---

May 16, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - May 16

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I watched the president speak last night. As I said this morning briefly on the floor of the Senate, I think the president did a good job in his speech.

So the president has had opportunities in the last 5 1/2 years to do things regarding border security. However, I am happy to hear him say that he wants to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.

SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I was delighted to hear the president say last night, very boldly and forthrightly, his commitment to end this catch-and-release program and, secondly, to secure our borders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, there was more to it than that, but that gives you a sample. It's not very often that Bill Frist and Harry Reid find themselves at all in agreement on much of anything. There you heard that they were in agreement, at least in their initial reaction to the president's speech last night.

There was only really one overnight snap poll that we saw to gauge reaction to the president's speech at first blush. Presidents tend to do well in reaction after this, but this is -- the overall reaction was positive, 79 to 18 percent.

And a perhaps more revealing question had to do with how people felt about the president's position on immigration. Pre-speech, 42 percent were positive, 38 percent negative; and, as you can see, post-speech, it was overwhelming, 67 to 27.

Some analytical observations on all of this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of "The Weekly Standard," Mort Kondracke, executive editor of "Roll Call," and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, FOX News contributors all.

Well, we've got a long way to go, both House and Senate, but what about it, Mara?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, if you judge by today's events, you would say that progress is being made. There were two -- you could call them test amendments. There was a bipartisan coalition that held together to defeat both of them.

HUME: In the Senate?

LIASSON: In the Senate. Well, you've got to get through the Senate before you can get to conference.

One of them would have made border security first. You had to certify the border was secure before you get to the, quote, "comprehensive parts." That got defeated. The bid to kill the guest-worker part of it got defeated.

And I would say that, when you hear Harry Reid and Bill Frist saying the same thing in reaction to the president's speech, that's generally a good sign.

The key test, of course, is: Did the president convince just enough House Republicans to accept what might be a conference report that includes earned legalization and a guest-worker program? That we have to wait a bit to see, but so far the thing is making progress.

HUME: Mort, the earlier reaction from those we might call the immigration hawks in the House?

MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "ROLL CALL": Was negative. And they insist that it will even -- some of them are insisting that it will serve their purposes for re-election to defeat the president, even though he's the president of their own party, that their survival will benefit if they reject a Senate-like version, which they characterize as amnesty.

But to follow Mara's point, on the Isakson amendment, which is the one that would have basically postponed the entire liberal aspects of the plan, until after this certification that border security had been established, the people who are counting votes on the pro-reform side say that they think -- there were seven Republicans who voted against Isakson that were surprising to them, and they attributed that to the president's speech last night, that he actually brought those votes over, or at least made it possible for them to go where they went.

And that's almost the margin of victory. So, you know, so he did good last night.

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Well it's going to pass the Senate. I don't think that's an issue, really. The president did not do very well among the hardcore anti-immigrant people.

HUME: Just one question on that. If you were a hardcore anti- immigrant or an immigration hawk, to be more gentle about it, and the president had moved the ball on this issue in the public opinion generally, would you say so right away?

BARNES: I knew where you were going. Of course you wouldn't. Of course you wouldn't. You'd wouldn't say -- in fact, you wouldn't say for days, and days, and days, and then all of a sudden you vote differently, and then explain it some way.

But, nonetheless, it's true that the hardcore people, the blogs, the conservative blogs, the conservative talk radio people, Rush Limbaugh and so on, the difference is they don't have a vote. And once you get an issue that has tremendous momentum behind it, it's really the chemistry in the Senate and the House that matter, and in the conference, when we have a Senate-House conference after a bill passes the Senate.

And here we have something that we don't always have, and that is a total commitment by the president, where he spelled out exactly what he wants and is going to be totally involved.

You know, Karl Rove had some meetings at the White House bringing in conservatives today. He brought in a couple of groups. You know, one would go in and be there for an hour or something. Then, the other group would come in. So the White House is really trying to go after conservatives.

And the point is, as either you made, Brit, or Mort did, is to get just enough. Not to get all the conservatives -- Mara, sorry.

