 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Transcript - November 10, 2006
BRANCACCIO: Welcome to NOW...For Democrats, it was one election where they did not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As for the Republicans, everyone is now at each others throats, as the Washington Post put it, "Main Street is angry at Wall Street, theo-cons are angry at neo-cons, and almost everyone is angry at President Bush.."
The returns are in and you know who won and whose heads rolled. It's our job to help you figure out where this country is headed now that the voters—not just the pundits—have spoken. And when you look at the data from those polling places, we're reminded that it's a fascinating, complex country we live in.
What we're about to do is jump off from many of the stories we've been covering in the last three months and learn what which issues, ideas, and developments emerged as the major factors in the 2006 vote. Joining me in this undertaking is Joan Walsh, the editor in chief of the online magazine salon.com.
BRANCACCIO: Joan thanks for doing this.
WALSH: Thanks, David. My pleasure.
BRANCACCIO: In fact, flying all the way in from San Francisco to do this.
WALSH: Yes, I did. I did.
BRANCACCIO: Nancy Pelosi territory. She appears to be set to be the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representitives. What do the folks think in the Bay area? They're about to have a favorite daughter three heartbeats away from Presidency.
WALSH: Absolutely. They're very excited. Even people who are critical of Nancy, I think are happy for her and happy for the region. You know, you also need to know, though, that she's not a San Francisco liberal when she's home. She's perceived as very much of a moderate in the San Francisco scheme of things. She had a town meeting shut down early last year because war protestors just didn't think that her stance on—on Iraq would get the troops out fast enough. She's really somebody who's seen as a conciliator. And many people like that. But some people wish she'd be sharper and—
BRANCACCIO: So in the Bay area, Nancy Pelosi is too far to the right?
WALSH: Absolutely, for a lot of people. She had a Green Party challenger. You know, she—she doesn't have it easy there. So I think she'll do just fine. I think—I think she will surprise a lot of people who see her as only a San Francisco liberal, when she takes over.
BRANCACCIO: Let's talk about the grand political strategy for a moment, favored by among others, Karl Rove, the President's advisor. The idea of whipping up the base of the party. Aiming your message to the hard core people at the wings, that they'll turn up on Election Day. It's worked in the past. But what about this time around? Social conservatives like Cliff Kincaid (PH), whom we spoke to just after the scandal erupted involving lecherous computer messages to Congressional pages. A month ago, he was not optimistic.
KINCAID: This is a big scandal. This is weighing on those pro-family social conservatives out there who see the elections coming up. I talk to them.
BRANCACCIO: The data from Tuesday shows that the evangelicals showed up on Election Day, but many voted Democratic. Four in ten, according to one exit poll. We checked in with Kincaid after the election, and he said social conservatives are independent. Quote, they're not automatons who are going to pull the level for a Republican. Some Republican candidates who pitched their message hard to the right lost badly. Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell, despite a well groomed network of conservative church leaders, lost by about 20 percentage points. We'd also spent time with Phill Kline, the attorney general of Kansas, who made headlines digging into records from abortion clinics. He lost his bid for re-election 58 to 42 percent. What do you make of this, Joan, when you hear those results?
WALSH: I think we're really seeing a very interesting development, which is at least a truce in the culture war. I think that the loss of Blackwell, the loss of Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, who was actually once mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, but was so hard on gays, on women who work. I mean, there was a clear message from Pennsylvania that Santorum was too far out of the mainstream. I think we have to get used to saying there's nothing the matter with Kansas, now that Phil Klein has moved on. um I think a lot of these hard core candidates were repudiated. So I think this strategy of really playing to the base blew up in a couple of ways. In one way, I think the Foley scandal, the Ted Haggert scandal, really demoralized that base and made them think we should be paying more attention to our spirituality and less to politics. That—that's one thing. But I also think that the country is—is getting a little tired of these hard right plays to—essentially to hate. And that they didn't work as well this year.
BRANCACCIO: We saw some of that in some of the ballot measures around the country. Ballot initiatives on the so-called values issues. A key GOP victory in 2004. But they were not slam dunks on Tuesday, as you say. In South Dakota, a strict ban on abortion—
WALSH: Right.
BRANCACCIO: Set up as a challenge to Roe versus Wade was rejected. And a measure protecting stem cell research was approved by voters in Missouri. Voters in a lot of states, seven states, voted to ban same sex marriage. Arizona was the exception. But I don't know if you saw this fascinating analysis by Republican Jim Sensenbrenner (PH) of Wisconsin.
WALSH: Oh.
BRANCACCIO: He says, yeah, well, if it was a strategy—I paraphrase here-
WALSH: Right.
BRANCACCIO: But if it's a strategy to get people to come to the polls to vote for the gay marriage ban, it worked in Wisconsin. The only thing, he noted, a lot of folks came out, voted for the ban, but then turned around and voted for Democratic candidates for a place in the House of Representatives.
