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

---

October 29, 2006

Harold Ford, Rick Santorum, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Dole, Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace. The president tries to save the Republican majority in Congress. Next, on "FOX News Sunday." You decide 2006, the battle for the Senate. We'll talk last-minute strategy with Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, who's in a tight race in Tennessee, and Republican Senator Rick Santorum, fighting for his political life in Pennsylvania.

Across the country, what issues, campaign ads and voter turnout operations will determine who controls the Senate for the next two years? We'll ask the campaign chairs, Democrat Charles Schumer and Republican Elizabeth Dole.

Plus, the political war over Iraq, can Republicans separate themselves from the president's policies. We'll discuss that with our Sunday panel, Michael Barone, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams. And our Power Player of the Week, a fond look back at the legendary Red Auerbach, all right now, on "FOX News Sunday."

And good morning again from FOX News in Washington. We trust, where appropriate, you set your clocks back one hour to standard time. And let's start with a quick check of the latest headlines.

President Bush, at his first public rally of the campaign Saturday in Indiana, attacked Democrats as the "just say no" party. In the final week before the election, Mr. Bush has campaign stops in at least four key states.

In the wake of North Korean missile and nuclear tests, the U.S. may deploy its Patriot missile system near key military bases in Tokyo. Reports out of Asia say the action would protect Japanese and American installations. And, in Iraq, insurgents open fire on pilgrims heading for the holy city of Mecca, killing at least one person. Also, U.S. forces killed 17 insurgents who were planning to ambush other troops.

We want to begin our coverage of the home stretch of this campaign by taking a look at two of the key Senate races. In Tennessee, Democratic Congressman Harold Ford is running for an open seat now held by the GOP. Congressman Ford joins us now from Nashville. We should note we also invited his Republican opponent, but Bob Corker was not available.

Congressman Ford, let's take a look at the RealClearPolitics.com average of all the key polls in your state in recent weeks. Let's take a look at it here. It shows your opponent, Mr. Corker, with a two-point lead. Is that where the race is now, Congressman, and, given the Republican advantage in fund-raising, finances and voter turnout organization, how do you overcome that in the final week?

REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D), TENNESSEE: Well, we have polls showing a little different. The momentum here is outstanding on our side. I think the real issue in the campaign has emerged. People in Tennessee who are satisfied being paramedics and cops and firefighters with health insurance premiums, who are satisfied with this war in Iraq, they don't want to vote for me, because I'm going to go to Washington and be a part of shaking up an effort, or I should say, shaking up a system that just is failing ordinary working people in the country.

One of the reasons we believe and feel so confident about our chances here -- and don't get me wrong, we can't let up these last 10 days -- we feel confident because you can feel and sense the momentum all across the state. The sizes of our crows, wherever we may go -- our internal numbers show a small lead, and although there's a fund- raising disadvantage in other parts of the country, we've been very blessed here. We've been able to compete with our Republican component, even though he's put $3 million of his own money into the race. I've not been able to do that. We've been blessed to have good supporters.

WALLACE: Congressman, you voted for the Iraq war. You're pro- life. You voted to ban gay marriage and flag burning. If a Democrat who votes as a conservative on guns, gays and God can't win this year, in Tennessee, does any Democrat ever chance in a red Southern state?

FORD: Well, that's why we're going to win, to prove that one, to prove that right. I think the other issue that my opponent has is that he's wrong on taxes. He's never, ever cut a tax in his entire life, not as mayor of Chattanooga or as finance commissioner for our former governor, Don Sundquist, who actually introduced a state income tax.

The two issues nationally Republicans are running on, terrorism and taxes, they regrettably on their part have a candidate who's bad on both of those issues. That's why we find ourselves in a position to win, among other things.

WALLACE: Let's talk about that Republican National Committee ad that ran this week and got so much attention. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): I met Harold at the Playboy party. Harold, call me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Congressman, Bob Corker also ran a radio at in which when they talk about you they have drums beating, and, when they talk about him, they have a symphonic choir singing and playing. Are Republicans playing the race card in Tennessee, or is that too politically explosive for you to talk about?

FORD: You'd probably have to ask Bob Corker and the Republican National Committee. I do know this. The first ad you showed was a piece of smut, and they should not have run that here. I don't know what would make Ken Mehlman or any national Republican believe that we in Tennessee would want to see something like that.

WALLACE: Why do you think it was a piece of smut, sir?

FORD: A woman bare, looking as if she was naked from her shoulders down and saying, "Cal me, I met you at a Playboy party," it's just unnecessary, out of line. And Tennesseans rejected it.

This other ad, this radio ad, I don't bother to listen to a whole lot of what my opponent runs, but if, indeed, your characterization is true, he should explain what he's trying to do in that ad. I can't quite figure it out myself.

WALLACE: Do you think the fact that she was a white woman was coincidental?

