TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• "The Inside Edge with Carlos Watson"
• College Track

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Carlos Watson is a rising star in the news business, serving as a political analyst for CNN. He writes a weekly column for the network's Web site called 'The Inside Edge' and recently hosted his own primetime special on CNN. We met him this summer at the conventions, and now we're glad he's here in L.A. to visit us on the set. Carlos, nice to see you.

Carlos Watson: Well, it's good to be here.

Tavis: Congratulations on the special. How did it go?

Watson: Really well. You know, we beat our competition...

Tavis: There you go.

Watson: And I had some great numbers.

Tavis: That's all that matters. You have a piece currently on your Web site, CNN.com, that I wanna read from--just a few lines here. 'Cause there are some things here I wanna ask you.

Watson: I could feel the way you're gonna ask. That's good. I like that.

Tavis: You know where I'm goin'.

Watson: I know where you're goin'.

Tavis: So the headline is--the title is, "The Political Genius of George W. Bush: Democrats Have Much To Weigh as They Look to 2008." Let me just read a few sentences here, set up our conversation. "Whether you're a Democrat or Republican or an Independent, it's hard not to look at President Bush's reelection victory last week and conclude that he is probably one of the 3 or 4 most talented politicians of the last half a century. Why do I write that? Think about it. In 10 short years, George Walker Bush has won not just one but 3 high profile political races that most able politicians would have lost," writes our friend Carlos Watson. "In 1994, with no real previous political experience, he beat a popular incumbent governor in the nation's second most popular state." That would have been Ann Richards.

Watson: Right.

Tavis: "Six years later, he beats a sitting vice-president during a time of peace and prosperity." That would be Al Gore.

Watson: Unprecedented peace and prosperity.

Tavis: "And last week with a mediocre economy and an unpopular war and a well-funded and unified opposition--" we can debate that--"he not only won his race, but also helped increase Republican majorities in the House and the Senate." Let's walk through those one at a time right quick. With regard to winning Texas in '94, he's a Bush in Texas.

Watson: Well, everyone says that in retrospect. But remember that Ann Richards was a rhetorical star, right? You remember her in, like, '88.

Tavis: He's still a Bush in Texas.

Watson: But now everyone says that. Remember at the time his dad had lost reelection, right, and the Bushes weren't a dynasty at that time. All you had was a one-term, moderate Republican who got--his dad, who had Pat Buchanan essentially run him out of the race, and Ross Perot ended up finishing the job. When George W. Bush ended up winning in 1994, he wasn't the Bush son who was supposed to win. Remember, Jeb Bush was supposed to win in Florida and lost that race. So you gotta give him credit for that one. I mean, 'cause Ann Richards wasn't somethin' to sneeze at. But even if you don't give him credit for that, go forward 6 years later.

Tavis: Al Gore.

Watson: That shouldn't have even been a close one.

Tavis: Stop, stop, stop. But he was selected, not elected. That ain't talent, Carlos. Come on, now.

Watson: I'm gonna push you on that. Because Democrats don't like to hear it. But they gotta hear this.

Tavis: Right.

Watson: The reality is, that race should not have been close.

Tavis: Agreed.

Watson: Unprecedented wealth in this country during that time. Peace, all sorts of good news, and it shouldn't have been close. So, yes, you can argue about the court, and that's a very legitimate argument. Yes, you can say that there have been analytical studies that said that if every vote in Florida had been counted that Al Gore ultimately would have won. Every vote, not just some of the votes the way Gore proposed. So I hear all that, and that's right. But the reality is when everything was said and done, George Bush brought that home, should not have brought that home, should not have even been close. So I think you've gotta give him some credit for that. How much credit we can debate.

Tavis: OK.

Watson: And certainly when you move forward and you look at 2004--

Tavis: He's an incumbent president. He's supposed to win.

Watson: But now--

Tavis: No, no, he's an incumbent president. Incumbents are always supposed to win. You know that. That's the basis for--that's Political Science 101.

Watson: Although his dad did not win.

Tavis: He's an incumbent president and he's a wartime president. We've never kicked out a president in wartime.

Watson: Well, you know what? All of this--

Tavis: And Kerry wasn't the best guy.

Watson: Oh, I love this. All of this is beautiful revisionist history. The reality is, there are lots of other things we could talk about. We could talk about the fact that as an incumbent president, he had an approval rating below 50% at several points during the year prior to election. When that happens, usually the incumbent--Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, George Bush I--usually, those people lose. So there were lots of legitimate reasons why he could have lost, and yes, John Kerry was a so-so candidate, and, yes, they didn't run the best campaign. But when all is said and done, one of the reasons with all due respect why I think Democrats lose over and over again is because once they've lost, they never take a step back and say honestly, you know, "What could we do better, and what could we learn from that other guy?"

Tavis: I don't argue that. I think you're right. I think Democrats too often are stuck on stupid, to be blunt about it. But the question is whether or not with regard to the president it is talent or good timing.

Watson: You know what? Again, and you're not going to want to hear this, but I'm going to hit you hard with us. I think that along with Bill Clinton, along with Jack Kennedy when he ran in 1960, along with LBJ as a legislative president, '63 to '66, and along with Ronald Reagan, I think you've got to consider George W. Bush for all of his wins both in gubernatorial and presidential and in congressional races, you've got to consider him one of 3 or 4 best presidents.

Tavis: Ooh!