WALSH: Right. So that you saw certainly the base came out and voted for gay marriage. But you also—it mobilized gay marriage opponents to come out and vote for Democrats. And I think some gay marriage support—some people who supported the ban, I should say, also did wind up voting for Democrats. I think—you know, I'm not—I'm not saying that the so-called values voters care any less or are—are making peace with gay marriage. Some of them may be. But already by 2006, you're seeing a little bit more open mindedness on this.
BRANCACCIO: And in general, in terms of appealing to the base, there seems to be a major hazard in 2006, if you ignore the middle.
WALSH: Right. Because independents have never gone so decisively for Democrats. And that is a huge take away. We can talk about the base; we can talk about the Democratic base. We can talk—there—you know; there are all kind of Democratic battles about the net roots versus the more mainstream Democrats. But you really have to look at how do you stay competitive with those independents. They really carried the day.
BRANCACCIO: Now, many Americans were so-called values voters when it came to being quite upset at what Congress has been up to in terms of these ethical violations.
WALSH: Yes.
BRANCACCIO: Just sort of plain bad behavior. Many folks were venting about corruption in government when they left the ballot box and then bumped into opinion pollsters at the exits. Yet your state of California, Joan, the results are complicated. We've done some reporting about powerful Republican congressman Gerry Lewis (PH) caught up in a Justice Department investigation into his dealings with lobbyists. And he won by a landslide. But then in—I think it's fair to say a surprise—someone else touched by the Abramoff scandal, seven term Republican Congressman Richard Palmbo (PH) of California, got booted out of office. Florida, the Mark Foley seat went to the Dems, same in Ohio. A fellow named Zach Space (PH) took Bob Ney's seat. Ney, another fellow who may wish he'd never met a lobbyist. The legendary power broker Tom DeLay, who fell from grace—his replacement, could not prevail against a Democrat in Texas. To what extent, now that the election is over and you see and hear those results, does the Congress really have to get serious on some oversight issues, policing its own as it moves forward?
WALSH:. I think it's got to be the first order of business. I really think that power was deliberately concentrated by Tom DeLay with the K Street Project, with the unbelievable relationships with lobbyists. Now, look, we know Democrats do some of it, too. But this was really—it really became an art form, where they really froze out Democrats and you know, lobbyists who wanted to work with Democrats were not—did not have good relationships with Republicans. It was really an attempt to starve the Democrats, get all the money for Republicans. It was—it was a shakedown operation. We knew about it, and it wasn't until the—the level of the Abramoff corruption—but as for the level of kind of we don't care—you know, I think one of the things that was—that was really hurt in that scandal was not just the—the amount of money, which was significant. But also when those E-mails were released, and you've got Ralph Reed making jokes about his Christian right friends, describing them as chumps, and really, really putting on paper the words of just very arrogant deal makers, not more—people with morals, not people with political priorities. But it's what absolute power does. It corrupts absolutely, and you have sex scandals—
BRANCACCIO: But that's—Joan, what worries people, I think watching, which is you have the Lord Acton phrase, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some of the Democrats have some pretty good power—
WALSH: Uh-huh (AFFIRM).
BRANCACCIO: From their perspective, in the House and Senate. You worry that stay in power a few weeks, and ethics is always for the other party.
WALSH: Right. For the people out of power. And one of the first things you do with power is try to protect it and try to preserve it and try to extend it. I think that is true. I don't think that the Democrats will be immune to that. But I think having lived through this, there will be a lot more consciousness of what can happen, and consciousness the voters are watching it, and that it matters to the voters. It's not an inside baseball kind of thing.
BRANCACCIO: Now, Joan, you are a traditional journalist. You cover facts and write about things—it happens to be online.
WALSH: Right.
BRANCACCIO: But are you also a blogger?
WALSH: I blog sometimes.
BRANCACCIO: All right. So you watch the online world. So I want to ask you about this. There was a lot of talk this year about exactly what role liberal bloggers, like Montana's Jay Stevens (PH), would play in this election. Bloggers are those political junkies who pore over politics and pour out their passions on to the web. Early on, bloggers like Steven started pushing particular candidates. The idea was to get the politicians they liked on to the ballot. At first, many of their top picks felt like long shots. But today, on this side of the election, not so much Ned Lamont there in Connecticut—but a lot of those other long shot names are now heading for Washington, D.C. Back in September, we looked at how a group of bloggers were cheering on a relatively unknown organic farmer in Montana named John Tester. John Tester is one big shot now, the man who just unseated 18 year incumbent, Republican Conrad Burns. What role did the bloggers play in the election, if Montanan Margy Henderson was any indication? The blogs were a gateway to political activism this year.
