Hezbollah and Iran. And we saw–what is it now? I forget. Three months ago now when Iran launched an attack against Israel, and that attack was thwarted. But it was thwarted because of the F-15s and the missile defense and all the weapons that we supplied to them. Israel continuing to have an adequate deterrent is necessary for them to continue to exist in the face of the threats that they face from Hezbollah and Iran.

And look, if Hezbollah and Iran would be able to be empowered to weaken or, God forbid, destroy Israel, now we have a Middle East that is being even more dominated by Iran, and that’s not good for anybody. That’s not good for anybody in the Middle East. It’s not good for the Palestinians. It’s not good for global peace and security.

So Israel does need the weapons to defend themselves against these very specific threats that they face. So I think cutting them off from those weapons would be unlikely to change Israel’s policies. It would only further fan the flames of conflict in the Middle East, in my opinion.

MS. CALDWELL: You said you’ve met with Netanyahu three months ago in Israel. Do you have any plans to meet with him privately when he’s in the U.S. this week?

REP. SMITH: [Laughs] I don’t think my plans are the key part of that question. He does not have any plans to meet with me. I can assure you of that. So no, that will not be happening at this point.

MS. CALDWELL: What would you like to see from the Biden administration? And now that more eyes are on Vice President Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, on this issue of Israel and that would come out, what sort of message do you want them to send to Netanyahu this week?

REP. SMITH: Look, I think President Biden and his team have been sending the right message for quite some time now. They have been clear in their support for Israel, clear in supporting them to defend against those threats that I just outlined from Iran and Hezbollah and the Houthis and other Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. So he’s been clear in that. And at the same time, the President has been pressuring Netanyahu and his government to get to a ceasefire and also to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

And also it is worth pointing out, which I haven’t at this point, Hamas is as responsible as anybody for the fact that there’s not a ceasefire right now. There were offers on the table going back months now that they rejected because they wanted a guaranteed permanent ceasefire, which Israel couldn’t agree to, you know, because that would basically give Hamas free reign to build back up and attack them no matter what. There were temporary ceasefires on the table that would have gotten the return of hostages and ended the war, and also, a temporary ceasefire is the first step to a longer-term ceasefire. So I recognize it’s not just Israel, but I think President Biden has tried to put pressure on Israel.

They’ve also worked with anyone they can work with, with Qatar and Egypt and Jordan and others to try to get to that ceasefire, and they’ve been very sensible also about focusing on the West Bank and the need for an alternative to Hamas, a need to, you know, get the Palestinian Authority strengthened so that they can actually effectively govern Palestine instead of undercutting them at all turns.

So I–you know, I don’t have a lot of criticism of Biden’s efforts to get to a more peaceful outcome in the Middle East, and I’m kind of the opinion that Kamala Harris shares that view.

MS. CALDWELL: Mm-hmm. Do you think that Vice President Harris should preside over the speech tomorrow? She is continuing with pre-planned plans to go to Indiana, but should she be here?

REP. SMITH: I don’t think so, no. I think it’s an important statement. I mean, I think, you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been very unresponsive to a lot of the requests and a lot of the urgings that he’s received from President Biden, and I think it’s appropriate for the Vice President to say, “Look, you know, we’re not just going to roll over for this. You know, we want to let you know that we’re not happy about it.” And I think it’s perfectly appropriate for her not to be there.

MS. CALDWELL: Great. I want to now move to the 2024 election. You were one of the first members of Congress to call on President Biden to step down, step aside from running for reelection. Of course, we know the outcome. He did that this past Sunday. But can you just talk to us a little bit about what your concerns were with President Biden continuing to run?

REP. SMITH: I don’t think he was physically capable to run that campaign, and I think questions about his health would dog the campaign to the point where they would distract from all other issues. And I don’t think that was a particularly difficult call.