Watson: And what does he do? I know you don't want to hear it, but you know what? Every time Democrats underestimate or misunderestimate a candidate, every time a Democrat calls a sitting Republican president stupid or dumb, that person always wins reelection.

Tavis: Yeah.

Watson: You remember during the eighties all you heard from Democrats was Ronald Reagan wasn't smart. Wasn't smart on his way to 49 out of 50 states. I think the same thing happened to Democrats again. And by the way, I'm going to be honest with you, I think Democrats are at risk of getting literally obliterated in the 2006 midterm elections 'cause they're going to underestimate him again. They're gonna get mad instead of getting smart and figuring out what they can do in order to change the tides.

Tavis: I guess my point is I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. I think you can say that Democrats are trippin'. At the same time, not concede that President Bush is that talented at the same time.

Watson: Well, why don't you want to concede?

Tavis: I'm not hatin' on him. I'm just saying for the reasons that we just walked through. You know, when the Supreme Court picks you, when you're in your home state where your name is well known, when you're running against a guy where you're the incumbent, at war time--people are voting their fears and not their hopes, I'm just not sure that meets the--that rises to the level of being talented and to your point, one of the most talented presidents ever!

Watson: Let me tell you several things that I think that he does really well. One, I think he's very good at political fundamentals, including raising money, and that's easy to say for very few people. He constantly sets records at raising money.

Tavis: Agreed. Agreed.

Watson: Number two, he's very good at coming forth with a clear message that everyone can understand easily, right?

Tavis: Agreed.

Watson: John Kerry, over the course of 9, 10 months, by the time he was done, you didn't know what he stood for.

Tavis: Hope is on the way!

Watson: Ow! Maybe. The other thing I think that he's very, very good at is surrounding himself with--with an incredibly loyal and aggressive team.

Tavis: And smart. Republicans are smarter than Democrats. They're smarter.

Watson: Now, the other thing that people don't give him enough credit for sometimes and Democrats pooh-pooh this. Frankly I think it's the Alan Alda wing of the Democratic Party. He's willing to be ruthless. He's willing to go for the jugular. You cannot win in politics, particularly in presidential politics, if you don't have a willingness to fight hard. Bill Clinton was willing to fight hard and consequently won.

Tavis: I guess the question, though, is whether or not, to the point I tried to raise earlier, whether or not you are at all concerned, as I am, that it is--how can I put this? It seems to me fundamentally anti-American, it's antithetical to everything we believe in as Americans to vote in elections out of our fears rather than our hopes, and I think that in this campaign we got too much of fear-mongering and not people being asked to vote their best hopes about our future and about this world.

Watson: OK, but--

Tavis: So you can say aggressive, you can say go for the jugular, but is that the way you want to infuse new energy into our body politic?

Watson: Will you forgive me if I push you on this?

Tavis: Push me on it.

Watson: The reality is that's life, and that's life as it's always been. To the extent that the Democrats sit back and say that fear is not going to be part of the equation, that hope is going to be the only part of the equation, I don't think that's realistic. I think that hope's got to be part of the equation; I think fear has got to be part of the equation, but with all due respect, here's one thing that I think Democrats miss. And I've been in these arenas where George Bush is speaking in Columbus, Ohio. The people who back him, in contrast to what Democrats often say, aren't just backing him for fear. They have hope that America will become a more religious nation, in some cases. They have hope that there will be a quote, unquote, return to these moral values that they believe are important, so whereas Democrats see it as fear, it's at least worth understanding that some of the 59 million that voted for George W. Bush strongly believe that they're voting out of hope and that the only thing to fear, frankly, was John Kerry, who in their mind wasn't bringing anything to be hopeful about.

Tavis: OK. We only have a minute left in this first round. Carlos will come back.

Watson: Ha ha ha.

Tavis: This is a 15-round heavyweight. We're going old school. 15 rounds.

Watson: Can I be Ali, are you Frazier?

Tavis: No, I'm Ali.

Watson: I want to be Ali.

Tavis: This is my show.

Watson: I want to be Ali.

Tavis: It's my show. I will be Ali.

Watson: All right, but you're Ali in the first fight.

Tavis: You can be, like, Frazier or Foreman or somebody.

Watson: I'm Frazier, but in the first fight, 'cause Frazier won that first fight.

Tavis: All right. Let's do this. In 45 seconds, tell me what you expect out of this second term.

Watson: I expect out of this second term that you will see some of the most significant changes in policy in any administration since LBJ. I think on taxes you'll see significant change; I think on social security you'll see significant change. I think for those who consider themselves environmental activists, appalled will be a light word. For those who believe that environmental activists have taken it too far, they'll be very happy. I think you will continue to see some major changes overseas. And while we talk about foreign policy and we're focused on Iraq, I think two of the places you'll see the biggest changes--China and Russia.

Tavis: I'm glad to have you on. You're welcome any time, and I mean it sincerely. I'm glad that CNN has you. You're an asset to that network.

Watson: Well, you know, you helped me out a bunch, and I appreciate all the help. That's special. We wouldn't have gotten the numbers if you didn't spread the word.

Tavis: Glad to see a brother do well. Nice to have you on.

Watson: Thank you.

Tavis: Up next on this program, actor William H. Macy. I can assure you we will have a much nicer, cordial conversation than my friend Mr. Watson and I had, but I'm still right, he's still wrong. Of course, you can say that when it's your show. When I'm on CNN, he'll be right and I'll be wrong. William H. Macy in a moment. Stay with us.