POLITICAL WRAP

October 15 , 1999
		Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot discuss the U.S. Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the 2000 presidential race.

Full NewsHour coverage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Oct. 14, 1999: Two senators and two ambassadors on the United States' failure to ratify the treaty. Oct. 14, 1999: The U.S. Senate votes the CTBT down. Oct. 12, 1999: U.S. senators discuss the pending CTBT vote. Oct. 11, 1999: Experts discuss the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Oct. 11, 1999: A background report on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Oct. 6, 1999: The Senate holds its first hearings on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. June 1, 1999: Tensions flare between India and Pakistan over Kashmir June 11,1998: A Newsmaker interview with Jaswant Singh on India's nuclear capabilities June 4, 1998: A discussion on nuclear testing in India and Pakistan May 12, 1998: Tensions grow around India's nuclear tests Nov. 18, 1996: An Online forum on nuclear proliferation McCain Links Sept. 1, 1999: The Post's Dan Balz on the McCain campaign. April 21, 1998: A Newsmaker interview with John McCain. Nov. 28, 1996: John McCain on campaign finance reform. Aug. 14, 1996: John McCain's 1996 Republican Convention speech. Browse the NewsHour's Shields & Gigot index     Al Gore Bill Bradley Gary Bauer George W. Bush Patrick Buchanan Elizabeth Dole Steve Forbes John McCain Department of Defense The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty	TERENCE SMITH: That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Paul, the Senate defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, what do you think is the impact for the president and for the Senate? PAUL GIGOT: Well, it's obviously a stunning blow for the president. I think it's an embarrassment, clearly. I think for the Senate, though, this is what we elect Senates to do. This is what the Constitution asks Senates to do, not be rubber stamps, but to advise and consent on treaties. That's why the barrier is 2/3 -- not majority, although this one didn't even get a majority. I think the easy thing for the Republican Senate to do, after Democrats and the President wanted a vote, demanded a vote, stood on the floor for months demanding a vote, would be not to have the vote, not to go on record, not to declare themselves, to say, okay, we don't like it, let's just shunt it aside; they could have slid along with public opinion; they would have gotten some hazas from the editorial boards, but they went on record. They were counted. I think they stood up and did the right thing. TERENCE SMITH: Mark, is it then the Senate's finest hour, or is it politics on the floor of the Senate?
	Impeachment all over again?
	MARK SHIELDS: It was, to put it bluntly, impeachment. Betty Curry's name was never mentioned; obstruction of justice charge was never ventilated. There was no chief justice of the United States sitting in the Senate, but that's what it was. TERENCE SMITH: Impeachment Two. MARK SHIELDS: It was Impeachment Two. It was getting even with the President. Anything other than the Senate's finest hour, when two elders of the Senate, Paul's right, tactically -- Trent Lott artfully out-maneuvered the Democrats, and they didn't have the votes, and when two elders in the Senate -- two respected members, John Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from Virginia, Pat Moynihan, retiring dean of the Democrats, from New York -- fashioned and crafted a compromise to avoid the humiliation of the President and to avoid the embarrassment to the United States, it was stopped. It was stopped by a group of petty, vindictive men, led by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, not Arthur Vandenburg of Michigan, not William Fulbright of Arkansas, but Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who in his debate, opposing this treaty on the merits, said and tell -- mimicked Tony Blair, a conversation with Bill Clinton -- said "And give Monica my regards." I mean, that really belied the whole feeling, the passion. John McCain put it well in his interview with Margaret. He said it was a grave and deep distrust to the President of the United States that that - that is true; there's no question about it. I don't think it's absolutely vindicated or justified after the seven years. I mean, Bill Clinton's stewardship of foreign policy after seven years I don't think is open to the kind of doubt like he was the governor of Arkansas. TERENCE SMITH: Paul, did animosity play a role in it? PAUL GIGOT: Sure, it did. I mean -- he's built up a level of distrust that I haven't seen from any President; there's no question about that. But I don't believe it was impeachment -- I don't believe it was impeachment. More Senators voted against this treaty than voted to impeach Bill Clinton. You had moderates who voted against impeachment voting against this treaty. Trent Lott was willing to pull this thing up until a couple of days before, but Bill Clinton insisted on a loophole, insisted on an out to bring it up next year. What Jesse Helms promised Bill Clinton - offered Bill Clinton -- was -- is I'll pull this treaty - we'll withdraw it without a vote if you say you won't bring it up between now and the end of your term; he wouldn't do that. He wanted a loophole. And the truth is those Senators and Trent Lott didn't believe that he would keep his word; they believed because of the track record that he would come back and try to sabotage them and sandbag them later. That's a legacy of mistrust that's been built up, as John McCain said, through Haiti, been built up through Bosnia, been built up over the course of seven years, and this is when it came back. TERENCE SMITH: Mark.
