TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Archives
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Article on Mr. Racicot
• Mr. Racicot - Chair of Bush-Cheney ë04

E-mail a friend

Video of Marc Racicot.
 

Tavis: Marc Racicot is the chairman of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign. He served two terms as the popular governor of Montana. Prior to his current position, he was also the chair of the Republican National Committee, and he joins us tonight from the Bush-Cheney headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. Governor, nice to have you on the program, sir.

Marc Racicot: It's my privilege, Tavis. Thank you.

Tavis: I'm glad to have you on. So, they used to say back in the day, 'Where is the beef?' I guess the question tonight is, 'Where is the bounce?'

Racicot: Where's the what? I'm sorry.

Tavis: Where's the bounce? The bounce that Kerry-Edwards thought they were gonna get?

Racicot: Oh, the bump. The bounce. I'm sorry. I'm getting older and as a consequence, getting more hard of hearing.

Tavis: That's alright.

Racicot: You know, frankly, we anticipated that there might be more. If you take any measure from history, there's been about an average for a challenger against an incumbent to reach about a double-digit separation point. Hasn't occurred so far. Obviously the poll this morning, actually announced yesterday afternoon and reported this morning, the Gallup Poll reflects, as you mention, no bounce.

I think that, frankly, the explanation from my perspective--and obviously I'm an advocate for the opposition--is that there really was nothing new that was presented by Senator Kerry. It was interesting to me that he spent, you know, 7,000 words talking that particular evening on Thursday when he accepted, but only 70 of those words or so focused upon a 20-year Senate career. And I think he missed an opportunity to talk to the American people about how he would perform as commander in chief, what he would do differently. I mean, he read the same intelligence and he came to the same conclusion as the president, and then he voted against the appropriations later that funded the war. And I think that the American people have some fundamental questions that they're still asking. Who is this fellow that's running on the Democratic ticket? What does he stand for? What does he mean? What are his policies? I don't think he became crystal clear throughout the course of the convention in their minds.

Tavis: Talking about parsing a speech, when you get down to 70 out of 7,000 words, you've really paid attention to this speech. Let me ask you, to that point, and I think I can predict the answer, but I want to hear it anyway. Why do you think--'cause I'm fascinated by this-- why do you think that John Kerry chose not to spend any real time talking about 20 years in the U.S. Senate?

Racicot: Well, I think, Tavis, because he's been on the wrong side of the issues. The central issue under discussion, of course, throughout the speech that he gave was Iraq and national security and frankly, other than his service when he actually served as a naval officer, he's been on the wrong side of virtually every issue.

He was against Ronald Reagan and voted against Ronald Reagan's efforts to deal with the Cold War. He voted against every weapons system throughout the period of the Cold War that we're now using in the war on terror. He voted to eviscerate the intelligence budget after the first World Trade Center bombing by huge amounts of money and frankly was rebuffed by his own party, members of his own party in the Senate. He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against the intervention into Grenada, and then he voted for this war, very aggressively I might add, with language associated with it, and then just months later voted against the appropriations, although just a couple of weeks before that said it would be irresponsible to do so.

So I think, you know, quite frankly, he just has been on the wrong side of so many different issues, he did not want to focus on those. And in addition, over his 20-year career, only 5 bills, in my understanding, that he has introduced ever passed. And one of them was to designate a federal courthouse. Two of them had to do with marine populations, and I don't remember the other two, but they were not significant. So I don't think that there's been a great deal that has been accomplished there as a matter of his own inspiration over the course of those 20 years, and he's been wrong on the issues.

Tavis: Back to this issue of the bounce, the bump that we started with just a second ago, before I move on. Let me offer up a prediction that really ain't that bold when you think about it, but I suggest to you--I predict to you now that George W. Bush won't get much of a bounce out of New York City. We'll be there, by the way, as you know. But I predict the president won't get much of a bounce out of New York City, either. And the reason for that is this: that, while you call upon history to talk historically about how candidates have gotten bounces out of conventions, my sense is that because the country now is more polarized politically than ever before, that no guy, Republican or Democrat, is going to get much out of these conventions in terms of a bounce, because we already know basically where we're going. All you're really playing to is that 10%. This ain't rocket science, is it?