FORD: No, I think it was smut. I don't think race had anything to do with that ad. I just think it was an uncalled-for, despicable, inappropriate ad for children to be watching at 7 and 8 o'clock Central Time with their parents after dinner in the living room. They know it was bad. The party of family values should not have run that in Tennessee, or anywhere, for that matter.

WALLACE: Congressman, there is something in political science known as the 15 percent lie, and that is the fact, the established fact, that blacks, especially blacks running in Southern states, tend to do better, about 10 or 15 points better, in public opinion polls than they do when people go behind the voting curtain and actually vote on election day. Now, it happened to Harvey Gantt, when he was running for the Senate in North Carolina. It happened to Doug Wilder when he was running for governor in Virginia. Why won't it happen to Harold Ford in Tennessee?

FORD: Well, Mr. Wallace, we'll have to see, but I've got a lot of trust and confidence in the voters in Tennessee. They're sick of this war. They're sick of a Republican Congress that can't fix their borders. They're sick of a Republican Senate that has allowed health premiums to continue to go up. And they're sick of the White House, the Congress and the Senate for not doing better by just working people. They could raise the minimum wage and do a whole bunch of other things to make this country stronger.

We'll have to wait and see, but I'll tell you this, if their National Republican Committee believed what you just said, they wouldn't be running these awful, despicable, inhumane ads in my space. They know that we've got a chance to win this, and, come November 7th, Tennesseans will speak loud and clear. It's time for a new day in Tennessee and a new day in America.

WALLACE: Congressman, as we've said, you vote pretty conservative for a Democrat, but the fact is that if you win and if you're part of a Democratic takeover of the Senate, that means that Harry Ford becomes the Senate majority -- Harry Reid, rather, becomes the Senate majority leader, Ted Kennedy becomes a committee chair, so does Joe Biden. Doesn't a Ford victory as part of a Democratic takeover, doesn't that end up helping liberals?

FORD: What Tennesseans will get will be a Jesus-loving, gun- supporting believer that families should come first, that taxes should be lower and America should be strong. When Tennesseans send us to the Senate, that's what they'll get in my votes and that's what they'll get in the kind of leadership that we have not had in the Senate over the last six years.

I know there's going to be an effort to scare people, but you cannot scare people to be inspired. You cannot scare people to do good and important things. I say to the national Republican Party, that message has run out of gas here in Tennessee. We know we are better than that as a country, and Tennesseans are ready to vote for something better and stronger and more positive than that.

WALLACE: Congressman Ford, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for joining us today.

FORD: Thank you, sir. I'm glad you U.T. beat South Carolina last night, too.

WALLACE: All right. We turn now to Pennsylvania, where Republican Senator Rick Santorum faces an uphill. Senator Santorum joins us from Pittsburgh. We invited his Democratic opponent, Bob Casey, but he was unavailable.

Senator, let's start with you as well, with the RealClearPolitics.com average of recent polls over the last month in Pennsylvania, and let's take a look at what they show, which is that you are training your Democratic challenger, Bob Casey, by more than 10 points. There's a new poll out today which shows you trailing by double digits.

Now, Senator, you have been in the Senate for 12 years. You are the number-three man in the Republican leadership in the Senate. Why shouldn't we look at this and say Pennsylvanians know who Rick Santorum is and they just aren't buying this hear?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I think we have a lot of polls that show a lot different than that and we feel very, very good about our position right now. We've worked very hard. We've talked about the important issues of the day. We've gone out and talked about why we're facing this great evil.

I gave a speech this past week called "The Gathering Storm of the 21st Century," where I laid out the evil that is confronting us, not just in the Middle East, but now with events of the last few weeks, in North Korea and in Venezuela and in what's going on in our own hemisphere. And I think the people of Pennsylvania are beginning to understand that we need leadership in Washington, D.C., who is going to confront these things, who is not going to hide, as my opponent has.

It's not surprising he's not on your show today. He's done virtually no interviews. He doesn't campaign at all. He hides from the public. He doesn't answer questions. It's because he has nothing to offer, and what he does have to offer, just sort of the old line, let's raise taxes, let's cut and run, and I don't think that's going to sell on election day in about a week and a half.

WALLACE: Senator, in these final days, as you mentioned, you're going after Bob Casey very hard on the issue of national security, and you've just put up an ad. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): Terrorists are trying to enter our country, yet Casey comes out for amnesty for illegals. We just can't take a chance on Bob Casey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Bob Casey, alongside pictures of Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad and a mushroom cloud.

Senator Santorum, how do you justify making the case that he votes for amnesty for illegals and therefore is soft on terrorists?

SANTORUM: Well, he's against the deployment of a missile defense system. He's against the development of nuclear-tipped bunker-busting bombs that would be necessary to take out installations in Iran if that were to come. And we just saw this week Ahmadinejad announcing that they now have a second centrifuge to develop and enrich uranium...

