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

---

September 19, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - September 19

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACQUES CHIRAC, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): Let me take this opportunity, once again, to say that the president (INAUDIBLE) of the United States again see eye-to-eye on this one. I totally agree with President Bush. We're focused and determined to push forward on this one, to move ahead in a structured manner.

We are committed to a negotiation and therefore a dialogue. So, we're not going to start by setting deadlines that are a few hours long. So, this is a process that is underway, and I hope it will run its course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, how about that? Jacques Chirac and President Bush sit down and they kind of say that they're on the same page and they agree on it totally and then Chirac goes into another room and says, "But no deadlines." Thoughts on this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke, executive editor "Roll Call"; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, FOX NEWS contributors all.

The issue, of course, is Iran and what to do about its refusal, so far, to curb its uranium enrichment program. Do we now have, as it appears, despite the efforts of leaders to paper it over, a new disagreement -- a new disagreement between the U.S. and France?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: I do not know of that's what we've got. They insisted today that there wasn't one and that the French said they didn't want to suspend the requirement that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment or fuel enrichment before talks begin. I think the problem is something greater, and it is not between France and the U.S., it's that Russia and China are against sanctions, they've been pretty clear on that. It's also unclear as to what kind of sanctions that the international community could even agree upon that would be tough enough that would force Iran to give up its nuclear program. I think that's completely unclear. Don't forget, a deadline has already come and gone and nothing has happened. That was August 31.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": What the French are up to is anybody's guess. Chirac gave an interview to "USA Today," it was in the paper this morning, saying that negotiations could go forward between the Europeans and the Russians and Chinese without the United States, without a suspension their -- of.

HUME: With Iran?

KONDRACKE: Yeah.

HUME: With Iran?

KONDRACKE: Without a suspension of the nuclear program and the United States could come along later if there were a suspension. Then he goes and has this photo session with the president says, no, no, no, Iran has to suspend before we can start the negotiations, however, Iran has not suspended and then he goes on to this other statement in which he says, no, no, no we're on to talk and, but he's not...

HUME: No deadlines.

KONDRACKE: He says -- well, no deadlines within an hour, you know, within hours. He doesn't say "no deadline".

HUME: I thought he was belittling deadlines generally by what he said.

KONDRACKE: Well maybe -- maybe. And on the other hand, what about sanctions? He seemed to say, in the photo op, that they are not going to go to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. He did not exactly rule out sanctions in his later statement. Who knows? The important is, we were depending on the Europeans to join -- not the Russians and the Chinese -- to join us in stiff sanctions against Iraq, effective sanctions and if the French will not go along with that, we've got nothing.

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, that's true if they do not. Here's a -- look, I talked to somebody who was with the president up at the U.N. and here's what they know. There's some things about the -- what the French are doing that they don't know. But they believe that the French are with them on the notion that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

They believe that the French are with them that if, on this question, if Iran agreed to a suspension, and then start it up again, the reprocessing of uranium, then the French would be for sanctions. But between that -- right now, for instance, just because Iran has violated the August 31 deadline for stopping enrichment, it's unclear whether the French, at any point, will be for sanctions at all.

And it seems to me, I am just putting two and two together, anyway, maybe it's two and three -- I think what the French are mainly negotiating with the Iranians now is about, not about an ultimate agreement, but about getting them to actually stop for a while, at any rate, enrichment of uranium and...

HUME: And everybody agrees that if they pause, they stop doing it, or that they foreswearing it -- or if they stop doing it at this moment, that sufficient to get talks going, the U.S. participating about where you go then, right? So that is the next step that they're hoping they'll get...

BARNES: Right, but if they pause and then started in reaching again, then the French are believed, at least by the U.S., that -- to warrant -- that would warrant sanctions.

KONDRACKE: But the only thing wrong with that is that the Iranians are not spending, they are continuing with their enrichment activities. There was a decline in the French want to talk about talking about suspending. This goes on forever and it plays into the Iranian hands, continuously.