	Standing by your word
	MARK SHIELDS: The fact of the matter is in the Senate of the United States your word is your currency, and it is absolute. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, went to Trent Lott, said, you have my word, this will never come up, and let's be quite blunt about it; Trent Lott did not deliver on that. This is one of a series of a string of petty, partisan, vindictive acts by Republicans toward the President. You could begin with Kosovo when Republicans refused to support American troops in the field; you could follow after the Democratic example, after the Persian Gulf, a resolution of the Congress praising American troops in action, Republicans refused to do that after the American troops in Kosovo. Why? Because they didn't want to give this President, this administration, any credit for a successful policy. Add to that the failure to pay the U.N. dues after the pledge to do so. I mean, this -- it's one after another, and this was the big enchilada for them. TERENCE SMITH: Mark, is it -- Paul, is it part of a pattern? PAUL GIGOT: John McCain voted against this. He supported Bill Clinton on Bosnia; he supported him on Kosovo. Richard Lugar opposed this; he supported the President's China policy; he supported the President on Kosovo; he's one of the leading internationalists in the Senate in either party, as is John McCain. Henry Kissinger was against this party. He's not an isolationist or a new isolation-was against this treaty. He's not a new isolationist, and go down the list. This treaty was opposed by John Deutch and Jim Woolsey, two former CIA directors, in the Bill Clinton administration. This was not -- I mean, the Senate's role is to deal with treaties, right? I mean, the Constitution says so. Just because you vote one down doesn't mean it's a petty, vindictive act. It might have been an act based on their genuine belief that this was not in the national security interest of the United States. Now, if the President wanted to inspire a bipartisan reaction here, or something better, do you think he should have gone out after that vote and said, this was petty and vindictive and this - new isolationist - about people like Dick Lugar and John McCain? I don't think that is going to build goodwill for the next year and a half. In fact, this was really the start, I think, of the 2000 election campaign. TERENCE SMITH: Well, that's the question. In his news conference, the President certainly put his spin on it and used the words that Paul described. Is it now a campaign issue? MARK SHIELDS: Is it now a campaign issue? Just -- I want to answer that, but I just have to say one thing to Paul. This was not a case, Terry, of the Cold War. This is Richard Perle coming in and saying this is a strategic advantage for the Soviet Union. There is no Soviet Union - I mean, nobody is suggesting the United States should resume testing - nobody. George W. Bush isn't -- nor is John McCain. John McCain issued -- a man noted for his candor and rightfully so -- issued the most equivocal statement: we don't in any way give a green light to other countries to test and we don't want to suggest the United States isn't for stopping testing. Now, I mean, that is not the John McCain we've come to know and love and respect and saw in his interview with Margaret. Is it going to be a campaign issue in 2000? In a strange way, I don't think it's going to be a campaign issue the same way that education is or saving Social Security. It could be an issue that redounds to the detriment of George W. Bush -- if he is the nominee -- in one important respect. Recall the campaign of '84. Walter Mondale against Gary Hart for the Democratic nomination -- the red telephone commercial where Gary Hart's sitting there. Who is going to answer the phone when it rings, when that moment of crisis? If it isn't John McCain -- we're not talking -- George W. Bush, the governor of Texas, untested, unproven in foreign affairs, in foreign relations. To the degree that it becomes an issue, it becomes an issue in the sense of commander-in-chief, and your sophistication, knowledge, and understanding of the world.
	Republicans and foreign policy
	TERENCE SMITH: Can you see that image? PAUL GIGOT: Well, we'll certainly see if George Bush is up to that. That's one of the tests he has to meet. But I'll tell you -- on this foreign policy debate and whether this leads into it -- I mean, Al Gore came out -- the vote came down - and in 24 hours he's got an ad out. He thinks it's a good issue for him. TERENCE SMITH: Clearly he does. PAUL GIGOT: Maybe against Bill Bradley it is because he shows other Democrats he's fighting for them and he's fighting Republicans, and that might work. But I don't think in the general election he should necessarily want an issue on foreign policy and national security; that's one of the areas where Republicans still have an advantage as a political party against the Democrats. They have more credibility than the Democrats do on that issue. They griped in 1992 and 1996 when there was no debate on foreign policy. And if Al Gore wants to debate proliferation policy, I think the Republicans should say, bring it on, let's talk about North Korea and China and Russia, the last seven years. TERENCE SMITH: Of course, Bill Clinton has proven himself very adept at turning thesa defeats into at least rhetorical and sometimes political victories. MARK SHIELDS: He has, and I think - I think Paul is right in the sense that it's in the opening salvo for the 2000 election. There's no doubt about it. And that - it's now there. Any chance of cooperation, collegiality between this administration and this Congress in the months ahead I think is pretty remote. TERENCE SMITH: Let's move on just briefly to the campaign finance numbers that came out just this afternoon, actually, coming out this evening as well. Some are very striking. In one case Bill Bradley has pulled ahead of Al Gore in raising money and now has more money on hand. Tell me what you think. PAUL GIGOT: Well, it's striking; it shows the Bradley campaign can live on beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. A lot of candidates go in there and say I'm going to strike a knockout blow in that first primary; they win it; Gary Hart in 1984, Paul Tsongas in 1992. And they find out the day after - I'm broke. If Bill Bradley wins in one of those states, he's not going to be broke. He's going to be able to battle on with Al Gore. TERENCE SMITH: Mark? MARK SHIELDS: Parity. I mean, they're both competitive, there's no question -- neither one of them has a significant advantage going into this race. The number that was just startling was that of George W. Bush -- 19 million in this quarter, which means that he raised more in this quarter -- just about the same amount that both Mr. Bradley and Mr. Gore have heading into the 2000 election. I mean it's just -- that they have on hand. It's an amazing, amazing show. I mean, it changes the whole dynamic. For a candidate like John McCain, as we just heard with Margaret, who has to abide by the limits imposed by the law imposed in those states, I mean, George W. Bush can go in and blow anybody out of the water because he has so much money and isn't bound. TERENCE SMITH: On the Republican side very quickly, Elizabeth Dole has only $860,000 on hand and owes half of that. PAUL GIGOT: She didn't capitalize on her third-place performance in Iowa in August. TERENCE SMITH: In the Ames Straw Poll. PAUL GIGOT: In the Ames Straw Poll, Terry. It's striking. I mean, more and more the Republican fight now looks to be a three-person race: George Bush, John McCain, and Steve Forbes, who, was of course, self-financed, and John McCain has to show he can raise money too. He's only raised a couple of million. TERENCE SMITH: All right. We'll leave it there. Thanks both very much.