WALLACE: But I'm asking you specifically about this. What you're going after him there is you say he supports amnesty for illegals and therefore he's soft on terrorists.

SANTORUM: Yes, Chris, you only showed a piece of that ad. The other things I just mentioned were part of that ad, as well as an NSA wiretap, which he refuses to take a position on it. He just said, well, we're work it out. This is a guy who doesn't understand what we're confronting. He has absolutely no clue.

When he comes out and I give a long speech, talking about these different threats, throwing the facts on the table, and his response is, well, Rick Santorum's fear mongering. No, I'm not fear mongering. I'm describing the reality of what we confront, and there has to be people who are willing to stand up and do that.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Senator, if I may, let's talk about the reality of this situation with regard to the vote on illegal immigration. All he said was that he would have voted for the comprehensive immigration reform package that was passed by the Senate, a package, incidentally, that was supported by 23 of your Republican Senate colleagues, as well as President Bush. Does that make all of them soft on terror?

SANTORUM: Well, I think in that particular respect, yes. I think anything that says to the people of the world, if they can come into this country and break the law and cross our borders and we're going to give them amnesty, number one, you encourage more people to come and I think that does allow the opportunity for, if we do not secure our borders first, which is what now we're trying to do, after people rejected the Senate bill.

The overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians have rejected the Senate bill because it puts the cart before the horse. We need to secure our borders first and if we don't we're going to have problems.

WALLACE: Senators, you're saying your Pennsylvania colleague, Arlen Specter, and George W. Bush, both of whom supported that bill, are soft on terrorists?

SANTORUM: All I would suggest is -- I don't know how I can make it more clear, Chris. If we don't secure our borders first and what we say to people is that we're going to provide you amnesty if you cross into this country, you're going to get more people in this country that I believe could be a threat to this country, and I think we're seeing that.

WALLACE: Senator, you also link your opponent, Mr. Casey, to U.S. casualties in Iraq, because he has opposed some energy exploration here in the United States. Let's take a look at that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: This is someone that is playing to environmental extremists to gather a few votes, get a little money, at the expense of our men and women sacrificing their lives in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, I thought we went into Iraq to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

SANTORUM: Well, I think everyone realizes, Chris, that the principal reason that Islamic fascism is the threat it is today is because they have resources and they have oil. And the only way we're going to confront holistically this threat, whether it's in Venezuela with their oil, or whether it's with Iran and the other Middle Eastern countries, is to develop energy security in this country. And that means we have to use all means necessary. He systematically takes energy security off the table by being against offshore drilling -- China is drilling 50 miles off the shore of the United States of America, and he won't allow the United States to drill 100 miles off the shore.

He will allow 3,700 gas and oil wells to be drilled in western Pennsylvania last year, but he won't allow us to drill less than 1,000 wells on the North Slope of Alaska over the next 25 years.

Our men and women are out there and they're sacrificing because they have resources to be able to project power. The only reason Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, Chris, is because they have the oil revenue and we're paying $70 and $80 a barrel for oil...

WALLACE: Senator, excuse me.

SANTORUM: We have to use every resource we have to become energy secure.

WALLACE: We've got about a minute left and I want to get into one last issue with you.

SANTORUM: OK.

WALLACE: Pennsylvania does not have a gay marriage ban on the ballot this year, but are you going to try to make gay marriage an issue, given the fact that the neighboring state of New Jersey, the supreme court there just said that same-sex couples should have full legal rights?

SANTORUM: Yes, my opponent and I are very different on this issue. He said he would fight against any state or federal constitutional amendment that would secure the right of the people to define what marriage is. He would allow the courts to impose a redefinition of marriage.

I don't believe in that. I believe on the great moral issues of our time, the people have a right to speak and say what their collective morality is, the kind of country that they want to live in, and a few unelected, in some cases, or even elected, judges should not impose that. He would go along with the unelected judges. He supports civil unions. He supports, in a sense, gay marriage without the word marriage.

WALLACE: Senator Santorum, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for coming in today.

SANTORUM: Thank you.

WALLACE: Up next, we'll take a look across the country at the issues, negative ads and campaign organizations that will determine which party controls the Senate. We'll find out from the two Senate campaign chairs, after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: With us now to handicap the battle for control of the U.S. Senate are the chairs of the two parties' Senate campaign committees, Democrat Charles Schumer, who joins us from New York, and here in Washington, Republican Elizabeth Dole.

Senators, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

SEN. ELIZABETH DOLE (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Good morning, thank you.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Hi.

WALLACE: Senator Schumer, you said this week that Democrats are right on the edge of taking control of the Senate, but I want you take a look at the Real Clear Politics average of the key races. And as you look at them there, you can see, you're still behind in Missouri and Virginia, narrowly, but still behind. Montana is tightening up, and you're fighting to hold on to Democratic seats in New Jersey and Maryland.

