Transcript for June 25

MR. RUSSERT: In key races like New Jersey, like I mentioned, and in Tennessee, where Harold Ford Jr.’s running, just look at these two ads, or portions of them, that are now running.

(Videotape, Bob Menendez Senate ad):

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-NJ): My opponent supports George Bush’s war. I couldn’t disagree more.

(End videotape)

(Videotape, Harold Ford Senate ad):

REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D-TN): Over 2500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and their prime minister just said he wants to give amnesty to the terrorists who killed them.

(End videotape)

MR. BROWNSTEIN: You know, Republicans precipitated both of these debates—by and large the House debate earlier this month and a resolution supporting this war—and encouraged these Senate debates on the theory that it would give them an advantage by showing Democrats to be divided and in a position where Republicans could paint them as cut-and-run. But there was this, I think, surprising outcome of this debate, which is that Democrats lurched toward what seems to be a concensus position. They voted more than 2-to-1 against the Feingold-Kerry approach, which was a mandatory removal of all the troops by the end of next year. And they voted more than 6-to-1 in favor of this alternative from, from Levin and Reed that said that we will begin pulling out but be flexible.

Now, what that allows them to do is basically argue, as they did in the Senate debates, that Republicans are offering you more of the same, status quo, and we are saying, “It’s not working; we need to change course.” It does—both parties, I think, came out of this with something they wanted, and Democrats ended up, I think, in a more unified position that it seemed possible going into the debate, and one that sets up a clear contrast, as David said, with Republicans for this election.

MR. RUSSERT: Anne Kornblut, you’ve been spending a lot of time covering Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. How difficult is it for her to deal with this Iraq issue? She voted against a specific timetable of Kerry-Feingold, voted for the more transitional timetable, if you will, from Carl Levin, gave speeches before some activist liberal groups where she heard some cat calls. How is she dealing with it?

MS. ANNE KORNBLUT: Well, in terms of her 2006 midterm re-election, it’s not much of an issue at all. She has nominal opposition from the left, although she does have an opponent there. I think what they’re counting on is taking a long-term view of this where she can appear consistent, be consistent, in fact, that voted for the war in the first place, as you pointed out in the earlier segment. She has not come out and said that she regretted it. That’s quite the opposite of what John Kerry did. He’s been—he’s been opened up to the accusation that he’s a flip-flopper. That’s not something that she’s, at this point, in the position to be accused of.

At the same time, I think that when she went to the floor this week, the Clinton camp—the Clinton camp is very proud of the fact that she’s able to elaborate on her views, say, “We shouldn’t be in this forever, it shouldn’t be open-ended.” And, in fact, after she gave that floor speech, some of the activists, including moveon.org, came out and said, “OK, she’s got more of a nuanced view than we’ve said. She’s not totally in line with the president, she’s certainly not as far as Lieberman is out there in support of the war.”

MR. RUSSERT: It was interesting, though, that Russ Feingold said if, if he did get in the race, he would not be shy in challenging Hillary Clinton on the issue of her support of the war.

MS. KORNBLUT: Well, absolutely not. And I think that for, for Russ Feingold and certainly now for John Kerry, there are going to be Democrats that make that their entire issue. I think the question in 2008 is, “Is that a—is that a general election campaign strategy for Democrats?”

MR. RUSSERT: David Gregory, the White House that you cover took the offense on this issue. Karl Rove, the architect of the Bush campaign, the architect of this counteroffensive, if you will, said, “This is the war that you supported, the president encouraged and directed and managed, and we can’t back away from it. Let’s take the fight to the Democrats.”

MR. DAVID GREGORY: Right. “Let’s, let’s find a reason to be optimistic about Iraq.” The president flew there right after they killed Zarqawi, there was reason for some optimism, even though that’s still belied by facts on the ground. And I think the, the view was from the White House, “Look, Republicans are starting to get against us on this war, too. Let’s give them a way to argue this war. Let’s go back to a strategy that worked for us in ‘04, which is to capitalize on division among Democrats. Use the national security argument that was successful in, in ‘02 as well and basically run that same play.” They really don’t have a lot of other options here, they want to get troops out as well, and so there’s not a lot of difference in that regard. But it has to be a question of tone and a question of commitment now.

MR. RUSSERT: This amnesty issue is interesting, however. If the Iraqi prime minister thinks in order to heal the divisiveness in that country, he has to grant amnesty to people who are in prison...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...people who may have been involved in violent acts against Iraqi citizens, some say violent acts against American troops...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...you heard Senator Feingold, foursquare, Senator Schumer, Democrat of New York, has called it vile. How does the White House deal with that?

MR. GREGORY: Well, it can be tricky. And here’s something else. Harold Ford in Tennessee is using that ad, as if to say, “This is George Bush’s government, this is his team.” When the president stands up and says, “Look, this is their choice, it’s a new government, they’re running the show,” they’re really not. We—the, the United States government’s been involved in midwifing three governments now, and this is the only one they have real confidence in. They are saying, in no uncertain terms, “No, this is not acceptable to us. And we run the show because we run the security in the country still.”

MR. BRODER: But I think the flip side of that is also significant, David, that, increasingly, the decisions that are being made in Iraq—and therefore, the decisions that will drive the domestic political debate—are being made by people that we do not completely control. And if you talk to Republican members of Congress, what makes them more nervous than anything else is that a man named Allawi, that they barely know, is now largely in charge of their political fate.

MR. RUSSERT: Maliki.

MR. BRODER: Maliki. Excuse me.

MR. RUSSERT: The prime minister.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

MR. BRODER: Beg your pardon. Thank you. Thanks for the save.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: You know, the, the, the basic political pivot here, the, the basic framework that, that, that the two parties have been trying to impose on this election is the, the, the Republicans, as much as possible, want voters to go into the booth this fall in a forward-looking frame of mind. They want—they want people to be asking the question, “Who do you trust more from this point forward? Who has the direction on Iraq and on domestic issues?” Democrats, by and large, have been attempting to make this a retrospective referendum, “How do you feel about the way things have gone in, in the first two years of Bush’s second term in Iraq and at home?”

What’s interesting about the Iraq debate, I think, is that for the first time since the 2004 election, you saw Democrats trying to go in that forward-looking frame themselves, basically trying to say to the public, “Look, if you’re happy with the way things are going, stick with the Republicans. If you think there needs to be a message for change, you have to vote for change.” I mean, all of this in the Senate was—and, and in the House—was just simply making a statement. George Bush is still going to make the decisions. But they are, they are—basically arguing to the public, “If you want to send him a message, you have to vote for change.”

MR. GREGORY: The reality is, though, that the news from General Casey that’s being reported this morning about the fact that, that there could be withdrawals by September and then get significantly down by the end of ‘07, there’s not a lot of distinction between the parties on the way forward. The question for Democrats is do they want to point to the president’s record and say, “He says he’s running on a record, and so are Republicans. Great, look at that record, look at how they managed the war, give us a chance to provide a different kind of oversight.” Instead, I think they are doing what you’re suggesting, which—offering alternative vision which is to get out. It’s not really that different, ultimately.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Sept. 13: Durbin, Cornyn, Dean, Gingrich, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: