Transcript for March 26

MR. BRODER: Well, you’d heard this kind of comment—all of us had—privately from Republicans on the Hill. But the fact that somebody like Tom Davis, former chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, is saying it publicly, on the record, gives you a measure of the sort of fall-off of any sense of either loyalty or intimidation, whatever you want to call it, to the White House. They feel that they are on their own and that the president is going to take care of his business, but they’re going to take care of their own.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things being talked about, Elisabeth Bumiller, is a staff shake-up at the White House.

MS. BUMILLER: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: This is how you reported it: “Republicans outside the White House said that they had pushed Mr. Bush not to replace” Karl “Rove,” the chief political operator, deputy chief of staff, “but rather to bring in someone at the same level or above, perhaps as minister without portfolio. One Republican said Mr. Bush should view it as replacing a top-notch pitcher struggling in the later innings of a baseball game, rather than as a vote of no-confidence in a friend.” So who’s the reliever?

MS. BUMILLER: Well, there’s lots of names out there. You’ve heard them as well as I have. Ed Gillespie, you know, Bill Paxon, there’s lots of names. The question is, are they going to do it? And, and right now, there’s, there’s a lot of talk at the White House, there’s no indications the president has signed on to this idea. Karl Rove has told people that he thinks that bringing somebody in without a clear line of authority is a mistake. It—and, and the bottom line is what is this going to—is this going to help with the war in Iraq, is it going to help with—you know, that, that—is it going—you know, we’re, we’re not talking about changing policies here, we’re changing about, you know, changing, you know, some, some personnel. So that’s—it’s unclear if anything is going to happen.

MR. RUSSERT: John:

MR. HARWOOD: Chances are pretty good something will happen. The president, of course, didn’t rule out the idea of bringing someone on. Bill Paxon’s a possibility, Vin Weber’s also a possibility. And I think over time you could see some changes in the White House staff as well. When you look at sort of the, the big three, or, or the, the biggest names in the White House, Andy Card, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, you could see some change over time. Andy Card probably the most likely to leave at some point, he’s almost already the longest-serving chief of staff ever, you could see some change there.

MR. RUSSERT: On, on the verge of dethroning Sherman Adams...

MR. HARWOOD: You bet.

MR. RUSSERT: ...of Dwight Eisenhower fame.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the midterm elections, where all these things invariably lead. Here’s our latest numbers from the Wall Street Journal poll, right track/wrong track, the United States headed in the right direction: 26 percent, one of four; 62 percent say wrong track. And then the so-called generic question, “Who do you want to control Congress?”: Republicans, 37 percent; 50 percent now, a majority, say the Democrats.

But as always, Charlie Cook is warning us to go slow. And here’s his latest column from the National Journal, “Despite national political trends indicating that the GOP is in serious trouble, a race-by-race ‘micro’ analysis suggests that Democrats cannot easily seize control of the House or the Senate this fall. In the Senate, Democrats need a net gain of six seats. ... Democrats need to win in Tennessee [where Bill Frist is retiring] ... [and] have to run the table by defeating all of the most vulnerable Republicans while holding all of their own seats, including in Minnesota, where their incumbent is retiring, and in Washington state, where Senator Maria Cantwell faces a very strong challenger. They also need to hang on to somewhat more secure open seats in Maryland and Vermont, as well as 14 other incumbents. Although not impossible in a favorable political climate, this is a very tall order.”

And here are the vulnerable states, according to The Cook Report, vulnerable senators: Conrad Burns in Montana, Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island, Mike DeWine, Ohio, Santorum in Pennsylvania, Jim Talent, Missouri, and the Tennessee seat.

Charlie, what do you see in the Senate?

MR. COOK: This is—you know, when you look at this election from the big picture, the national numbers, boy, it just looks horrible and it looks like, gosh, Republicans will be lucky if they hold on to anything. And then you do the race-by-race like this. Now, the thing is, the first three or four for Democrats probably aren’t that hard. But when you get to the fifth and sixth seats, you get to, to, to winning in Ohio and you win—and, and talk about the Tennessee open seat, gosh, that’s hard. I mean, it’s going to take a real, real, real strong wind at their backs. And, and it’s the kind of thing where there are structural barriers. I mean, 85 percent of all incumbent senators get reelected, and you’ve got to knock out five of them? You know, it can happen, but it’s hard. And it’s kind of like having structural barriers that are out there that are protecting the Republican majorities, and if this is a Category 1, 2, or 3 hurricane, those barriers are strong enough, but if it’s a 4 or a 5, they’re not. And the question is how tall will it be?