After that debate, the only sensible thing that should have happened is his team should have gotten together and figured out how to gracefully step aside. I mean, look, his health has very clearly declined. It’s funny, in the lead up to this show, you were running clips of all presidents at their inaugural speeches, and you ran a quick clip of President Biden making a point during his inaugural in 2020. And even just looking at that video, you can see how much more vibrant and clear and coherent he was versus where he’s at now. His health had clearly declined to the point where his ability to go out there and run this campaign and coherently deliver an effective message was clearly gone. And it was time, and I didn’t have any doubt about that.

MS. CALDWELL: Mm-hmm. What about Republicans who now argue that Democrats were covering up what they had known about President Biden, that his health had deteriorated so much? Is that true?

REP. SMITH: That’s absurd. I mean, the president was out and about, and there were, frankly, plenty of criticism while he was out and about. But the other thing that everyone seems to have forgotten at this point is the State of the Union. All right?

I mean, look, I–you know, I saw some reports, January, February, even back to December, how’s the president doing, and then he came out. And look, hour and a half, great speech. He was even responding to things shouted at him by the rude Republicans in the audience in a way that was quick and coherent. He stayed around after the speech, spoke with people, and I really think that was the thing that changed a lot of people who said, “Okay. Yeah. No, I think he can do this.” You know, and then after that, there started to be some more indications, obviously culminating in the debate.

But look, J.D. Vance is just, you know, he seems to be like trying to outdo Donald Trump on the Insult Comic Dog routine, you know, “Oh, Joe Biden was incoherent for three and a half years, and everybody knew it.” Come on, okay? You know, he has presided over a number of different policies, flown all around the world, helped build the coalition to defend Ukraine, passed all of that legislation. Clearly, President Biden was capable of doing the job.

His health has declined, particularly in the last four or five months, and that’s what we saw in the debate stage. But no, nobody covered up anything. It was an open debate and a public discussion right up until the moment when President Biden, to his credit, recognized that that’s where he was at, and it was time to step down.

MS. CALDWELL: Did you have any personal experiences with President Biden over the last four or five months that caused you to question his ability to continue to run such a vigorous campaign and win?

REP. SMITH: Yes.

MS. CALDWELL: Can you tell me about that?

REP. SMITH: Well, he came out and did a fundraiser in Medina, a small town just outside of my district and outside of Seattle. Gosh, when was that? May-ish, I think. May, early June or something. And, you know, he was clearly in tough shape. He gave a 10-minute speech off of a teleprompter that he struggled with from time to time, and it was concerning at that moment, yes.

MS. CALDWELL: What do you want President Biden to do for the remainder of his presidency? You know, he has six months left. What should he focus on?

REP. SMITH: Yeah. Well, peace, I mean, in a word, you know, trying to get to a ceasefire in Gaza, trying to, you know, get greater stability and peace in the Middle East. And then also, I think–I think we need to push for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine to try to end that war. It’s a great policy accomplishment that we’ve worked with Ukraine and 54 countries to help stop Putin from destroying all of Ukraine as he intended. We have a sovereign democratic Ukraine now against all odds.

But what’s the future? Can we fight this war forever with the stalemate where it’s at? I don’t believe that we can, and I think we need to think about how do we end the war in a way that, number one, preserves a sovereign democratic Ukraine and, number two, makes sure that there are security guarantees in place to protect Ukraine going forward.

I mean, President Putin has said, you know, there needs to be a ceasefire and then Ukraine needs to disarm. No, that’s not going to happen. There is no way on earth we can trust Russia going forward. Ukraine will need the security agreements to make sure that they can protect themselves going forward. But that conversation, to my mind, needs to start happening. And I know, look, the way we all want this to end is with Ukraine having all of its territory back and Putin in jail somewhere for the rest of his miserable life. Okay. That’s the way we’d like it to end. I don’t believe that is achievable. So we have to be realistic about what an acceptable peace would look like, because again, continuing to fight this war, even on its current terms, is incredibly costly to so many people, certainly the Ukrainians, but, you know, to the wider world, spending the money to help provide for that war.

