2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

August 10, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - August 10

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL STEPHENSON, NEW SCOTLAND YARD: We cannot stress too highly the severity that this plot represented. Put simply, this was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's a British police official describing the terror plot that was broken up today. Time now for some analysis from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Jeff Birnbaum of the "Washington Post"; and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, FOX NEWS contributors all.

Well, President Bush said today that this foiled plot is a stark reminder this nation is at war with Islamic fascists. Fred, it seems that sometimes we forget that we're at war but that our enemies never do.

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, and look, we have -- we have a lot of enemies, they're Islamic jihadists of the Sunni stripe or Shiite stripe and there are a lot of them, some are British citizens, as we know now. Just think for a minute, though, I tried to think about this.

What if this plot had worked? And they would have killed something like 1,500 to 2,000 people if they blew up three planes an hour for three hours. I mean, that really does sound to me and some officials have speculated as the big No. 2 attack that al Qaeda's wanted to do for a long time since September 11.

WALLACE: In addition, Jeff, it would have been a complete mystery, these planes would have simply have vanished from the air, we never would have known what caused it, which have done wonders for the aviation industry.

JEFF BIRNBAUM, "WASHINGTON POST": Well, I think that would have figured it out after a little while, but it is astonishing and scary what might have happened. Clearly there'll be a lot of kudos to go around, the British in particular. I think President Bush will get a lot of political credit for working so closely with the British to stop this. And it -- but it also points out what we don't know. How many more of these plots are there out there? And it does show how vulnerable we are to international terrorism. Separate completely from the issue of the war in Iraq, I think.

WALLACE: Charles, Jeff brought up the politics of this and let's talk about this because it comes on the same week Republicans are trying to portray Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut as showing that the Democrats are going wobbly in the war on terror. Does this event reminding all of us that there is a war on terror; does this help make the argument?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, the election in November is going to hinge on how the debate on terrorism is framed. If it's only about the Iraq war, the Democrats are going to win, as we saw with Lamont in the primary. If it's framed in the larger frame of Iraq one in the theater in the larger war on terror, the president is still very strong, A. because we are reminded this is a real threat. I mean, look, it's been five years we were going to have all kinds of reminiscence a month from now about the fifth anniversary of 9/11 as if it were a historical event because no one expected we would go half a decade and not have a second attack.

Now with this attempt out of repetition on what was an attempt in the mid 1990's of shooting all kinds of -- bringing down all kinds of airplanes, we're reminded it's active out there and if the frame is the war on terror, the Democrats, as represented by a neophyte of Lamont who speaks simple-mindedly about its causes and how to defeat it, are going to lose.

WALLACE: Let's talk about this. It's so interesting that you talk, Charles, about how it is framed and that there's going to be a battle to see how this is framed because, Fred, the Democrats fired back today saying that the U.S. is less secure under President Bush, and as we reported earlier, and let's put it up on the screen, Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader this statement:

"The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created the rallying cry of international terrorists."

He's in effect saying, Iraq has made us less able to defend ourselves against terrorists like these in Britain.

BARNES: That's a nice statement, it's wrong, but it's an interesting statement. I mean, look, when was al Qaeda's greatest growth period? It was in the 1990's -- started -- and look at all the things they tried, you know, blowing up the World Trade Center the second time, they hit the USS Cole, they blew up those embassies and so on. So that was their big growth period, it hasn't been since the U.S. has been in Iraq. I don't know where he gets the $300 dollar -- $300 billion figure from exactly.

WALLACE: Well, I think he's saying that's what we spent in Iraq, so therefore, saying you haven't spent it in homeland security.

BARNES: I know. But that what -- I know but that -- that's not the way government works, he knows better than that, that's ridiculous. I mean -- I mean, I don't know why Democrats are so adamant about, one -- on the one hand they don't -- they frequently don't take the war on terror very seriously. That's why they're upset about the NSA spying, the bank transfer story that broke, they wanted to weaken the Patriot Act and all those things, and now they say, well gee, we -- it should have had $300 billion more. That's just not credible.

BIRNBAUM: I understand why the Democrats want to do this and it is pretty clear. If the Democrats are able to isolate Iraq as the problem area and separate it from the war against terrorists globally, then they're able, I think, to have a huge advantage, if you look at the polls, there is a great deal of discomfort with Bush policies in Iraq and that has leached over, I think, to lead to skepticism about the Republicans' ability to conduct the war on terror, but Republicans, I think, have a historic chance, and an historic tie to national security, so -- and homeland security by inference, so I think the Democrats will lose if Iraq and terrorism are conflated. But if the Democrats are able to say Iraq, that's a problem, that is a civil war, sectarian violence, that's completely different than the war on terrorism, then I think they have a chance to take over, at least the House of Representatives in the midterm election.