Senator, isn't Democratic takeover of the Senate still something of a long shot?

SCHUMER: No, I don't think so. I do think we're right on the edge, Chris. Every week, things get better and better and better. We believe that we are head in every blue state -- that is, seats where there are Democratic incumbents or were Democratic incumbents and that are now open seats -- by double digits in all but one.

For instance, in Maryland, which they say is close, today, a "Washington Post" poll showed it 54-43 for Cardin. And, in the red states, we believe we're ahead in five, even in two and down by a little in one.

And here's what's happened, Chris. This election, more and more and more, is becoming a referendum on George Bush, his failed policies, both overseas and here at home and the rubberstamp Congress. And the more it becomes a referendum like that, the better we do.

In fact, with the exception of one candidate, no other Republican candidate uses a four-letter word in his or her commercials, B-U-S-H. The Republican candidates don't use the four-letter word, Bush, in their commercials, because they're running away from him and they see this wind blowing at our back.

WALLACE: Senator Dole, let me ask you about that. The president held a news conference this week on Iraq and in it he said that the ultimate responsibility for what's going on in the war resides with him. Are you and your Republican candidates OK with this becoming a national referendum on Bush and his war policy?

DOLE: Well, first of all, Chuck, of course, is trying very hard to make it a national referendum. President Bush's name is not on the ballot.

But let me speak to Iraq. Each candidate must speak to Iraq from his own conscience. Obviously, it's a major issue. There's no question about that. But what we're trying to do is find a way to win. The Democrats appear to be convinced -- or content, rather -- to lose. And by lose, I mean...

WALLACE: You're talking about win and lose the election, or the war?

DOLE: The war. They appear to be content to lose. Losing is withdrawing before the mission is accomplished. In other words...

WALLACE: So you're happy to see this become a referendum on the president and the war?

DOLE: I just want to make a statement about the fact that if we were to pull out of Iraq, you've got Syria, you've got Iran. Iran obviously would love to fill that vacuum. And here's one of the largest oil supplies in the world. I think the Middle East would be in flames and what is likely to happen is that we would have to go back in, and that is certainly something that no one desires. So I just want to be very clear about this.

WALLACE: If I may press the point, though, I'm asking a political question, not a policy question.

DOLE: Yes, right.

WALLACE: Are you happy to see this as a referendum on the president and the war?

DOLE: In my view, what we're doing is changing that scenario, because our candidates are talking about issues that are important in their states, such as corruption in New Jersey. It's like Tip O'Neill used to say, all politics is local. So, in New Jersey, the issue is Tom Kean, who is a government reformer who has been trying to get rid of pay to play, whereas his opponent is involved in a federal criminal investigation.

You look in Maryland, and Michael Steele is doing a tremendous job there, talking about change that he feels is needed. But Ben Cardin, no way that he can discuss that, because he, himself, has been in government 40 years. And Michael would be the first African American to be elected senator in the state of Maryland, fresh, great leadership.

Michael Bouchard, in Michigan...

WALLACE: I'm not going to let you go through all the races, Senator, but let me bring...

DOLE: Michael is doing a great job on issues of economic importance to Michigan, which is really way behind in terms of the national economic...

WALLACE: So, Senator Schumer, let me ask you, is this a national race, or is this, as Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local?

SCHUMER: No, I think it's becoming a national race, with, of course, specific local overlays. On the war in Iraq, yes, it is becoming a national referendum on that, and people do not want the stay the course approach that the president and Elizabeth has just outlined. In fact, what's so interesting is Democrats are running ads on Iraq, and not just in traditional Democratic states like Rhode Island or New Jersey, but in places like Tennessee and Virginia.

You heard Harold Ford talk about it, and that's because people want change. They do not want to stay the course. They don't want to stay in the same place.

DOLE: Let me speak to stay the course. This is just -- believe me, it's not a matter of stay the course...

WALLACE: Well, that is what the president and all of his top advisers said until this week, Senator Dole.

DOLE: The tactics have been regularly changed and adjusted. This is anything but conventional warfare. We know that. So, as the enemy changes this asymmetric situation, as they change, obviously we have to adjust, practically on a daily basis, an hourly basis and that adjustment has been made all the way through.

Now, maybe we haven't done as good a job as we should in explaining that these tactics are constantly adjusted and changed.

WALLACE: Let me, if I can, switch from Iraq to social issues, which are again on the front burner. And let's look at the exchange this week over stem-cell research.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL J. FOX, ACTOR: As you might know, I care deeply about stem- cell research. In Missouri, you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO PERSONALITY: He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator Schumer, the polls show that most people favor embryonic stem-cell research, but it also is an issue that clearly energizes the Republican social conservative base. So how does this issue cut politically in your Senate races?

SCHUMER: Well, I think it cuts very positively. And, once again, you have Republicans -- Jim Talent put an ad on where he's saying he supports funding for stem-cell research even though he voted against the bills. I think that shows you where the winds are Missouri.