HENDERSON: I had never hosted a political event prior to John Tester coming here. I really just didn't see it as something that I would do. But when you're online reading all these things about people that other people are doing, it helps motivate you to step up.
BRANCACCIO: When we talked with her back in September, Henderson said reading the blogs let her turn her political ideals into real world action.
HENDERSON: I'm not going to vote for the lesser of two evils this year. I'm going to vote for the candidate I want in office. And that is so exciting.
BRANCACCIO: So this organic farmer, against the war, but no flaming liberal in Montana, he wins by—it's less than—as we're talking—3,000 votes.
WALSH: Right.
BRANCACCIO: In the entire State of Montana. Is there, do you suppose, an argument that these blogs may have meant the difference between Republican control of the Senate and—and Democratic control of it?
WALSH: I think in this case, sure. You know, a lot of people are going to be trying to claim credit. But I would give some credit to the net roots. I think they really did make a difference in the Tester race. I think they really did elevate him as a better candidate, make—make his strengths known nationwide. They helped him raise money. I think that's a really important case. I think—you know, it's—I don't know if I'll say it's sad—they lost with Lamont. But what they did with Lamont was extraordinary. I mean, in the end, the candidate wins the election. And I think Lamont just didn't close the deal. But Lamont knocking off Lieberman in the primary, that wasn't supposed to happen. And the bloggers were crucial there. I think they were crucial in the Web Allen (PH) race. I think they—they kept Macaca alive. It was blogs in the first day. When you saw the video, you knew that there was something really wrong in calling this—the only non-white man Macaca.
BRANCACCIO: Around the country—around the country, we count more than 200 ballot propositions. I've already mentioned some about same sex marriage and so forth. Around the country—around the country, we count more than 200 ballot propositions. I've already mentioned some about same sex marriage and so forth.. One that was on the ballot in a number of states, six states—hiking the minimum wage. I was out in Missouri this fall taking a look at this. Among the things that really had the business community upset there was that Missouri's minimum wage proposition would also be indexed. It would rise with inflation. I asked a backer of the initiative, Sarah Howard of the Service Employees Union, about gathering the signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot in the first place.
HOWARD: The response was overwhelming. We had about six weeks to collect about 90,000 signatures across the state. We submitted over 210,000 signatures. People were tearing the clipboard out of out signature gatherers' hands.
BRANCACCIO: Minimum wage passed in Missouri 76 to 24 percent. I would say that's landslide territory.
WALSH: Yeah.
BRANCACCIO: Five other states passed it as well.
WALSH: Wow.
BRANCACCIO: What do you take from that?
WALSH: You know, I think people realize that the low wage workers have the short end of the stick, and that no one is paying any attention to them. There's this fiction that certain segments of the economy are doing well, no doubt about it.
BRANCACCIO: What about the partisan nature, typically, of minimum wage discussions? Republicans don't like it, and the Democrats do like it. When you see a result like that—
WALSH: It's—it's definitely being muted. And you know, we're hearing from the White House that that may be something—if the President wants to find common cause with Nancy Pelosi, that may be something that they'll work on together. And that's a sea change in itself.
BRANCACCIO: Yes. What a difference one election makes.
WALSH: Yeah, one day.
BRANCACCIO: So while we're talking here about Democrats and Republicans, all chummy, walking hand in hand, maybe they could use—this spirit of bipartisanship to address the elephant in the room in terms of this election: what is to be done about America's strategy in Iraq. Images like these on our TV screens, young folks heading out of Fort Hood, Texas (PH) into the dangers of Iraq. Last week we reported from this part of Texas, one of the very reddest of red Congressional districts, we heard a remarkable diversity of views on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of America's policy in Iraq. Incumbent Republican Congressman won again in that Texas district, was a big supporter of the President and the Iraq policy. To what extent was Iraq the thing on Tuesday?
WALSH: The election was a referendum on Iraq, there's no way around it. And I think while the Democrats didn't put forth a unified position on it there was near consensus that something is going to be—have to be done to bring the troops home. There will be debates about timing, absolutely. There will be debates about what sort of force is left. But I think what's happened is that the American people see what the President will not see, which is we don't have a strategy for victory. And, in fact, the—the very notion that we're going to stand up a new Iraqi government and a new Iraqi police force and military—we're hurting that goal simply with our presence. I don't think that's simple. I don't think it can happen tomorrow. But, I think that Republicans and Democrats are reading the election results that way.
BRANCACCIO: Well, certainly the Bush administration snapped to attention when the results were cleared.
WALSH: Rumsfeld under the bus.
BRANCACCIO: And he was out. And you have actually a—a man coming in with ties to George W. Bush's dad.
WALSH: Yes.
BRANCACCIO: Bush 41—Robert Gates coming in and—some hope save the day.