WALLACE: All right, we got to take a break here, but next on SPECIAL REPORT, Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut: Is it just one sign of an anti-incumbent tidal wave? We'll hear from the all-stars on that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT): I'm running as an Independent Democrat which in some ways is exactly what I've always been.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's Joe Lieberman beginning his campaign as an Independent after losing this week's Democratic primary in Connecticut, and we're back now with the panel.

Well, Lieberman got the most attention, but was one of three incumbents who were defeated and there you can se the murderer's row who were defeated in their party primaries on Tuesday, Joe Lieberman; Democrat Cynthia McKinney, as we mentioned earlier, lost in Georgia; and in Michigan, Joe Schwarz lost his bid for renomination, he of course is a Republican.

Charles, is there an anti-incumbent tide beginning to sweep across the political landscape?

KRAUTHAMMER: I don't think so. I think you see polls on that, but it's so early in the game, and people are always anti-incumbent if you ask them generically. Except if you ask him about his or her Congressman, he says, well yeah, I love him but all the others are bums. And in the end each race is sort of local. I think what there is, is an anti-Bush, anti- Republican-type, not so much anti-incumbent. Cynthia McKinney, the one Democrat in the list is extremely idiosyncratic, there are not a lot of Congress people who've attacked the capital police, so it was an issue of.

WALLACE: Someone was saying the other day that she should start wearing her Congressional pin while she still has the chance.

But let me ask me about this, and let me throw one of these polls that you've just criticized into the hopper, if I can. Let's put it on the screen. This is the latest poll from FOX NEWS/Opinion Dynamics, out today. When asked without knowledge of either candidate, who are you more inclined to vote for? People choose the challenger over the incumbent 46 percent to 21 percent. And on the generic question, who are you going to choose for Congress in November, Democrats now lead 48 percent to 30 percent or by an 18-point margin which is huge -- Fred.

BARNES: It is huge, that has never been predictive, that particular poll question, on the other hand, that is a big margin. It suggests something, it does suggest Republicans aren't running real well. And let me mention on the two House races. They do not show an incumbent tide. Look at Joe Schwarz. How did he win in the first place a couple of years ago? He won the Republican nomination with less than 28 percent of the vote in the primary because all these conservatives, a number of conservatives ran -- ran, and they split the vote. So when he's challenged this time by one conservative, that conservative wins because of the district. Schwarz is a moderate, by the way, even had some Democrats campaigning for him.

And McKinney who lost by 18 points, I mean, you know, she can never get to 50 percent if you have a serious, credible candidate, Hank Johnson was certainly was that, running against her, she was going to lose, it's clear.

WALLACE: Jeff, do you think that there is a tide at all, and if so is it more anti-Bush, anti-Republican, as Charles suggests, or more anti- incumbent?

BIRNBAUM: I think there is a tide, I have to disagree and I think it is certainly anti-incumbent which hurts the Republicans more. There's an ABC/"Washington Post" poll out this week which showing that 55 percent of those polled actually disliked their own Congressman, which is the lowest rating in a poll like this since 1994, which, of course, was the year when the Republicans took over the House after 40 years in the wilderness.

And I've also been calling around this week and there is a consensus among the people who make it their profession to look at and predict outcomes in the Congressional elections, both from the left to the right and the middle, just about everyone I've called that there will be -- there's likely to be a changeover in the House of Representatives from Republican control to Democratic control, not by any large margin, but it's pretty clear that things are trending in that direction -- and a lot of Republicans are worried about --

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: That's an anti-Republican tide, that's not an anti -- I mean, you can't name three or four -- you can't name more than three or four House Democrats who are even seriously challenged. I mean, I'm not in favor of an anti-Republican tide, but I'm afraid there is one out there. I agree with Charles. It's not anti-incumbent.

WALLACE: Charles, if there is this tide, is there anything Republicans can do between now and November to turn it around or is it baked in the cake of high energy prices and Iraq and the other things people are unhappy about these days?

KRAUTHAMMER: You know, as the list you've made there indicates, it's largely out of the Republicans and the president's control, the prices of oil, the war in Iraq is not going to change dramatically between now and November. I do think that the reminder about terror is going to help the administration because, in fact, it's one great accomplishment is the five years and that's a big deal. Now, it's an odd event because it's the absence of an event. And that doesn't have the impact of a positive event, and that's why I think it's less of an impact. But this event today, of the attempt on the airplanes, I think will have an impact that's going to last.

---

Sponsored Links

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