Tom Kean, Jr., in New Jersey voted against funding for stem-cell research and is now putting an ad on that says he's for it. I mean, just look at what their candidates are doing and they will show you where things are at.

Here's the bottom line on this issue, Chris: There are millions of Americans who have kids with diabetes, who have parents who have Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's, and the scientists tell us that embryonic -- not adult, but embryonic -- stem-cell research is the best is the best...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Let me bring in...

SCHUMER: I just want to make this point, Chris.

WALLACE: Senator Dole, go ahead.

SCHUMER: If there are people who don't believe in it, that's fine, but shouldn't impose their views on us.

DOLE: Thank you for asking my views, Chuck. First of all, let me say that Jim Talent supports medical research, without a doubt and certainly...

WALLACE: He doesn't support embryonic stem-cell research.

SCHUMER: He voted against it. He supported the Brownback bill, which is against it.

DOLE: What he opposes is cloning a human embryo, the same for Michael Steele, opposes cloning a human embryo. Michael Steele is for stem-cell research.

WALLACE: Embryonic, Senator Dole?

DOLE: We're talking about stem-cell research without cloning...

WALLACE: I'm asking about embryonic stem-cell research.

DOLE: ... without cloning a human embryo.

SCHUMER: You see, Chris, if I might say something here.

DOLE: No, Chuck, let me finish my answer, please, because both certainly believe in research that's going to help with these terrible illnesses. You saw a wonderful ad with Michael Steele's sister explaining that, yes, he's for research. Yes -- she has M.S. And, Chuck, you and Jim Talent, I believe, co-sponsored legislation on sickle cell, and he is a leader in cancer research.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: Chris, I just have to answer that. She has had most of the time here. Now let me answer it.

WALLACE: You've got 10 seconds, now.

SCHUMER: There is a difference between cloning and embryonic stem- cell research. Jim Talent has opposed it, Michael Steele has opposed it and so has Tom Kean. And the reason that they're trying to obfuscate and use the issue of cloning is they know they're not on the people's side.

WALLACE: All right, we've got about -- less than a minute left. You each get 30 seconds and it's on the question of voter turnout operations.

Senator Schumer, in 30 seconds, why are you going to be able to win on the voter turnout, when Republicans always win on voter turnout?

SCHUMER: We know they won in 2004. We've been preparing since early 2005. We have built voter turnout operations. We've created a voter file, for instance, for the first time in Montana and Missouri. We spent $25 million. Our voter turnout is going to equal the Republicans for the first time in a long time, come this election.

WALLACE: Your 30 seconds is up.

Senator Dole, you get the last word.

DOLE: Yes, and let me just say one thing about Harold Ford. He's been misrepresenting himself. He is for protecting gay marriage. He voted against the morning-after pill. There were a lot of misrepresentations.

WALLACE: No, he's voted -- no, wait a minute.

DOLE: I need my 30 seconds.

WALLACE: That isn't fair. He voted against gay marriage.

DOLE: He voted against the morning-after...

WALLACE: He has voted against gay marriage.

SCHUMER: He has, he voted against it. That's right.

DOLE: This was actually to help...

WALLACE: He's voted for the ban on gay marriage, both on the state and the local level.

SCHUMER: That's correct.

DOLE: On gay marriage, he voted against a state having the right to decline a license from another state that permits gay marriage. So that's...

WALLACE: All I know is he's voting for the Tennessee amendment.

I mean, we have to be fair here, Senator Dole.

DOLE: Well, the morning-after pill and the foreign companies. Let me just say that he did receive money. I have to correct the record there, but please let me have my 30 seconds.

WALLACE: No, you've already used your 30 seconds.

DOLE: No, here's what's going to happen. If, indeed -- and the Democrats are not going to take over the Senate. We're going to maintain the majority.

WALLACE: All right.

DOLE: But if they were to take over the Senate, it would weaken our economy -- tax increases.

WALLACE: All right, there we go.

DOLE: It would weaken our security and it would weaken our shared values...

WALLACE: Senator Schumer, Senator Dole...

SCHUMER: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: You better allow me to be fair. Thank you both for coming in and spending your Sunday with us. We'll see you out on the campaign trail. It must be getting down to the wire, here.

Coming up, our Sunday panel on the president's recent efforts to recast how Americans view his policy on Iraq. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The new Iraqi government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed to a schedule for resolving issues, such as disarming illegal militias and death squads.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NOURI AL-MALIKI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER: I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, with different views about the way forward in Iraq. And it's panel time now for FOX News contributors: Michael Barone of "U.S. News and World Report," Mara Liasson of National Public Radio; Bill Kristol of the "Weekly Standard" and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

Well, by the end of the week, the Iraqi prime minister, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, as well as the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, put out a joint statement saying that they agreed on time lines for making political progress in Iraq, but this was only after days of an embarrassing disconnect between the two sides.