But there’s also–as long as the war goes on, there continues to be the risk that it could escalate into a more–a larger conflict between NATO countries and Russia. So I think those are a couple of good things to work on. I think he’s done great work in terms of building a coalition in Asia to help counter Chinese aggression with Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Australia and others. I think, you know, he’s doing a good job. He can build off of that.

Domestically, I mean, look, we’re going to have a hard time passing legislation, and that’s the understatement of this interview at the moment.

MS. CALDWELL: [Laughs]

REP. SMITH: But, you know, I think that he should continue to advocate for the Build Back Better agenda. You know, we passed a tiny portion of that two years ago. I think the agenda that says we are going to raise taxes on the rich and the biggest corporations in this country; we’re going to make drug companies, you know, give us a better deal on drugs so that we can pay for better early childhood development, child care, home health care, more help for seniors; you know, to actually start to get a more even and fair economy, I think that’s a great message. And I think he should continue to drive that message for the rest of his presidency.

MS. CALDWELL: Is Vice President Kamala Harris–what sort of response are you hearing from your constituents, from your donors, from your allies about her being the nominee?

REP. SMITH: The only time I can recall anything even approaching this level of enthusiasm for a candidate was when I supported Barack Obama, you know, very early on back in 2007 and 2008. We’re jazzed. We’re pumped. We’re excited. We’ve got a great candidate. We’ve always had a great message. Now we’ve got a very strong candidate who can deliver that message, and I have never in my life seen the Democratic Party or our coalition as pumped and enthusiastic about a campaign as they are right now for Kamala Harris.

MS. CALDWELL: Why do you think that is? She ran a presidential campaign in the primary in 2020. We obviously know that she didn’t win that. Why are people so psyched about her right now?

REP. SMITH: Well, I think there’s three reasons for it. One, because she obviously has talent and particularly in the last couple of years. You know, I–as you might have noticed, I tend to tell the truth when I talk about these things, and not everybody loves it. But she got off to a tough start. I don’t think anyone should deny that. Her 2020 campaign, not good, okay? A whole lot of people have ran for president unsuccessfully who are also still very good at their jobs. It’s a tough thing to do.

You know, and then she came in as vice president. What’s her role exactly? She struggled to find that role, and–but the last two years, number one, she took point at the Munich Security Conference on NATO, Ukraine, and the larger alliance. I’ve been to that conference each of the last three years. She was the lead spokesperson, and she was awesome at delivering that message, particularly after the Dobbs decision on choice and reproductive health care for women. And increasingly on a large number of issues, we’ve seen her step up, and it’s really, really impressive to see. That’s number one.

Number two is what’s been there since 2016, Donald Trump. Okay. You know, we don’t think that Donald Trump, given his history and given his promise to get revenge and be a dictator and all these other things–you know, people want to be able to defeat him, and now we think we have a candidate who can.

And look, the third reason is Joe Biden was struggling. I mean, everybody saw that, even if some people tried to pretend it wasn’t so. You know, in the debate, you’re out there and you passionately believe in the democratic agenda. You passionately believe that Donald Trump is a huge threat to this country, and you’re looking for someone to stand up and fight back and make that case. It just wasn’t happening with Joe Biden, and now we’ve got someone who’s going to do it. And the comparison, I think, is greatly beneficial to the vice president and has really enthused the Democratic Party and those who want to see Donald Trump not get back in the White House.

MS. CALDWELL: During her 2020 campaign, one of her biggest liabilities was the fact that she was a prosecutor. This, of course, was the time in the aftermath of George Floyd and a lot of police brutality incidents. What is–you know, do you think that that could be a liability for Democratic base voters this year?

REP. SMITH: No. I mean, first of all, it never should be a liability, and Kamala Harris has talked about this from the very start. We need a criminal justice system, which, by this way, is the position of the Democratic Party. I know there are some on the fringes who don’t think we do. I deal with that out in Seattle to some extent. But the Democratic Party as a whole, we need a criminal justice system. You know, we need it to be fair. We need it to be accountable. We need it to be responsive, but we need prosecutors. We need good, fair, intelligent, capable prosecutors. And that’s what Kamala Harris was when she was a prosecutor. So I think that’s a good message.

And second of all, it is a neat little trick to say, you know, “I’ve gone up against criminals before, and now I’m going up against one of the biggest criminals we’ve ever had in Donald Trump.” And I think Democrats like that message. I think even some of the Democrats who, justifiably so, have concerns about the limitations and faults of our criminal justice system, even if we know we need to keep it and reform it and make it better, are now seeing the wisdom of having an effective criminal justice system, given all of the crimes that Donald Trump has committed and the struggles that we’ve gone through to try to hold him accountable for them.

MS. CALDWELL: I have a question from a viewer. Beth Maples-Bays from Tennessee, she asks, “Can you give us some names of possible vice presidential candidates? And who would you like to see her choose?”

REP. SMITH: I think she should pick Mark Kelly. We have a lot of good opportunities out there, a lot of good people, various governors.

MS. CALDWELL: And that’s a senator from Arizona, just to remind our viewers.

REP. SMITH: Correct. Yeah, look, I mean–

MS. CALDWELL: Tell me why.

REP. SMITH: Well, Mark, he’s been battle-tested. He won $200 million-plus Senate races in the last two cycles in a straight-down-the-middle purple state. Arizona is a state that could go either way. I think the strength of Mark’s candidacy obviously helped win his two races, but I think he also helped pull the governor over the line to win that narrow victory and keep Kari Lake out of that position.

But look, Mark, he’s a Navy veteran, fighter pilot, astronaut, you know, two-term senator, and his wife Gabby and he had been working on gun safety all across the country. I think Gabby is just a really compelling person as well, and I think Mark would really, really be appealing to people all across the spectrum.

We’ve got other good candidates. Like I said, Governor Shapiro, Governor Cooper, Governor Beshears, Governor Walz. Pick your favorite governor. A lot of them out there.

But I think Mark is the one who would strengthen the ticket the most and give us the best chance to win.

MS. CALDWELL: Do you think that VP Harris and the Democratic Party are expecting and prepared for potential attacks on her gender, her race, and do you think that that will be a liability in this election?

REP. SMITH: No, I think it’ll be an asset, because look, the Republicans just can’t help themselves from sounding sexist and racist, even if they’re not. I mean, you’ve already seen it. I mean, calling her a DEI candidate. I mean, this is a woman who, you know, graduated, the high honors from Howard University, got a law degree, prosecutor, then elected prosecutor, elected attorney general, United States senator and vice president.

Look, if you as a Republican look at Kamala Harris and say she’s a DEI candidate, then you just fundamentally don’t believe that any Black woman should ever be, you know, elevated to be the president of the United States. So I think the ridiculousness of the Republican approach to try to marginalize her and demonize her–I mean, again, back to J.D. Vance and, you know, I guess him deciding that because he’s from Yale, he can insult whoever he wants to insult, you know, saying that Joe Biden is the worst president in the history of the country and Kamala Harris is a thousand times worse, I mean, that’s just ridiculous, all right? She is a capable, quality human being.

I mean, and look, if you’re out there and you’re a voter and you say, well, I don’t agree with her on health care policy or I don’t agree with her on abortion or I don’t agree with her on this, that, or the other thing, and you want to vote for somebody else, that’s fine. Okay? Absolutely. But if you’re a voter out there and you say she’s not qualified, then you’re just not paying attention. All right? She is clearly qualified and clearly ready to go, and to the extent that Republicans, you know, want to race-bait or be misogynistic about it, I think that’s just going to help us.

