Shields, Brooks Answered Your Questions on '08 Race

And then, separately, from Philadelphia, Dennis Spillman says, "John McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts, and he's willing to keep troops in Iraq for as long as necessary. What makes him any different than George W. Bush?"

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I guess first, on the first question -- he's trimmed a little, and I think some of it is tactical. And I guess the most significant one is on the tax cuts, he has supported the tax cuts, which he used to oppose, so I think that was a bow to the Republican base.

On most things, though, and on many things that were sort of brave, I think he's still pretty much kept to his guns. The big one is immigration -- I'm really struck by the fact that the idea that, you know, supporting 12 million immigrants, which always seems popular in town meetings among Republicans, it never actually produces election victories, it's never a good campaign issue, the way it seems, if you judge just by the political rhetoric that gets thrown around.

And so on those issues, on campaign finance, on global warming, on various other issues, I think he's pretty much the same straight-shooting John McCain that we, who cover the Senate, know him to be.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, I think, Judy, that John McCain will look back and this won't be his proudest moment in Florida where he used a tactic against Mitt Romney that Romney was for a secret timetable like Hillary Clinton, or an open timetable for withdrawing troops, simply because he had, last April, spoken of the advisability of Maliki and President Bush agreeing on what should be the standards and measurements.

And, I think the tax cuts are a place where John -- even though he has reasserted that he would have voted against the tax cuts again in 2001, when President Bush, as he did, and was one of two Republicans in the Senate to do so at the time -- that he would, that he's having it a little bit both ways by saying that now he would not -- he would vote to continue them, because to do otherwise would be to vote for a tax increase, which he has never done.

But, there's no question that on so many issues, he is an independent and a maverick, and David listed several other -- and I think he's not your one-size-fits-all Republican, by any means.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we have a question from Alexandria, Va., Hannish, he says, "David," he says, "Rudy Giuliani is dropping out of the race, which candidates will have the most to gain now, in terms of his support -- will the national security folks flock to McCain?"

DAVID BROOKS: I would have thought so. You would think that the McCain and Giuliani profile is very similar, and so the Giuliani people would just flock over and support McCain, and Giuliani and McCain are close friends, and Giuliani probably will endorse McCain at some point.

But, if you looked at the exit polls out of Florida, one of the many surprises -- and you always see surprises -- if you ask Giuliani people, "Who was your second choice?" Romney actually did a little better than McCain in the second choice question.

Then if you asked Huckabee who was their second choice, Huckabee voters vastly preferred McCain, even though they're more evangelical and more conservative.

So, you know, voters don't fit into neat categories, they judge by the man, or the woman for Democrats -- Republicans don't have that choice. But if you're a Huckabee voter and you like Huckabee's authenticity, maybe you're drawn to McCain's authenticity.

So, people defy logic, and I don't think it's easy, now, to tell who the Giuliani people will go over to.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, and just, in connection with that, we have a question from Greg Coates in Wilmore, Ky., and he says -- and he asks this just before we knew the results yesterday -- he said, "If Huckabee loses in Florida," and of course he did come in fourth, he said, "essentially it becomes," he writes, "a two-man race, so who do you think the evangelical vote will go to?"

Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think Mitt Romney has an obstacle, which, it's the 800-pound elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, and that is his Mormonism. And I think it's a problem, not simply with evangelical voters, but with a lot of Republicans.

In the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, nearly 41 percent of Republican voters said they thought a Mormon would have difficulty uniting the nation. And Romney was just getting over seven percent of that vote, versus he was getting 26 percent of the rest of the voters.

And he's overall favorable among Republican voters who didn't take that position, it was 56 to 4. And it was 30-30, 30 favorable and 30 unfavorable among those who thought a Mormon would have trouble uniting the country.

I think that continues to be a problem for him. And, I think ordinarily it's a -- he should get those votes, because social and cultural issues, his positions now are far more conservative than John McCain -- stem cell and other, difficult topics for -- important topics -- for conservative voters.

But, I do think that Rudy was counted on by the Romney people to do better yesterday, here in Florida and to take some of those, you know, moderate votes away from John McCain. I think the collapse of Rudy Giuliani at Tuesday's Florida primary was a great help to John McCain, and John McCain's position on immigration, endorsed by the Governor, and Mel Martinez, the senator -- former Republican National chairman and himself a Cuban émigré, really helped him in Dade County, which provided the Miami area, where the Cuban-American population is so important. And provided him with the boost that he needed to win statewide.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, we have a question from New Zealand, Chad Taylor, and he said, "We've heard so much about the neocons in the Republican Party in the last six years, are they still a factor in 2008? And if so, which presidential candidate would they vote for?"

DAVID BROOKS: I've lost track of who they are. Is Donald Rumsfeld a neocon? Is Dick Cheney a neocon? Is Paul Wolfowitz? I guess Paul Wolfowitz is part of it -- Doug Fife? I guess they would vote for McCain, they, I think McCain was more in tune with more aggressive foreign policy, I think on Iraq, if you talk to people inside the White House instead of the Pentagon, they think McCain and Hillary Clinton are the ones who will fight the war the way they think it should be fought.

They think Hillary is -- doesn't say that publicly now -- but based on the, sort of, three years they worked together on the Armed Services Committee, they thought McCain and Clinton pretty much agreed on how to proceed in Iraq.

And so, I think they have a high degree of confidence in those candidates.

JUDY WOODRUFF: From Norcross, Ga., a Norman Wishman, and now he states this as fact, he says, "Both of you like McCain," he's talking to you, Mark and David, he says, "I remember two things that turned me off. A couple of months ago at a campaign stop, someone referred to Hillary as "a bad word," and McCain laughed along with the crowd.

Second, any man of principle, as you portray McCain, would not kiss up to Bush after the way he was treated in the 2000 primary in South Carolina -- did you guys forget this?"

Mark?

DAVID BROOKS: No, didn't forget it, I mean, that was, it just shows one of the great changes of the election of 2008. That was on YouTube, and available for viewing, where a woman had asked, "What are we going to do to stop the 'B' word?" And it took awhile before John McCain did get around to saying anything complimentary or positive about Senator Clinton -- not one of his proudest moments.

And the other question was, Judy, about him -- ?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Oh, about, any man of principle would never kiss up to George Bush after he was treated --

MARK SHIELDS: Oh, I think that was probably not even smart or particularly admirable, the way he did. The obvious strategy was that they were going to try and corner the nomination at the outset, I mean, it's a rather remarkable story, to start out to the front-runner to Plymouth, the way he did, with no money. To totally revamp his staff, getting rid of most of his principle strategists, and rejecting the strategy out of necessity and simply going back to what had worked for him in 2000.

But, getting cozy and chummy with George W. Bush had not paid any dividends for him, so it was not only particularly not admirable, it was no particularly helpful.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And one other question about the Republican, David, what is the legacy of President Bush? Do you think the Republicans have to stay away from him, to win the election?

DAVID BROOKS: They can't stay entirely away; he's still popular with the party. Though the party is now extremely unpopular, I would say, if you ran a generic Democrat against a generic Republican for president these days, the generic Democrat would get 57 to maybe 65 percent of the vote.

So, people do want to change. They're exhausted and tired of the Bush years. They want a lot of changes. And it'll be up to McCain or even Romney if he gets the nomination, once they get the nomination, to fill out a lot of the explanation of why they represent a change.

And I'd say, so far, neither candidate has really done that, which is what they would absolutely have to do if they're going to try to appeal to independent voters, and a lot of voters, including a lot of Republicans, who are just exhausted and tired of the Bush presidency.

MARK SHIELDS: Judy --

JUDY WOODRUFF: Go ahead, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: Just one question about the neocons, I'll tell you who the neocons are -- they're the individuals who do not appear on either candidates' platform or committee. I mean, I haven't seen anybody seeking the endorsement of Paul Wolfowitz or Donald Rumsfeld or Richard Pearle or any of those, I mean, so I mean, they've sort of become effectively non-persons in this campaign as far as Republican candidates.

DAVID BROOKS: Actually, just on that one point, I will say if you ask McCain, for example, who he listens to in foreign policy, he'll talk about Bob Kagen, who many people think is a neocon. He'll also talk about Brent Scowcroft who has the entire opposite views. And those are the two people he lists very early when asked that question.

So, I do think he has an incredibly diverse array of people he goes to, Henry Kissinger is also prominently mentioned when he talks about that sort of thing.

David, what's his legacy in this race, and where does his support go?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, the first question is easier to answer than the second -- his legacy is some of the economic populism that really has influenced the entire Democratic Party and influenced the campaign. And it didn't start with John Edwards, people like Sherrod Brown and others have been championing, sort of, restricting trade in various ways, sticking up to working class interests against corporations, but he's the one who amplified it and carried it out. And I do think he has injected into the race -- in a way that Obama and Clinton have both gotten on board.

And so, if you wanted a candidate who introduced a new set of issues, or at least a new set of emphasis, he more than the others, actually did that, and he'll leave that behind.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Without John Edwards, it would have been a pretty dull campaign. John Edwards did, I think, move the debate to a more populous, more activist place for the Democrats. He was the first one out with a health care proposal, and he certainly has not hesitated to take on the powerful interests.