LIASSON: Yeah, and look, it doesn't look like the U.S. has any good options that are actually going to work.

HUME: Well, let me just ask this question. Let us assume that we are and we have decided, because we know, that they're not going to suspend and that this international diplomatic effort to mount sanctions against them is not going to succeed, and even if it did that wouldn't stop them. What's the better policy? Is there an alternative? Does anybody know of an alternative policy? Would talking to them one-on-one big difference? Bilateral talks, this is what -- you hear this from critics all the...

LIASSON: I think Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. I mean, how do you stop it?

HUME: In other words, your view is that's what they're after.

LIASSON: I think they're holding out for the one incentive that we still haven't figured they really want. It's kind of like a mystery. I think that they wanted a nuclear weapon.

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: They need sticks not carrots.

KONDRACKE: Well, the president basically said, you know, even if you were to give up your nuclear program, we still want to change your government and what they want then -- they want the nuclear weapons so that Mullahs and Ahmadinejad can stay in power forever.

LIASSON: Sure, which is completely illogical.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: He's not talking about exchanging their government by force. He's not talking about the kind of government (INAUDIBLE) would stop.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: "We want a new government there," that's what he said.

BARNES: If President Bush stood today and said, we will do nothing whatsoever in propaganda in support for dissidence or anything at all to change the government in Iran.

HUME: If you'll stop with the -- stop with the weapons are ready.

BARNES: No, no, well yeah, but if they did that, the wouldn't stop anyway -- the enrichment of uranium, that wouldn't do any good. That's just a pretext for them, I think.

KONDRACKE: But when it comes to -- when Ahmadinejad gives his rebuttal to President Bush today he'll say, you see, they're trying to overthrow our government and you know, we have a right to whatever we want, you know, its...

HUME: When we come back with our panel, what's behind the president's recent gains in the national polls? Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUME: Back with our panel. Let's take a look at a couple of poll numbers. The one that struck everybody today, of course, was this new Gallup poll which was out and it showed the president's job approval up, there you see it, up to 44 percent. Now, 44 percent may seem anemic, but it is way than the president had been doing in this poll and better than he's been doing in many others polls, although, the general trend in the polls has been in his direction.

Now, let's a look at another number that was eye-catching, and that was the so-called "Generic Ballot Number," that's one where you ask people would you rather vote for a Democrat or Republican in this election Fall election, no names attached. And there, they pulled even.

Now, the back story on this is a couple of things, one is Republicans tend to be weak on this. They've done very well on this when that number has been favoring the Democrats before. It's hard to imagine they really have pulled even, but something is clearly happening out there, Fred, what?

BARNES: Well, I would note first, that this was adults -- this was, what, 1,200 adults.

HUME: Well, those are likely voters.

BARNES: No, no, this wasn't likely voters, it was...

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: OK, well, a lot of it wasn't, then. I'm wrong, I thought it said -- I just read it on the screen that it said adults.

HUME: They were adults, certainly, but they had screened for likely voters.

BARNES: The -- well, what'd they say of the "adults" for? I mean, there are three ways you can do it. You can do all adults, you can do registered voters, you can do likely voters. If these were likely voters, then that's where Republicans usually do the best. So, if it were merely adults, the you expect they would be better than those numbers.

But there are obviously, I mean, gas prices -- there is an inverse relationship between sinking gas prices and rising presidential popularity. You can graphic it, in fact, some economists it. You can see that.

The president's speeches on terror have obviously hoped. I think we're on to hear the president talk about terror every -- almost every day now between now and the election on November 7.

The other thing is the Democrats. You know, the Democrats, their idea -- I don't think, have not caught on. Remember it was going to be the -- what was it? About the -- about corruption -- the culture of corruption among Republicans, that did not catch on. This incompetence thing, they really haven't fleshed it out effectively. And then, I think it hurts Democrats when they try over and over an over again to weaken the tools used by the president to fight terrorism.