LIASSON: It was me.

(LAUGHTER)

BARNES: Well, but you were right, and you get credit for that, just enough. They're know they're not going to...

HUME: Consider yourself honored, Mara.

BARNES: But they know they're not going to get all of them.

LIASSON: I know I look a lot like Mort, but...

BARNES: They would really like to get a majority of House Republicans. That's going to be difficult, but I think they'll get enough.

HUME: Well, the White House has been saying today that what the measures that the president has proposed go beyond the so-called toughness, tough proposals that are in the House bill. Now, there is a provision in the House Bill that the president obviously doesn't like, and that's the one that would make illegal immigrants felons.

BARNES: Yes, that's gone.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: But the House Republicans are going to give up on that. Is it the case that what the president has proposed goes beyond what the House has passed?

LIASSON: You mean, in terms of the border security?

HUME: In terms of border security.

LIASSON: You can make that argument, but that's not the argument that's going to convince the hardliners. What they don't like is the other things the president is for. I don't think they have a problem with him sending these...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Well, at the end of the day, though, if they get a bill that has tough border enforcement in it...

LIASSON: Sure, it's going to help them swallow the other...

HUME: ... are they going to let that fail -- right, will they let that fail in order to vindicate their position on what they call amnesty?

LIASSON: Well, that's what it's going to come down to. And this debate, obviously, has a couple more cycles to go. And at some point, you're going to ask these House Republicans, "Oh, you're going to vote against border security?" I mean, that is how the issue can be framed when it gets out of conference, and then we'll see what they say then.

HUME: And will Democrats running against them use that argument? I suspect so.

LIASSON: Sure, why not?

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: If the bill holds together the way it's holding together so far, and the Democrats are all in favor of it, what you need is a minority of Republicans in order to pass the bill in the House. Now, you've also got Dennis Hastert...

HUME: Quickly.

KONDRACKE: ... who is supporting the president. John Boehner probably will support the president. Roy Blunt is sort of hanging out there with the hawks, but even he may come around eventually.

HUME: All right. When we come back with our panel, how did Tony Snow do in his first outing in front of the full press corps under the lights? More with the all-stars after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HELEN THOMAS, COLUMNIST: Are all of these stories untrue that we've been reading for the last several days, that millions of Americans have been wiretapped?

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, there is -- OK. Well, let's -- yes.

(CROSSTALK)

THOMAS: ... turned over to the government?

SNOW: OK, let's try to segregate the stories here. What he said about the terrorist surveillance program is that these are foreign-to- domestic calls and they were all done within the parameters of the law. He has not commented on the...

THOMAS: He himself has said he didn't obey that law.

SNOW: No, he didn't. What he said is that he has done everything within the confines of the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, there was Tony Snow in his first outing as the White House press secretary in front of the cameras, microphones and a full- dressed briefing. And as you see him dealing with Helen Thomas, who somehow had gotten into her head that there had been a story somewhere that said that millions of Americans had had their telephones tapped. There's no such story that we know of. Tony did his best to sort that out.

But it was something that all of us who have known Tony a long time have been waiting to see how it would go. How did it go?

KONDRACKE: Yes, I thought it went very well.

HUME: Why?

KONDRACKE: Well, for one thing, it's a total difference from Scott McClellan. I mean, Scott McClellan's pattern was to repeat his talking points over, and over, and over again, and never divert from them at all.

I mean, Tony, you had parroting with the press, in a polite way, you know, engaging and all that. I mean, somebody said, "What do you need these tax cuts for if the economy is doing so well?" And he said, "Are you saying that we have too much prosperity?" I mean, that's kind of a novel way for the White House briefer to approach things.

BARNES: It's also an ignorant question. Jeez!

HUME: Well, I know, but if he only answered the questions that weren't ignorant, the briefings would be short, I suppose it's fair to argue.

BARNES: Well, that's not bad, though, if they were shorter. Look, Tony did a couple of things that were good. One, I thought he explained and defended the president's speech and immigration program very, very well, and completely knocked down the idea -- very articulately knocked down the idea that what the president was offering was an amnesty, when, of course, it's not an amnesty. He was very good on that.