I thought he was inhibited in what I always thought was his great issue, and I'm just appalled that neither Clinton nor Obama has even raised the issue, and that is the hedge fund billionaires paying taxes at a rate of 15 percent, which would have been unnatural to be paying at a rate one-third that of school teachers, nurses and firefighters. And would have been a natural for John Edwards, but he was hindered, hampered and humbled by the fact that he had been employed by a hedge fund, at an offshore location, between the two campaigns, which may have been one of the dumbest moves made by anybody between 2004 and 2008.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We have many questions from the Web site visitors about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both pro and con.

I'm going to start with a question from New York from Alex Smith. David, Alex says, "A criticism that's often heard of Barack Obama from my 20-something friends, as well as pundits, is that he is an inspiring speaker, but he lacks substance. Do you think this is a fair characterization, or a narrative created early in the campaign, that he's not be able to get away from?"

DAVID BROOKS: If you mean policy substance, I actually don't think that's fair, his campaign has plenty of deep policy papers, and platforms -- he's got a set of very good advisors, Austin Pools from Chicago is one of his chief economic advisors, very sensible Democratic economist. On foreign policy he's got people like Samantha Powers and others.

So, I think there's substance to his policy positions. I think the open question is, does he actually know how to run an organization as big as the Executive Branch of the Federal government? Does he know how to run a National Security Council, does he know how to operate a State Department, that is -- can be quite a tricky creature. And so that is the thing he probably doesn't know, and will take a little while to figure out.

And so, I do think that part is legitimate. But, is he just a guy who speaks in vague generalities? No, I don't think that's quite fair.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, do you want to comment on that?

MARK SHIELDS: I think I agree with David, I think Obama is a first-rate intellect, and probably demonstrated in this campaign, and a first-rate temperament, too.

We never know -- just as everybody's an amateur at running for president, everybody's an amateur at becoming president. And we don't know going in, you know, if he had run a university or something of that sort, I don't know if that would be a higher recommendation. It is the ability to recognize talent, to attract talent and direct it, and that's something that we know from looking at somebody's campaign, but we basically don't find out for sure until he or she is sworn in.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, there's a question from Indianapolis from Judith Dang, she says, "I'm a registered Democrat, but if Hillary gets the Democratic nod, I fear I'll be voting Republican, for John McCain. Have you heard similar stances from your contacts?"

MARK SHIELDS: Well, there are people -- particularly, and Judith does not identify herself in this way -- there are Obama supporters who are Democrats who are outraged or offended by what they saw as they misconduct and bad conduct, and inflammatory remarks of President Clinton, in particular, leading up to the South Carolina primary, and I did hear people make all sorts of statements, that they would not vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee.

I think those were made in the heat of combat. You know, upon reflection that may not be the case. But it seems a good bet that if -- and I think the Clinton campaign has been severely chastened, you know, everything that Bill Clinton says, you know, from now on will be seen through the prism of that criticism, so I think he'll be somewhat sanitized or extricated by his conduct down there and the criticism of it.

So, I have heard people say it, it'll be more meaningful if they're still saying it by the first of October.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, and just continuing on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Gary -- doesn't give his last name -- from Oakland, Calif., says, "Hillary Clinton kept her family together during troubled times, her policies are centrist, why is she so hated by the right wing?"

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it has to do with a lot of things, Gary's right; it doesn't have to do with policy. But I do think it has to do with Clinton's style, and this is something she amplifies in others and creates in herself, and we've seen in the past month that she has a very slashing, partisan style. And so, while she herself is probably the most centrist, her political style is no holes barred, and the Clintons have always valued the sort of brass-knuckles approach to politics, and that -- combined with the brass knuckles approach of many of her opponents -- creates a spiral of viciousness.

And frankly, I think as expert as she is on the issues, her weakness, obviously, is if she's elected president, it's quite likely that politics in Washington over the next four or eight years, will look like politics for the last 12 or 16 years, which has not always been pretty.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, this question picks up on --

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, can I just say one thing on that?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Go ahead, yeah.

MARK SHIELDS: If you go back over the last 16 years, again, the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, which I think is just a very good poll, in large part because it's done by two superb pollsters, Bill McInturff, a Republican, and Peter Hart, Democrat, both of whom keep each other honest -- not that either one of them needs it but they -- it's a great poll.