WALSH: It's a lot a psycho-drama. Bush had fun, fun, fun, and then daddy took the T-bird away and sent in Robert Gates to try to clean things out. And, you know, very close to James Baker and the Iraq survey group. We've known for awhile that the so-called grow-ups had come back in to try to fix Iraq. They wouldn't tell us what they were gonna do before the election, but it's been very clear that there would be a change of—of direction and strategy. And now, one of their teams is going to run the war. It's astonishing. I could not have predicted that on Tuesday night.
BRANCACCIO: By the way, we've seen some reporting suggesting that—many Republicans and furious at the administration for making the Rumsfeld decision—
WALSH: After.
BRANCACCIO: After. You know, they thought, well, maybe who was—maybe a few days earlier perhaps the outcome could have changed.
WALSH: Jim Leach, Nancy Johnson, moderate Republicans, some who opposed the war, still got taken down by this tide. Politically it—it did boggle the mind. If he'd done it over Labor Day, if he'd done it in mid-October it really might have saved some Republicans to do it now. And—and the explanation was, "Oh, we're not gonna play politics with this war." And that's why the President defended lying to the media a few days before when he said that—that Rumsfeld would be with us the—for the rest of his term, four days later he's out. "Oh I didn't—I couldn't tell you the truth. I didn't wanna play politics with the war." What is playing politics with the war more than the day after a "thumpin'," as he put it; you dump your Secretary of Defense? I've never seen a more blatant playing of politics with the war. It's really quite extraordinary.
BRANCACCIO: Now, I had to mention this, we ran a special a few weeks ago on publicly financed elections, so-called "clean elections," attempt to end the cycle of campaign donors buying influence in this way. The hope was to reduce corruption. We met a lot of people of modest means who never could have entered politics without this innovative system, the man with the mustache is a Republican state legislator from Phoenix who ran a coffee shop and an equipment rental place, Doug Quellen (PH). He ran with public money and lost, on Tuesday. He got beat by another candidate running clean, elementary school band teacher Jackie Thrasher. Democratic Governor Janet Nepolitano easily won re-election using public financing for her campaign. In the state a Maine, Conservative Republican Chandler Woodcock (PH) ran clean for governor, he lost. Democrat John Baldacci (PH) financed his campaign the old-fashioned way, with lots of private donations, he won a second term.
BRANCACCIO: So, one way of trying to take some of the money out of politics, but—a new Congress might have all sorts of innovative ways to try to get at that persistent problem in our body politic.
WALSH: Right. Yeah, I think they're going to look for ways to take some of the really corrupting money out of the system. But you know what I've been thinking about? They've also got to look for ways to drain the swamp of political discourse.
BRANCACCIO: As Nance Pelosi said, at least on the swamp part.
WALSH: Right. Drain the swamp, not just of corrupt money, but also of corrupt thinking, corrupt ways of talking about issues, corrupt ways of treating one another.
BRANCACCIO: Behavior.
WALSH: Behavior. I think there's really become of culture of bullying—in Washington, and nationwide really. And one thing that happened Tuesday night is that a lot of bullies got beaten. You had Rush Limbaugh, frankly. Rush should be apologizing to the—the GOP. I truly believe his making fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's contributed to Clair McCaskill's win in Missouri—and to the passage of stem cell—the stem cell initiative in Missouri.
BRANCACCIO: But he's not on the ballot, though?
WALSH: No. He's not on the ballot, but come on. That is—he may be the most powerful Republican in the United States. When the President's in trouble he comes to Rush. When Dick Cheney's in trouble he comes to Rush. Benny Hastert , after the Foley scandal, traipses over to Rush. Rush embraces him, they go there. Then Rush says not with the defeats he feels limi—liberated.
BRANCACCIO: Yeah, he said he was tired of carrying the water of some of these guys that didn't deserve it.
WALSH: Well, why do you—did he carry it? And, talk about fair weather fan. Now that they've had their butts kicked Rush is gonna walk away, but he was gonna carry their water when they were victors? I mean, come on. So you see Rush's—bully defeated, you see Rick Santorum, who really crossed a lot of lines in the way that he talked about gay people Donald Rumsfeld, a great bully, really bullied—the chiefs of staff, bullied the uniform military into doing this war on the cheap, in his way, his reform ideas. It's really the people who've been standing up and belittling other people, and really making the case that dissent is traitorous. A lot of them are gone. A lot of them went down to defeat. And I think that's a victory for political discourse. I think it's a victory for people being able to sit down, disagree, but come up with ways to solve problems, not spend so much time and energy figuring out how to demonize and marginalize people who disagree with them.
BRANCACCIO: And Joan Walsh, editor-and-chief of Salon, thank you very much.
WALSH: Thank you, David.
BRANCACCIO: If you would like to luxuriate in all that one more time you can carry around our pod cast with you sign up at PBS.org. And that's it for now. From New York, I'm David Brancaccio. We'll see you next week.
|
|
|
|
|