KONDRACKE: You know, this poll, as many others, showed that if terrorism is your most important issue, by miles, you favor Republican candidates. If Iraq is your most a important issue, by miles, you favor Democrats.

Now, I -- this is all very good news for President Bush, but it's still, you know, not even October yet and the -- you could figure that the enemy -- if the enemy has it mind to cause Bush fits, that they would -- you know, even -- have much more upsurges of violence in Iraq to try to focus people's attention back on Iraq, and help President Bush's adversaries. I don't know what they could do -- maybe an attack on the green zone, you know, something big, I think, you could expect would try to shift attention.

LIASSON: Well, the reason where there hasn't been one is certainly not because they're laying low and thinking about the U.S. elections. I think they tried to kill as many people as they can at all times. Yeah, but look, I think that gas price is certainly definitely a part of it, the president, so far, effective attempt at repositioning the whole debate on the "War on Terror," kind of away from Iraq and towards terrorism, which is the Republican's strong suit.

Also, I think Republicans and conservatives are just coming home. I mean, that's where you saw the drop off in his numbers previously. That there was a real demoralized base, I think that's improved. Republicans say that if the election were held on September 1, they felt that it would lose both Houses of Congress. Well, guess what? It was not held on September 1. Things are changing. I think most Republicans you talk to, say that they probably will lose seats, but I think the chances of them hanging on to both Houses are a heck of a lot better right now.

BARNES: And campaigns matter. The Republicans ran better campaigns in 2002 and 2004, emphasizing the terror threat; they're going to try to reproduce that in 2006. Plus, I think, some other things that will attract conservatives and they can, I think, neutralize Democratic gains.

HUME: The recent plea by Congressman Bob Ney, or announcement of a plea by Bob Ney, put together with the whole Abramoff scandal, and what that showed about Republicans in Congress and what has become of them, raises an interesting question, which is this -- for the good of the Republican Party, as a whole, and for its own internal workings, would be better for them to get by and maintain control in spite of all this or would be better for them, in the long run, to take a beating this time and have to try to come back?

LIASSON: Well, that's an interesting question and several conservatives including (INAUDIBLE) and some other people have written articles saying, would be better if Republicans were kicked out of majority and had to kind of toil in wilderness. You know what? I mean, that's a very long-range question. Nobody likes to give up power. There's also the converse of that which is that Democrats.

HUME: No, I'm not saying they do it on purpose, Mara.

LIASSON: No, no. I know, but I think there is an argument to be made about that. There's also an argument to be made that the Democrats would be better off not taking control of the House just coming...

HUME: It's the same argument.

LIASSON: Giving the Republicans fits for the next two years with a terribly slim majority and then setting themselves up better in 2008.

KONDRACKE: If they take over one House or the other, you're going to have nonstop investigations. The Bush administration is when to be in the dock the entire time, and they're trying to develop scandal material to discredit the Bush administration entirely and the Republican Party with it.

HUME: Will that be politically popular?

KONDRACKE: Depends on what they can find. You know?

LIASSON: I think.

BARNES: I can't believe that you all take seriously the notion that Republicans would be better off by losing. Even taken seriously, it's idiotic.

KONDRACKE: I'm not saying that.

BARNES: Never voluntarily give up power.

I didn't say voluntarily, Fred.

LIASSON: No, no, no, no.

BARNES: Never think it's a good -- now wait a minute.

HUME: No, no, I'm asking whether they think it's a good thing. I'm asking whether you think it would be good for them.

BARNES: It wouldn't be good at all.

HUME: Why not?

BARNES: You want power. Look, the reason they gave in `94 was because the lost the presidency and then Republicans had a -- had a freer (ph) hand. Now we're talking about losing Congress. That won't help.

KONDRACKE: I mean, the logic is that the Democrats will discredit themselves because Nancy Pelosi will be the speaker and...

LIASSON: No, no, and the -- also that Republicans will be true reformers if they wander the wilderness for awhile.

BARNES: Yeah, good luck.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, I don't think so.

---

Sponsored Links

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