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

---

December 12, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - December 12

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We must have more troops over there. That has to be accompanied by a larger Marine Corps or Army. Maybe 20,000 more Marines and 80,000 more Army troops so that we can handle whatever is necessary. And we have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control and then Anbar province under control.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, John McCain has been dispensing that advice to anyone who would listen for some time now, but you would of thought that when he was at the White House last week, meeting, it seemed, with a lot of other people with the president, that what was really happening, at least in part, according to our Bret Baier was he also had a one-on-one meeting with the president and that the president, now would be reportedly leaning in that direction. Whether he's talking about 100,000 troops or something less than that remains unclear, but what we do know is that the speech that was supposed to be pre-Christmas is now post Christmas and could come as late as the State of the Union, something, it seems, is happening.

Some thoughts on all this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and Michael Barone, senior writer of U.S. News and World Report -- FOX NEWS contributors all.

Welcome back, Michael, nice to see you. What are your thoughts on this development?

MICHAEL BARONE, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Well, I think, Brit, it sounds like this is a way -- repudiation of General Abizaid, the Central Command commander, because my impression is, contrary to what a lot of people in Washington think that Don Rumsfeld has been micromanaging and overruling his generals. My sense is that he's been following the recommendations of General Abizaid who is said to have wanted a "light footprints," you know, not too many soldiers, possibly attract more opposition.

And I think Rumsfeld and George W. Bush have accepted those recommendations and now they're looking elsewhere. Some of the general -- General Keane was in seeing the president yesterday has advocated more troops, seen Senator McCain today...

HUME: Now you -- McCain use the word "surge" which is interesting because that suggests this is not a long-term deployment, if and when it comes. What he's recommending would not be a long-term deployment.

BARONE: Not necessarily.

HUME: I mean, the military couldn't sustain a long-term deployment, although I'm puzzled by that.

BARONE: Well, and because he's -- others like Fred Kagan suggested it can that it can and Senator McCain's calling for a bigger military, which he presumed he would be able to maintain that employment. A lot of Democrats wouldn't be satisfied if the surge was temporary, but it looks to me like that's the direction the president seems to be going.

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Yeah, McCain is calling for troops 100,000 more in Iraq, he's calling for 100,000 troops more in the military and some -- and that's.

Some subset of that go to Iraq.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, some subset of that in Iraq in the tens of thousands. Look, the president's delay of this decision, I think, makes some sense. I mean, the idea that he was going to turn this whole thing around in a week and was going to have a speech next week seemed a little premature. And he wants Gates to go look at the situation for himself and Gates should have some input in this if he's the defense secretary. So, and as Tony Snow explained today, it's complex, you know, there's a lot of things that will follow from whatever decision he makes, so the Democrats are pushing hard on him. I mean, Harry Reid says, "Get on with it, get on with it" you know...

HUME: Yeah, but they're pushing hard to get -- they don't want more troops, that's just the opposite of what they want him to do, isn't it?

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Yeah, Tony Snow said something that was very revealing about what the president's going to do. He said, people want to know what is your plan of four winning?

Now, the president, unlike Jim Baker and others and most Democrats and some Republicans, as well, believes that the war in Iraq. And he also is going to change his strategy. So what does that make you think? He's going to have a strategy for winning, which means more troops.

I think this speech and the decision on this is probably the most important one in Bush's second term because what's going to happen here is he's going to make one final big effort to win in Iraq, to secure Baghdad. It's a new strategy. It's not training Iraqi troops -- that's not the main focus. The main focus will be security. Secure Baghdad first and then Anbar province.

HUME: This not real -- this is more -- if this shapes up to be 20,000 more troops, I suppose you've have say that's more than tactical.

BARNES: You would, but it'll probably be more than that, because you can just extend the rotation from 12 to 15 months, say, and keep 20,000 there during the winter and early spring, and so on, and bring more in, so you don't have to send something like some 30,000 new troops. They can be staggered over time. But it's going to be a sizable number of trips, I believe. And with a final chance of winning.

HUME: Are we looking -- if this happens, it would appear to be over the serious objections of Casey and Abizaid who have argued, and perhaps plausibly, that you do two things when you bring in more troops. One is you sharpen the impression of occupation among the rest of population not happy that America has to be there, and you -- not only do you do that, you also give the Iraqis less to do. You make it easier for them not to step up. Those are not frivolous arguments.

KONDRACKE: Well, it's quite clear, however, that whatever Abizaid and Casey and Rumsfeld have been trying to do there is not working. We're losing the combat on the war on the basis of this strategy that they've been pursuing. And clearly, we've got to try something else.

HUME: Question though, is this -- will this mean the end of Casey and Abizaid?

BARONE: Well, I think means some serious undercutting. I mean, one thing that we haven't considered yet is that we've got the recommendations of this panel, General Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called into being back in September.

HUME: And I don't know what they're.

BARONE: We do not know what they're going to be, and they're presumably going to go directly to the president. But they're out of the chain of command, so their insertion here suggests that they lack confidence in the Abizaid-Casey strategy. So, I would say, yes, and it's quite possible the new secretary of defense could do -- determine that we should have another CENTCOM.

I would point to one other thing that's interesting here.

HUME: CENTCOM commander, you mean.

BARONE: Yeah. The Gallup did a poll with sort of four choice on Iraq: Can we win, what's the chances? Increase in numbers of people who said we can win, but predicted that we would not. That's not a crowd of people that wants us to lose, but it's a crowd of people that the president may be playing to if he decides to raise the stakes, raise the number of troops and go for victory.