Bill, as we sit here today, are the U.S. and the Iraqi governments on the same page when it comes to making political progress in Iraq, or not?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: Yes, they're on the same page, but political progress depends on military progress. There's no security, you're not going to have a stable government and people like Maliki aren't going to have the confidence to take on the sectarian militias. Who's going to take on the militias if they think we're going to leave in six months and they're just going to be killed by these people. So, ultimately, it depends on military victory. We're either going to win or lose, and the day after the election the president needs to make sure we win, I think.

WALLACE: Juan, what do you make of this disconnect, where early in the week you had the president and you had Ambassador Khalilzad both saying, yes, the Iraqis have agreed to time lines. And then, as we heard, Maliki was saying no, no time lines.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, Maliki I think is making it very clear, first and foremost, in terms of his ability to stand apart from the U.S., to say to his constituency at home that he is an independent player, not a puppet. But I think the real consequence is here the failure to speed up the training of the Iraqi forces to let them take over, and that job just isn't getting done. And he's not able to manage the sectarian split inside his own country, in fact, inside the coalition that put him in power.

So he's not able to stop the sectarian violence, yet he wants to stand up and make himself into a power player. I think it's a futile act at this point, and I think President Bush is trying to do the best he can to paper over there differences, because there should be time lines. There should be some level -- we talked about elections and constitutions being written. Why shouldn't there be some level of accomplishment and achievement that the American people can see in terms of the investment of American blood?

WALLACE: Michael, forget the question of what these guys say. The real question, of course, is what Maliki actually does. Do you see from the five-plus months that he's been in office any sign that he's willing to stand up to the Shiite militias, that he's willing to stand up to the Shiites by reaching out to the Sunnis and trying got reach a political accommodation?

MICHAEL BARONE, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Well, I see some signs. I can't tell you that I see that he's all going in one direction. I think one thing that I would like to see this Iraqi government handle is the idea of an oil trust, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, what would flow through some of the profits from their oil directly to the people.

One of the problems we've had in these states with large oil production is that the money all goes to the government and it becomes a honey pot that all these people want to -- you engage in corruption and violence and dictatorship in order to monopolize. That's an idea that President Bush said that he has suggested to Maliki and to other Iraqi leaders, but, as he notes, we're not in a position to compel them to do it.

I think Zal Khalilzad, our ambassador, is playing a role like Evelyn Baring, Lord Cromer, who was the British counsel general in Egypt from 1883 from 1907, but he hasn't been as effective as Lord Cromer, yet.

WALLACE: Do you want to follow up on that Lord Cromer analogy, Mara?

MARA LIASSON, NPR: We wish were as good as those British colonials. They really knew how to do nation building and we don't seem to be so good at it. One of the other choice comments that Maliki made this week was he said, I don't even think time lines are really the official policy of the U.S. government. I think they're just saying it for the purposes of the mid-term elections, which was a pretty cutting statement.

Look, the problem is is that President Bush gave this very lengthy press conference this week, where he was trying to convince people that he actually had a plan, but he said so many things that were contradictory, like, "Our patience is unlimited, but we can't leave until we succeed." Well, okay, what does that mean? Or, "We're not going to get in the crossfire between these sectarian groups," and, "Our job is to prevent a civil war."

Well, if you're going to prevent a civil war, you're going to have to get in the crossfire. And I agree with Bill. I think it's a basic security situation. If people can't walk the streets of Baghdad, if the lights don't stay on all day, I don't know how the political settlement can happen.

WALLACE: Bill, let me ask you about this, and we talked about it with Senator Dole -- stay the course. You have this very interesting development this week with the President and Tony Snow basically said we're not going to say "stay the course" anymore. Is it just a rhetorical problem, or has it become a political problem because people actually view it not just as a view of words, but that that's basically what the president's policy is?

KRISTOL: It's become a political problem, because people think the president has stubbornly stuck to certain tactics which haven't been working and hasn't been willing to revisit tactics. I propose substituting, for the three words, "stay the course," how about these three words, "win the war"? Win the war, that's what Bush should be for, that's what the Republicans should be for.

They shouldn't pretend, as Senator Dole did, this isn't a referendum on the war on terror or the war on jihadist Islam. Of course in part it is a referendum -- and on the war in Iraq. It hasn't been fought as well as it should have been, but ultimately we're going to win the war, or we're going to lose the war.

WALLACE: But if you make it a referendum on the war, isn't that a loser for Republicans?

KRISTOL: No, not if it's a referendum moving forward on whether Republicans are more likely to support the president and, for that matter, the next president, in winning the war, or whether they want a party that is not committed to winning the war, which the Democrats aren't. They think we can get out of there and survive to fight in another place, on another day. And, of course, if we do lose this battle, we will have to fight in another place or another day, but I think, personally, Republicans should run on winning the war. And the president will be better off talking not about the political process, not about timetables, not about goals. He should talk about winning the war.