Racicot: I think I wouldn't argue with the possibility of your theory coming to reality. That most certainly is a possibility, and we'll see at the conclusion of the Republican National Convention. If you judge by historical standards, of course, we have one precedent. If you take a look at the parity, the political parity that pervades across the country, you can most certainly draw the conclusion that there may not be a great many people who are undecided at this point in time. There are probably a lot of reasons for that. The process started earlier. The incumbent didn't have a challenger. The Democratic primaries were focused much, much earlier, front-loaded. And we have 24-hour news cycles that allow for people to receive a great deal of information, so your theory, Tavis, may come to pass at some point in time. We'll know within a few weeks.

Tavis: Let me offer another theory, and this is much more conjecture, but I'm just curious as to what your thought might be. What if I said to you that this election can be put in the category of a Bush win right now if we know that we're going to find Bin Laden? If we find Osama Bin Laden, Bush wins, Kerry ain't got a snowball's chance in Hades. On the other hand, if we get hit by another terrorist attack, even though Mr. Bush and Mr. Ridge are trying to warn us with every chance they get, if we get hit again on our soil, Bush is done. You buy either one of those arguments?

Racicot: You know, I wouldn't speculate about either one of those circumstances coming to pass. I just have great faith in the American people that they have extraordinary amounts of common sense that they bring to this process, and I know the president has that same faith, so they place everything in its proper perspective. You know, this running for president is a searing process, Tavis, as you know. It peels back the layers of the candidates and lets the American people see virtually everything about them and then they make a decision and very, very infrequently, I think, are they ever wrong in their judgement.

Tavis: Is there anything else--to your brilliant point here, and I agree with you. Is there anything else that we can learn about George W. Bush, or for that matter, anything else the president wants us to know about him that we don't already know, after 3Ohm years, about this guy?

Racicot: Well, I think that, frankly, the agenda--the president's agenda--has been so ambitious and so much has been accomplished. It's actually a huge challenge for us to be able to communicate all of it to the American people. I mean, focus upon education--it was bipartisan in its reform. It's been funded at extraordinarily high levels. That is a very significant accomplishment. Trade--you think about all the things that have happened with trade. Medicare reform. All of the issues surrounding tax reform and the growth of the economy. Energy efforts. On and on and on. It's been very difficult to draw the boundaries around everything that's been accomplished in a bipartisan way and be able to communicate it to the American people, so we do have challenges making certain that everything that he has gotten done in fact is a matter of common understanding across the country.

And I think there are a great many things yet to learn about John Kerry. I really think that's part of what was taking place at the Democratic convention. I mentioned a couple of them: being wrong on the issues and having a rather paltry Senate career. But there are other issues I think that the American public will learn about as well--you know, his inability to be able to stick to one single issue or one perspective on an issue, or the constant desire to want to please or ingratiate with whatever group it is that he happens to be in front of at the time--or the nuancing, as some people call it. I think the American people are gonna learn a great deal more about both of these candidates between now and Election Day.

Tavis: I got just about a minute or so to go here. Of course, one of the big news items today is that we know, of course, the 9/11 Commission has recommended highly that there be a cabinet-level intelligence officer, for lack of better terminology here. The president has now come out, said he endorses that idea but does not want--is not gonna call Congress back early to do anything on that. John Kerry is saying the president isn't moving fast enough on putting forth these recommendations made by this commission. What do you make of Mr. Kerry's suggestion that the president ought to move more quickly on this, even though he does in fact support this 9/11 suggestion of this cabinet-level officer?

Racicot: Well, Mr. Kerry has been more than opportunistic with this particular issue. He wasn't even there to vote on the Homeland Security budget. He held up, along with others, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. He frankly has made about 31 recommendations that the president has already implemented. And the president has endorsed this recommendation to create a national intelligence director. I think, for the reasons he stated today, very sound reasons, to coordinate intelligence and oversee budgets and present a unified, cohesive possibility for us to address all of the issues that have to do with protecting the homeland. But whether or not you call Congress back, in three weeks' time, they'll be back anyway, and of course, the president's prepared to work with them once they arrive back here and are in session.

Tavis: Well, we will get a chance to talk to you, I suspect, at the Republican convention, which will be in New York City in just a matter of weeks. Mr. Racicot, as always, nice to have you on, sir. Thanks for coming by to talk to us.

Racicot: Thank you, Tavis, very much.

Tavis: My pleasure.