She is the most polarizing figure in America, when asked about your feelings toward her. I think her 16-year average is 42 favorable, 41 unfavorable. Now, how much of that is her fault? You can argue, how much of it is inherited from her husband? But, I mean, that's a reality. And that's why, what David says about red-blue America, if she is elected, I think the consensus is she has what we in the trade call a very low ceiling as a candidate. She would be elected with 51, maybe 52 percent would be a landslide, and she has a high floor -- that 47, 48 percent would probably be unshakable in her support.

But the prospect of Obama could get you 45 as a Democrat, which you don't want, but he might get you, on the upside, 54 and break out of the red-blue paralysis that we have been in, essentially, for the past 16 years.

DAVID BROOKS: I do think there is a reaction against the Clintons in Washington. And it doesn't start with the news media, it actually starts, I think, with a lot of sort of elite Democrats who are a little wary of the Clinton style. And to be honest, I think, within the media there's a -- Clinton doesn't always treat the media with respect and I, to be honest, I think a lot of people now react against them. So, there's a layer of hostility there.

So, and I guess I do think there's some truth to that, the Clintons will talk endlessly, if you give them a chance, about how Obama's getting a free ride, and there's a grain of truth to that.

On the other hand, if you looked into the Obama history, and I have, and I've done Nexus searches looking for flip-flops and contradictions -- there's actually not a lot there. He's been -- there's been some issues where he's shifted over the years -- but on the basic approach to life and politics, he's been remarkably consistent.

And he also has had the virtue in that first book of his of actually raising everything in a very candid way himself, so there's not that much left to expose. And so he has gotten more positive press, in part, because there's just less scandal there in the background. And in part, to be fair, because there's some fatigue, at least in the elite section of the Democratic Party, if not among regular voters.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quick, Mark this actually refers back to what you were talking about a moment ago. Marilyn White in Washington, D.C., says, "I'm so disillusioned and disappointed with Bill Clinton, surely I'm not the only black person who feels this way. As soon as Senator Clinton was threatened, Bill went for the race card. I don't dislike her but I feel repulsed by him. I've made up my mind not to vote for her if she wins the nomination, probably I'll stay home and not vote at all. The first time I would do this. If I feel this way, what are Hillary's chances of winning in November?"

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, the most loyal and dependable constituency within the Democratic Party for the past 40 years has been African-American voters; it is the block upon which everything else is built. If, for any reason, they don't participate or just do as Marilyn suggests, stay home, it probably spells, you know, absolute failure for the Democrats in November.

I don't think there any question that Bill Clinton -- and the bridge too far was when he was asked the question, "why does it take two Clintons to take on Obama?", on the day of the South Carolina primary, and he said, the day -- the evening of the South Carolina primary, and he said, "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama ran a good campaign." Now, Jesse Jackson did win South Carolina twice, uncontested in both cases, 1984 and 1988 -- they were both caucuses and not a primary.

But the reason he said it -- because John Edwards won South Carolina in 2004 -- he didn't mention John Edwards, and it was just to draw the sense that Barack Obama was, as Jesse Jackson had been, a black man running for president, rather than a candidate running for president that happened to be black. And I think there was an outrage, and it wasn't simply racially intense, it was across the board. And David Paulson the lead Democrat, I'd say elected Democrat, there's a certain resistance and when you get somebody like Jim Clyburn whose the Democrat in the House and a man who is a long-term South Carolina politician, very thoughtful and non-bombastic, calling the President to task for using code words as he did in the South Carolina primary, I think you've got a serious problem.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, two -- I'm going to combine two and then ask another one and just ask you both to keep your answers brief.

David Vickman in Kingsman, Wash., says, "Isn't there a better way to elect a U.S. president? I'm one of those crazy Ron Paul supporters, and I don't see him receiving equal time or fair treatment from the press." He says, "I'm actually more concerned about the integrity of the process then about the outcome."

And separately, Guy Weddell, in Pembroke Pines, Fla., he says, "I can't understand why the primaries have eliminated the most obviously highly qualified candidates so soundly and quickly. Isn't there something terribly wrong when people like Biden and Dodd are not covered well by the press?"

David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think in both of those cases, and I think very highly of Biden and Dodd and a little less of Ron Paul, but we follow the polls, the attention follows the polls, and you know, Mike Huckabee was nowhere, but he started rising in the polls and attention followed. John McCain was really collapsed and written off for dead by many people, and he started rising and the attention followed.

And that wasn't the media shaping the attention, it was voters making up their mind. And you can say what you like about it, I thought Biden ran a very good campaign and really didn't get what he deserved, but in general voters, I think, make pretty sound judgments and they're quite good at judging people's characters, and it's not the medias fault if the candidates don't get attention.