MR. RUSSERT: And...

MR. HARWOOD: And, Tim, some of this—some of these ranges—races can change overnight in a hurry. Conrad Burns has now got a primary challenge from a significant Republican. There’s some talk among Republicans that maybe Conrad Burns would find something else to do, maybe in the Bush administration. That could change in a hurry.

MR. RUSSERT: Charlie, you also say this about the House: “In the House, where Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats, only about three dozen are truly in play today.” So it’s, it’s tough, and you have to get a straight, an inside straight.

MR. COOK: Right. There’re basically 24 Republican seats that today are vulnerable. Democrats have to win 15 out of 24 and hold on to their 11 most tough—the toughest ones. And again, they can do it. There, there, if, if there were more Republicans retirements in tough districts, if—but redistricting and the incumbency advantages that have built up over the years just make pulling this kind of win hard unless it’s a Category 4 or 5.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, in 1994, you talked about microchanges, 30 to 35 seats in the House, and the tsunami came. Republicans won 52 seats, electing Newt Gingrich speaker of the House. Newt Gingrich has now weighed in, David Broder, and said that the Democrat slogan in 2006 should be, “Had Enough?” And he thinks that would work.

MR. BRODER: What a helper Gingrich is. I think the Democrats’ real slogan may very well be, “Wouldn’t You Like To Have Somebody Watching The Store?” Because the sense that I get from talking to voters is that they are not ready to entrust the government to the Democrats, but they’re not really comfortable with the way the Republicans have been running things. And the simple idea of having a little oversight, a little checks and balances back in the system is potentially a really powerful argument for Democrats.

MR. RUSSERT: Elisabeth Bumiller, when the White House hears “a little oversight, checks and balances,” to them it means hearings with subpoena power.

MS. BUMILLER: That’s right.

MR. RUSSERT: And they don’t like that.

MS. BUMILLER: No, no. And, you know, Karl Rove has told people he’s optimistic they can hang on to both Houses if, if—but he also has said, “Yes, it can happen,” the way Charlie says. And you know, you’re going to see—the president’s out a lot these days campaigning already, raising money for candidates, and he’s out in all these big states.

MR. RUSSERT: Because the last thing the White House wants is investigation into weapons of mass destruction...

MS. BUMILLER: The last.

MR. RUSSERT: ...into prison abuse, into religious rights in Afghanistan.

Drop, drop the issue and there’s a hearing.

MS. BUMILLER: Right. I mean, that’s the last—that’s the last two years of the Bush presidency then, and they know that.

MR. HARWOOD: That’s true, Tim, but let’s keep in mind, first of all, keeping Republican majority is not the top priority for this White House, winning the war in Iraq is the top priority. And secondly, it might not be the worst thing to happen to George W. Bush. If Democrats had a weak majority, you could see some deals cut, especially on entitlement programs, the last two years, as Democrats try to resolve a problem before they hope they get a president in 2009.

MR. RUSSERT: David, is it enough for the Democrats to say, “We’re not the Republicans,” period, or do they have to come forward with a specific proposals to deal with these problems, including Iraq?

MR. BRODER: Well, if they’re going to be responsible, they need some policy. And the great void on the Democratic side is nobody can tell you today what their policy is about Iraq, about entitlements, or about any of the other challenges facing the country. Whether they need that politically, somebody else is smart enough to decide, but if they’re going to be a responsible party, they need to talk about policy.

MR. RUSSERT: Do they need to do it?

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Remembering Tim Russert July 20: Al Gore, political roundtable July 13: Carly Fiorina, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), politcal roundtable June 29: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D-WY), Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO), Chuck Todd June 22: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), political roundtable June 15 transcript, video NBC's Tom Brokaw to moderate 'Meet the Press' through election   Images: The life of the political journalist   Slideshow: A look back at 60 years of 'Meet the Press' Find ‘Meet the Press’ in your area Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: