|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| POLITICAL WRAP | |
 Januray 1, 1999  |
|
|
|
TERENCE SMITH: We get that analysis from syndicated columnist Mark Shields and David Brooks, senior editor of the Weekly Standard. Paul Gigot is on vacation. Gentlemen, Happy New Year. Mark, let me ask you, we saw a familiar phenomenon in Washington this week as it prepares for a presumed Senate trial of the president, and that was a trial balloon. Tell us what it's all about. MARK SHIELDS: Well, a trial balloon, first of all, is set up a proposed policy option is kind of floated, with a doctrine of deniability, that the person who is writing it in this case, presumably the majority leader of the Senate, Trent Lott - has no fingerprints on it, but the idea is that so he can deny it if it's shot down or if it's embraced he can then later claim credit for it. But this one, quite simply, is for a short - the premiums on short Senate experience, the operating premise is that there are not 2/3 of the Senators ready to vote for the removal from office of President Clinton, who's been impeached by the House. So get the trial over with. And one way of doing it, and the preferred option or recommended option would be to have the senators and if the evidence is presented, the case, very briefly, said the House managers and then president vote, in fact, whether 2/3 of the Senators vote in favor, that this is impeachable as presented, that the president would be removed from office, can be convicted; that crimes and misdemeanors, high crimes and misdemeanors spelled out rise to that level. If not, then the Senate would immediately go into - out of the trial and discuss censure or some other appropriate -- TERENCE SMITH: And all of this could be done in a relatively short time. MARK SHIELDS: Preferably two weeks and maybe ideally before the 19th of January, which is the scheduled date for the State of the Union, and that's when the president must speak to both Houses of Congress. TERENCE SMITH: Well, David Brooks, there's a bit of dissension among the Republicans about this. Is the air going out of this trial balloon? DAVID BROOKS: I think it probably is. You sympathize with their motives. I mean, these guys in the Senate see this big mudslide coming at them. It knocked off two speakers in the House. What's going to happen to them? And they're sort of dodging - maybe if I turn this way, I won't get dirty - you know. But it's coming, and Trent Lott is trying to get out of the way. But there are significant numbers of senators who are saying, no, we've got to do our duty. It's not so much all the conservatives who want to have the full trial, because there are a lot of conservatives who want to get it done very quickly. It's the guys who sort of say, well, the House did their duty; history's cast us in this role; let's do it -- and let's show some respect for the House and for the House Republicans, because if we just throw it away in a week or two, it looks like they're just a bunch of hotheads. Let's show some respect for what they did. So that's -- it's not an ideological split; it's sort of an institutional split. And Trent Lott is left how do I handle all this. TERENCE SMITH: And managing it is a big challenge for Trent Lott. DAVID BROOKS: That's right. TERENCE SMITH: I don't think -- has he encountered anything like this before? DAVID BROOKS: No. No. This is the biggest test so far, and it's tough because it's the Senate; it's not the House. In the Senate a couple of guys can throw sand in the works. And it's hard for Trent Lott too because here's a guy three weeks ago - or two or three - when we were bombing Saddam - who was the most anti-Clinton. He was opposing the bombing of Saddam. Now he wants to get impeachment out of the way the fastest. So he's anti-Clinton - he's pro-Clinton. It's a sign that having a perfect haircut maybe doesn't mean you're the most organized guy in the world. MARK SHIELDS: Two points to follow up on David -- observations. First of all, this is the first time Trent Lott has had center stage. I mean, he came into the job succeeding Bob Dole, who had been an authentic giant in the Senate and eclipsed by Newt Gingrich, who was certainly the architect and engineer of the Republican revolution. And now - you know - three out of four people in the Republican House Caucus have a tough time naming their leadership, and so here's Trent Lott - center stage - and this is - you're absolutely right - it's his first big test - more than that at a very crass, venal, political level, which I will quickly descend to -- he's got to be concerned because the line up in the Senate right now is 55/45 Republicans. And Bill Clinton - if you'll recall - ran extremely well in the Northeast and in the Midwest in this country - '92 and '96. He carried Pennsylvania twice. Once of the Republican Senators up in 2000 is Rick Santorum, conservative from Pennsylvania - who - stayed with Bill Clinton - still quite popular; Michigan, Spencer Abraham, another Republican who was elected in '94 up in 2000; Jim Jeffords in Vermont - I mean, you can go through the list. And Mike DaWi in Ohio. So Trent Lott is concerned about preserving his majority and not exposing to charges of piling on the worst - the Republican colleagues in the Senate who face re-election in 2000. TERENCE SMITH: Is a full scale trial, in your view, something that would benefit the Republicans? DAVID BROOKS: I think it would be a disaster. You know, they're talking about calling witnesses, which is something they didn't do in the House, but are talking about doing it in the Senate. And the people they are talking about are people like Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie, who would be on the president's side, presumably, and they would be very effective witnesses. And then on the other side, who are they going to have, Linda Tripp, Lucian Goldberg, Monica Lewinsky? It doesn't look like an edifying process or a politically beneficial process for the Republicans. It seems to me the way out of all this is just have a trial without witnesses, which is moderately short, but it's a real trial; it shows some respect for the House. One suspects that's where they might end up. TERENCE SMITH: Is that your fearless forecast as well? MARK SHIELDS: I don't have a fearless forecast. I think that if I were advising the White House, which happily for them I'm not, I think the president should go to the well of the Senate himself in his own defense. I think he should make his own case. I think his presidency, quite frankly, is in tatters. And the hope - in spite of the 73 percent approval rating, or whatever else it is this week, name the most admired man by all Americans yesterday in this week's Gallup Poll, running 11 points ahead of his Holiness, Pope John Paul II, you know, I mean, it's just amazing. But still the presidency is in trouble. I mean, he cannot command the bully pulpit that presidents historically have used. And I think that's where he has to go if he - has any sense of acquittal and a sense of momentum coming out of it. TERENCE SMITH: David Brooks, we have two additional and more formal candidates for the presidency now in Vice President Gore, who's filed his papers, and Sen. John McCain. Is this race finally taking shape? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. It's only about 600 fund-raising days till the election, which is what this thing is all about. That's why you announce that you can really begin fund-raising, and I think they have to raise $60,000 a day for the next year to get the 25 million people -- TERENCE SMITH: Including Sen. John McCain. DAVID BROOKS: Right. Sen. John McCain, who doesn't like fund-raising, as he says very volubly. He's an interesting case. He looks weak on paper; he doesn't have the fund-raising that some of the others have; he doesn't have grassroot support among conservatives. He was for a tobacco tax hike and campaign finance reform. He doesn't have the on-the-ground organization that some of these guys like Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes have who have been running, you know, since 1776, or whatever it was. But he does have first, an incredibly heroic war record. And he's a normal guy. He's a guy who reaches out to independence. He's proven he can win votes among Hispanics. He's a plausible candidate; to me, he and George W. Bush are, in fact, the only two plausible candidates who you can see as president and actually winning this thing. And he's running in a party that is not intellectually self-confident anymore. They've been battered by Bill Clinton; they've been battered by impeachment, and a normal guy is up for the nomination. So he's formidable. TERENCE SMITH: Al Gore, is he the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination? DAVID BROOKS: He is. I mean, a vice president - it's a job that's all in-door work and no heavy lifting - I mean, he basically can run around and get the nomination - I mean, George Bush being the most recent example, Fritz Mondale before that, Dick Nixon; it's a great advantage in seeking the nomination. But on David's point on John McCain, John McCain is remarkable; he does have a great personal story to tell. Unfortunately, he suffers from being every Democrat's favorite Republican right now, which could be the kiss of death, just as Sam Nunn was every Republican's favorite Democrat. But he also comes from Arizona, a state that has produced Barry Goldwater, Mo Udall, the late Mo Udall, beloved figure, Governor Bruce Babbitt, and a state where, as Mo Udall once remarked, mothers don't tell their children they can grow up to be president. I mean, these are three distinguished Americans who sought the presidency unsuccessfully. TERENCE SMITH: David, we expect a new speaker of the House this week, Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Is it the Hastert era? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Historians a thousand years from now will be calling this the Hastert era. Yes. His primary job I think is to hold on to his job for about three or four weeks, or at least longer than the last guy had it. Once again, he's inheriting a party which is - you know - just emotionally spent; they're exhausted by what's been going on. And it's a party that I think is less intellectual - intellectually aggressive than they were. You know, Newt Gingrich wanted to transform civilization. And he's a wrestling manager; he's just a "hands-on" guy. TERENCE SMITH: And in the last few seconds, Mark, his prospect of uniting this divided House and getting anything serious done, like Social Security reform? MARK SHIELDS: I think better than certainly his immediate predecessor, Mr. Gingrich. Denny Hastert is a man of the House. He is what most House leaders have been, whether you're talking about Tip O'Neill or Sam Rayburn. He doesn't do the Sunday morning shows. He doesn't do think tank symposiums. He doesn't do American enterprise dinners. He's a guy that the other members trust, listen to, he listens to them -- and as Nancy Kassebaum, the former Senator from Kansas, pointed out - in passing health care portability in 1986, that Denny Hastert was absolutely indispensable. So he's an effective guy but he won't be the visionary that the party is somewhere looking for. TERENCE SMITH: Gentlemen, thank you both. |
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