BARNES: Look, this is the success or failure of the Bush administration period, is a stake here. I mean, he's going to be judged -- the verdict on the president will be, in large measure, on how things turned out in Iraq and if -- the Middle East -- if this effort fails, the next up is some sort of a graceful exit which is not a choice Bush wants to be left to.

HUME: Says it is unthinkable, in fact.

BARNES: Yeah.

BARONE: How graceful could it be?

HUME: Up next for the panel, we'll talk about the Republican presidential race and where its apparent leaders stand in Iowa. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK LARSON, MCCAIN EXPLORATORY CMTE: Clearly, we recognize from 2006, that we're going to have to have a different type of a recipe or a different candidate for 2008 and that's where I think John McCain is uniquely qualified.

KIM LEHMAN, IOWA RIGHT TO LIVE CMTE: You bring us a pro-choice candidate for the general election. I couldn't pay people to go vote. They won't do it. They'd rather stay home. It's not worth it to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, there you got two views of the McCain candidacy, at least in Iowa, which, of course is, the earliest (ph) state. If you don't do well in Iowa, you're fighting an uphill battle. What she said was reflected by many others, conservatives, and particularly conservative and active Christians in Iowa which is an important voting bloc, applies to Rudy Giuliani, as well.

So, back with our panel now to discus this. How -- I mean, is this a- - chicken, so to speak, that are going to come home to roost, sooner or later and we're -- and this is just a sign of it -- this report we had from Steve Brown tonight about the very negative attitudes toward those two guys because of their views on abortion and certain other key issues.

KONDRACKE: But, McCain's view on abortion is down the line pro-life.

HUME: Giuliani.

KONDRACKE: And Giuliani is pro-choice. The fascinating case is Mitt Romney, who wasn't covered in that report. There's an organization named Mass resistance, which is pro-life organization, very conservative, in Massachusetts that is blasting Romney has being the most pro-abortion, most pro gay-rights, they say, in the country. That can't be because he's not as pro-gay and pro-choice as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but you know, they're questioning his credentials...

HUME: Well, let's talk for a moment about Iowa and McCain and Giuliani in Iowa. What is your sense, Michael, of whether -- so, McCain passes muster, if he does, with these people on abortion.

BARONE: McCain has some problems with some Republicans on sort of partisan issues, his stands on campaign finance and global warming. His votes on some tax cuts issues.

HUME: Well, that's not partisan, that's ideological.

BARONE: That's ideological; it's not so much the Christian conservative's concern. I think that there's one thing that is going to be different in Iowa and throughout the Republican contest, this year, from the Republican contest in 1980 through 2000 when, really, as it turned out, Christian conservatives did have an effective veto on the nominee.

And that's -- there's a big issue here that wasn't there in 2000. Who can protect the nation best? And I think for some of the followers of the Christian conservative group, some of the rank and file, that issue is going to trump the issue of are you right on this issue on abortion, are you right on that.

We know that we're not going to outlaw abortion in this country any time soon. South Dakota had a referendum on the ballot in November seeking to overturn the law passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, outlawing all abortions. The referendum succeed, even in a conservative state like South Dakota, you weren't able to get a majority for an overall abortion ban.

I think of the talk-show host, Hugh Hewitt, who was speaking before a Republican group of women in Temecula, California -- pretty much cultural conservatives, he asked them who they were for for president and one of the women said "Rudy Giuliani." And he says how can you be when he's wrong on all your issues? And he said, "Those issues won't matter if we're attacked. Rudy will keep them safe."

BARNES: Well, that does help Giuliani. I agree partially with Mike that, you know, it depends on what the issues are in 2008. You know, the president was talking this year, all during the campaign this fall about fighting terrorism and how threatened we are and so on, I agreed with everything he said. On the other hand, that wasn't a message that a lot of voters were voting on, particularly in Independence. And it may be the same thing in Iowa.

Even among Christian conservatives that they'll hold their nose and vote for a guy who they think can win, whether that's Giuliani, who's drawing huge crowds this fall when appeared for Republicans or whether it's John McCain. I happened to think the candidate that you really have to watch, assuming he gets in the race, is Newt Gingrich who is certainly pro- life and is very attractive to conservative Republicans.

KONDRACKE: You know, one interesting thing is that I do not know what.

HUME: (INAUDIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: Giuliani's position is on Iraq, or Romney's for that matter, I mean, we know what McCain is for.

HUME: Well, we know what Giuliani's position was on Iraq, but whether it's evolved in the way that.

KONDRACKE: He has been front and center about entering this debate over what to do now acting presidential...

HUME: His first reaction to the Baker-Hamilton Commission was exceedingly negative.

KONDRACKE: Right, I want to know what his.

BARONE: The question is, is the president changing policy? I would point out that we have some polls now on `08 the Survey USA firm, the (INAUDIBLE) poling has done polls in all 50 states and they even threw in the District of Columbia and what it shows that both Giuliani and McCain pretty soundly beating Hillary Clinton with about 350 electoral votes.

HUME: So, those guys go out, so McCain goes out.

BARONE: Yeah, they run weaker in the South then George W. Bush with smaller margins there and in the Great Plains, but they carry those states anyway. They run stronger in the East.

HUME: Is it your view, Fred, that McCain and Giuliani's positions, that don't track with conservative ideology, tax cuts, and other such things -- abortion, although that's more Giuliani -- should not be a bar to his winning Iowa?

BARNES: No, not automatically the way we would have thought about it earlier. But look, Republicans -- McCain seems to fit here. One, Republicans usually choose the next guy in line, it's McCain. And secondly, he is basically pro-life, so he stands in a pretty strong position.

---

Sponsored Links

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