MS. CALDWELL: I want to ask you a little bit about Speaker Pelosi. You gave a different interview where you said that she played a major role in President Biden stepping down. Can you explain that a little bit?

REP. SMITH: It’s kind of up to her to more explain it, but she played a major role. She was in communications with the White House. She was in communication with Joe Biden.

Look, I worship the ground that Nancy Pelosi walks on. I worked with her when I was chairman of the Armed Services Committee to pass four straight defense authorizing acts, and the way she works a coalition, the way she builds a vote count, the way she works with people, I mean, it’s just about the most skilled public policymaker and politician I’ve ever had the privilege of working with. And I think she worked this issue in that way as well. Having communications, you know, using data when it was necessary, using relationships when it was necessary, you know, relentlessly working the issue and talking to whoever she had to talk to, to get to where we got. So yeah, I think she was–she was very much involved. She certainly wasn’t the only one. There were a lot of other people having these conversations and communications as well. But you want Nancy on your side if you’re going into a battle. Let me tell you that.

MS. CALDWELL: Before President Biden–before the debate, I should say, Democrats in the House and in the Senate who are running for reelection in these tight races had the widespread belief that they were going to prop Biden up, that they were going to be the ones to carry Biden over the finish line because their approvals are higher than Biden’s, they’re polling better than Biden. You know, after the debate, there was a lot of concern that even they couldn’t carry Biden over the finish line and that Biden would be more of a drag. So my question is, is their belief that Kamala Harris will now be the one to boost Democratic candidates, or Democratic House and Senate candidates still going to have to push Harris over the finish line in this environment?

REP. SMITH: Well, first of all, I don’t agree with your premise. I don’t know that individual members of Congress or senators ever thought that they were going to have the power to pull Joe Biden over the finish line. I think they were deeply worried about how that was going to come out.

But second of all, look, this is a team sport. All right? Now, there are people, you know, in more important positions on the team, and certainly, our nominee is at the top of that list. But it’s going to take all of us. I think we’ve got a really strong nominee. And no, to answer your question most directly, I don’t think there’s any feeling out there that somehow we have to pull her over the finish line. She’s strong. She’s capable. She’s already got the campaign off to a good start. She’s going to run strong, and she’s going to do a good job.

But it helps if the rest of us do a good job. So, you know, every time you hear Democrats speak, every time you have a Democratic candidate out there, that reflects on the party to some extent, and it reflects down ballot. And I think we’ve got a good team.

I know in the House, we’ve got great candidates. I’ve had the privilege–I’ve been able to speak with a lot of them and see what they’re doing and see their backgrounds. We have strong candidates across the board all across the country who are running, incumbents and challengers alike, same in the Senate. So I think we’ve got a strong message. We’ve got a strong group of people, and now, we have a really strong leader, and, you know, I mean, there are no guarantees in life. That puts us in pretty good shape in my view.

MS. CALDWELL: Last question, Congressman. What do you think President Biden’s legacy is going to be?

REP. SMITH: I’m not a historian, okay? And I’m not even remotely focused on that issue. I’m focused on winning. I’m focused on making sure that we can continue to drive the message forward.

I will say I think he made the right decision in a tough–in a really tough situation, and do not underestimate how hard it is to look at it and figure out where you’re at and what you’re capable of in that situation. It was very difficult. He made the right decision. He put us in a better position, and I think he’s been a good president. And he’s got the record, the record to show it.

But let’s go in the election and then we can worry about legacies.

MS. CALDWELL: Great. Well, Congressman, thank you so much for your time today. I really appreciate it.

REP. SMITH: Thank you. Appreciate you giving me the chance.

MS. CALDWELL: Yeah, of course.

That was, of course, Congressman Adam Smith of Washington.

And thank you all for joining us today. For this and other programs, please go to WashingtonPost.com/live, and consider signing up for a Washington Post subscription. Thanks so much.

[End recorded session]