WILLIAMS: Look, I think -- I spoke to Vice President Cheney this week and I said, "Well, why don't you just put more troops on the ground if you think so much is at stake?"

And what he said was, well, we've got to worry about Pakistan, we've got to worry about Iran, we've got to worry about what's going on in North Korea. I mean, you can understand the expanse. I mean, you can't put boots on the ground in all those situations, in addition to which I think you have the reality of 98 Americans killed so far this month, Bill -- 98 Americans killed in Iraq.

That's a tremendous waste of life, in my mind.

KRISTOL: It's not a waste if you win the war.

WILLIAMS: How are you going to win the war, then? You're going to take over Iraq? We've already broken it. We said we went in there for weapons of mass destruction, then we went in there to spread democracy, now we're going to impose our will and sort of take control of the political structure in the country? I think that would go against what the president has espoused.

WALLACE: Let me bring in -- because this is policy, and particularly in this last nine days before the election, policy and politics are all cut up together.

Mara, do the Democrats pay any price for failing to come up with a coherent alternative. I mean, they're all over the place from pull out now to begin to pull out now to the partition f the country. Do they pay any price for the fact that they're basically saying, "We're against Bush"?

LIASSON: I think that between now and November 7th, they don't pay a price. I think, afterwards, if they do take control of one house of Congress and start having a larger voice in foreign policy, yes. I mean, look, the problem is that the war, many people, a majority now, think it might have been a mistake. It also has been badly handled. But, right now, it is a mess and leaving precipitously might create an even bigger disaster. You'll certainly have some kind of a Sunni mini-state that offers a welcome to terrorists if we are gone and the political situation there deteriorates. What do Democrats do? They're going to have to figure it out.

WALLACE: Less than a minute left, and I think that most of these politicians would say that the November race doesn't even exist. Between now and November 7th, do Democrats pay a price if they don't have an alternative?

BARONE: Well, that's one of the questions. I think it's possible some of them may pay a price on this terrorist interrogation issue, where most of them opposed the measure supported by Senator McCain, as well as President Bush. On the question of whether NSA surveillance of Al Qaida suspects abroad should have to hang up the phone when they call persons in the United States -- most Democrats said hang up the phone and go to court. Most Republicans said, keep listening to what these terrorists are plotting.

Those are issues that could work for them. Harold Ford and Sherrod Brown, two Democrats running for the Senate, voted for those measures in the House.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: What about ideas like putting Americans at the border to protect against terrorist invasions? This is whistling past the graveyard. It's not stay and run, it's whistle past the graveyard.

WALLACE: All right, and enough campaign slogans. As Ross Perot would say, lots of bumper stickers here.

We have to take a break right now, but coming up, is the campaigner in chief a help or a burden for Republicans in some of the tightest races? Our panel weighs in, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1929, the New York Stock Market collapsed. Better known as Black Tuesday, the day that set investors into panic. Millions of dollars were lost, spiraling America into the Great Depression. Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: You've got some people dancing in the end zone here in Washington, D.C. They've got them measuring their drapes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was President Bush this week, warning Democrats not to count on taking back control of Congress on November 7th. And we're back now with Michael, Mara, Bill and Juan.

So, Michael, as our resident expert on the situation on the ground and on all of these congressional districts, should the Democrats be measuring the drapes for their new speaker's office in the Capitol, or not?

BARONE: Well, I think the Democrats should at least be contemplating measuring drapes at this point. I mean, I went back earlier this week and took a look at district by district and made the best estimate I could, and I came up with no races called toss-ups. They were either going to lean one way or lean the other, and I had the Democrats gaining 16 seats. That would give them a three-vote edge in the House of Representatives.

Now, reasonable people can quarrel with my estimates on bunches of these races. I think it's possible the Democrats could win more seats than that. It's possible they could win fewer and fail to win a House majority. But the Republicans have got problems in enough seats, where Tom DeLay has left office and so forth, scandal problems, that they've got a certain number of losses in there, and they don't have any sure gains. So I think there's better than a 50-50 chance of the Democrats winning a House majority, but probably not a big one.

WALLACE: Mara, you're our other congressional expert. Do you agree with that?

LIASSON: Yes, I agree with that. I think that the Democrats could start measuring for some drapes, but maybe not too many.

Yes, I think if they do get control of Congress, which is an absolute possibility, they just won't get it by very much. And we've talked all year long about the culture of corruption and how it didn't work, as a blanket indictment of the Republicans.

But now we do have almost a critical mass of the right number of culture-of-corruption seats, where individuals were involved in things that hurt them, like the Ney seat, the Foley seat. Michael mentioned the DeLay seat. So those numbers really do add up when you're trying to get to 15. And I think the Republicans do have a problem in these clusters of seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Connecticut and it looks like the Democrats are going to have a good night. But these ideas that there's going to be a huge wave crashing on the beach with many dozens of seats lost I think is exaggerated.

WALLACE: Yes, let me ask you about that, Bill. First of all, you've been taking the temperature of Republican officials out in these local races around the country, so I want to get your sense of that. But, also, is there the possibility that this could be more than either a narrow two or three-vote Democratic win or failure to win? Any possibility of a 1994 wave, where Democrats pick up a lot of seats?

KRISTOL: Sure, it's possible. I don't think right now -- it doesn't look likely, but if you go down House district by House district, and I did it, too, and just assume a little bit of a late break to the Democrats, a little more demoralization for Republicans in the last week, you can get to 30, 35, even 40-seat Democratic pickup.

I think now the odds are two to one against that, but it's not out of the question. I want to say, though, that I've been in Speaker Hastert's office in the Capitol. He has very nice drapes. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi will think they're just fine.

WALLACE: So there's no need to waste that money, right?

KRISTOL: What's with measuring the drapes. Do people do that automatically every time they take over an office? I don't know.

I think the House looks -- but you could have the last week -- there's some firming in a couple of polls. You could have a little bit of a Republican comeback in the last week, in which case it gets close in the House. So I think there's a pretty big range of outcomes, sort of minus 12 to minus 40.

WILLIAMS: Well, what you're telling to me is right now the Republican response is basically, look, if you have a Pelosi in control, here's what's going to happen: They're going to raise your taxes, they're going to be weak on terror. And, in fact, I mean, if you look at what Pelosi has said, she says she's going to have this 100-hour plan. It's things like minimum wage. It's things like helping kids get into college and offering them $3,000 to pay for it.

It's a little bit of resisting spending, so you spend as you go, you don't have deficits. This is all small stuff. It's not going to scare anybody. So, I mean, this is Halloween, but it's not enough, I think, to scare the voters, and especially independent voters, who are the key constituency who are leaning so strongly Democratic, away from going to the Democrats and to the idea of change.

WALLACE: All right, we're beginning to run out of time.

Let's turn to the Senate, Michael. I think when we looked at this a week ago, it looked like the Democrats were really getting pretty close to the six-vote pickup. A week later, how does it look?

BARONE: A week later, I think it looks like a little movement towards Republicans. We've seen in some polling move toward Republican candidates in New Jersey, which is held by a Democratic incumbent, Bob Menendez. And in Montana, where Senator Conrad Burns seemed to be a dead duck for a long time, but has made it close, and the dynamic there is that Montana, on most national issues, is a pretty Republican state. Burns' problem is all that money from Jack Abramoff clients. Perhaps national issues will overcome that.

So Democrats have big leads to gain three seats, in the surveys, now - - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. They've got a lead in Montana as well, but it's not clear that they're going to win several other seats. They could, but it's up for grabs.

WALLACE: Still something of a long shot for the Democrats to take the Senate, Mara?

LIASSON: Yes, I think so. The four seats everybody's looking at now are Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and New Jersey. The Democrats really have to hang onto New Jersey if they've got a chance. I think that what you saw...

WALLACE: And then they need to take, what, two of those other three?

LIASSON: They need to take two of those other three, which seems like a pretty tall order. Tennessee and Virginia polls show that the Republican seems to be coming up a bit, although all of these races are dead heats. So I think three or four for the Democrats, probably, you could comfortably predict that.

KRISTOL: Senators confirm judges. The judges issue helped in 2004 Thune beat Daschle, partly because of the Democrat obstructionism on judges. It helped in some open Southern seats. Corker in Tennessee is up with an ad today narrated by Fred Thompson, saying, hey, you want conservative judges on the court? Vote for me, not for my Democratic opponent.

I think that will help a lot in Tennessee, Virginia and Missouri, the three close Republican-held seats and it could help in Montana, where Burns is the beleaguered incumbent. And, in New Jersey, Menendez's first vote in these Senate was for the filibuster against Sam Alito -- a native of southern New Jersey. I think even in New Jersey, a more socially liberal state, the issue of judges could help Republicans.

WILLIAMS: This is Virginia, this is Tennessee, this is Missouri. It's those Southern states that are right on the edge. It could be a real turning point to get those for the Democrats. But, right now, issues like local issues like stem cell, immigration, they're carrying -- stem cell, though, is working for Democrats.

Immigration is not working strongly for Republicans. I think of it, especially here in Washington, as a Republican issue. The president didn't even want to have a signing ceremony on that border bill this week. It's working surprisingly well for the Democrats. So, looking forward, I'd say at the moment, I still think Republicans hold onto the Senate but they don't hold onto the House.

WALLACE: All right, we're going to have to leave it there, and we get one last chance to predict, next Sunday.

Thank you, panel. See you next week.

---

Sponsored Links

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