And Tony, the difference is between Tony and Scott McClellan is Tony's a star. You know, Tony -- you know how some people really pop on television? I don't know, maybe they should. I've said they ought to shut down the TV at the briefing. But after watching it today, I'm not so sure.

Tony really comes across on television. And, well, we'll have to see how much this helps President Bush. It certainly helped Tony.

LIASSON: Yes. Look, he's not just a star; he's a new model press secretary, which is he came in with a fully formed persona. He was well- known. He was a celebrity before he got behind the podium.

Usually, it's people you've never heard of before, they're kind of anonymous. They stick to the topic points. They don't want to get out too far, or be too colorful, and he certainly has no compunction about that. So I think that that's helpful.

And it seemed a more relaxed, jovial atmosphere in that room today. He got asked a lot of personal questions; I don't think that's going to continue, but that, you know, makes him into a sympathetic figure and, perhaps, can make the press...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: You're talking about the moment at which -- we showed it earlier in the broadcast -- he was asked a question about the armband that he wears, which was given to him by Lance Armstrong. This, of course, relates to cancer research. And Tony had a bout with cancer. And in discussing that, he was quite emotional.

What about that? Is that a good thing for an official like that to do or be, or not?

LIASSON: I don't think in general it's a good thing that the pres secretary's personal life becomes a subject of the briefings. However, on his first day out, you know, I think it's OK, and it certainly humanizes him for the press. And I can't imagine...

HUME: He got a round of applause after all that.

LIASSON: He got a round of applause, and it's not going to continue. Every day is not going to be with questions about Tony Snow's personal life.

KONDRACKE: Yes, but let's face it. This is honeymoon time. And, you know, there's going to be -- it will end. It will end quite quickly.

LIASSON: Probably tomorrow.

HUME: Did you think that the questions were less fanged than...

KONDRACKE: Yes, I did. I mean, I fell a little less combative than they usually are, and they'll get more combative. I thought that he did an especially good job tightrope-walking on the issue of the "USA Today" story. He said, "We're not going to confirm or deny that story." Then he started talking about it and reciting what...

HUME: What was in the story.

KONDRACKE: ... what was in the story. But he also said -- and I think this is great -- we don't have any obligation to make our intelligence-gathering transparent. Al Qaeda doesn't believe in transparency. What Al Qaeda believes in is mayhem, and the president has a constitutional obligation and heartfelt determination to make sure we fight it. That's great. That's good stuff.

HUME: Tony must have done well, because it's not every night that Mort gets in here and quotes the president's press secretary and reads it out loud from...

BARNES: Reads the transcript, yes. Well, look, this was opening day, but it's a long season. So far, he's 1-0.

HUME: All right. So now let's talk a little bit about whether, in fact, this kind of briefing, in which the press secretary is a more aggressive defender and more sort of, you know, an advocate...

BARNES: Yes.

HUME: ... is likely to work. Does this work? Does it overshadow the president? What...

BARNES: Well, no, look, you can't overshadow a president. Obviously, Tony, being a media star, is going to get a lot of attention, and the White House ought to use him to the hilt. He ought to be on every television show he can possibly be on, because most people are not going to watch the briefing.

And in the evening news, as we've done tonight, people are not going to be playing a lot of that briefing. So I think they really just have to make the most of it. And Tony's very good at this.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: There were a few slipups. How did he deal with those?

KONDRACKE: Well, he acknowledged that he'd made a slipup when he presumed to say what the Senate was going to do on the immigration...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Right. How does that play? How does that play? How does that...

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: ... that he admitted? That's good, good, good. Anytime you can...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Better to do that, right, than to...

LIASSON: Sure. Look, when you're at 31 percent in the polls, how can any of this hurt?

KONDRACKE: Exactly.

LIASSON: How can any of this hurt?

KONDRACKE: And it so beats the alternative. I mean, you know, being affirmative so beats the crouch.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006