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

---

January 04, 2007

Special Report Roundtable - January 4

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: The election of 2006 was a call to change, not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, it was a speech by the newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives, it spoke of bipartisan cooperation and the need to get things done for the country, but there was no mistaking the differences that she outlined in her view and that of most Democrats in Congress and the president on the war this Iraq.

Some analytical observations on today's historic developments 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, how did it go, Mara, in your judgment? What did we -- what did we -- what were you able to read in the lines themselves and between them of what was said on the Hill Today?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, first of all, I think it was a historic event, first woman speaker sworn in, I think it's usually a moment of great celebration, there were kids swarming all over the place and I think that both Republicans and Democrats were kind of caught up in the same spirit. Republicans were gracious. And even, you know, the outgoing majority leader, John Boehner said, you know, we're going to be nice about it in our opposition, you know, what people call partisanship is sometimes just a serious principle disagreement. I think it was a completely fitting start to the new regime on Capitol Hill.

Now, what Pelosi was talked about, she was talking about the thing Americans were clear about was a new direction if Iraq, interestingly enough that's not part of the first 100 hours a lineup of things she's planning to do. Nowhere on that list is Iraq, with the exception of maybe the implementation of some of the 9/11 recommendations, but that's really about terrorism, not Iraq.

HUME: But that really is not on Iraq.

LIASSON: But today there were, you now, the start with the new ethics rules, all of that is good symbolic steps for the Democrats to try to show voters that a new team is in charge.

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Now, this is traditionally family day and this is the day when the grownups act as models for the children who are running around the capital and everybody's on good behavior...

HUME: Instead of acting like children.

LIASSON: Yeah, right.

LIASSON: That will come later.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, exactly. In the Senate it was even more so then the house. I mean the -- both the Democratic and Republican leaders were arm and arm saying that a new day had arrived and that they were going to cooperate and meet all the time and stuff like that...

HUME: Is that a function of the difference between 233 and 202 in the House and 51 to 49 in the Senate?

KONDRACKE: yeah, and the culture of the two places. But you know, but, as we're discussing, Iraq will be a big issue, tax cuts -- tax increases will be a big issue. I don't see how the Democrats can possibly do what they say, that is she said -- Nancy Pelosi said, no new deficit spending. If there's no new deficit spending, you got to get more revenue from someplace and they're either going to try to raise the tax rates or eliminate some of Bush's tax cuts...

HUME: Even if there's no new deficit spending on any, what's called discretionary spending, there will be deficit spending in some areas on entitlement programs no matter what, because they've exempted from that whole PAYGO system, nearly all that, the most spendy part of the whole budget, which is entitlement spending. That has its own sources of revenue in some cases, but in some cases it doesn't have enough.

KONDRACKE: Right. And in addition to that, even at the get go, the 100 hours agenda is going to be voted on what the Democrats used to scream about, a closed rule basis -- no amendment, no substitutes by the Republicans, no committee hearings. And the Republicans are now complaining about that. Of course that's the kind of treatment that they used to meat out for the Democrats. So just over the horizon or maybe next week, you know, you can begin to see the good behavior breaking down.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, you know, it goes back to normal fighting, I mean, they do have principle agreements and they're going to fight over those. The question is whether there is going to be a new direction, as Nancy Pelosi suggested.

Look, I am a great respect of Nancy Pelosi. When she came in as a Democratic leader in 2002, I thought that was lucky for Republicans, that's she'd be weak. She turns out to be a lot tougher and stronger and more skillful than I thought, but there's not going to be a new direction. I mean look, who had -- even after this election, who has the upper hand in Washington? The president does. He just has more tools to work with. He's probably going to get an extension of "No Child Left Behind," he'll have to put in some more money to please Teddy Kennedy. He'll probably get immigration reform because the Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy, like that...

HUME: And they agree with him.

BARNES: And they agree with him, a lot of Republicans don't, but he'll probably get that. He will probably get his advanced energy initiative because it's the research in all the areas, you know, solar, wind and so on, and Democrats like that, as well. But look at these other...

HUME: What were those grasses?

BARNES: Huh?

HUME: What were those grasses?

LIASSON: Switchgrass.

BARNES: Switchgrass. He mentioned that again the other day.

LIASSON: Maybe in his State of the Union we'll hear more about them.

BARNES: Yeah, but look at the more controversial issues. Embryonic stem cell research, expanding that. He'll veto it and the veto will be upheld, in the House for sure. A minimum wage hike, which the president's for, but he's saying we should have it with some tax relief for small business, now...

HUME: Does that running in PAYGO?

BARNES: No, that runs into Teddy Kennedy who wants just a straight minimum wage increase...

HUME: Then it won't happen.

BARNES: It won't happen because the president -- they can get -- you know, one thing that Michigan McConnell, the new Senate Republican leader is good at? Filibustering. And they can get a filibuster to block a -- just a straight minimum wage bill. Stem cell, they got a couple others, here. Taxes and spending, the president's obviously going to have the advantage there because he can veto. Fooling around with the prescription drug benefit for Medicare...

LIASSON: (INAUDIBLE)

HUME: But he can't get the tax cuts extended, though.

BARNES: No, he cannot get his tax cuts extended. The Democrats...

HUME: So, they're set to expire in four years.

BARNES: Yeah, they're going to -- well, they expire in 2010, but Democrats can't get any tax hikes.

LIASSON: But, you know what, if what Fred is laying down is the criteria for success and achievement as if you can actually get this stuff passed into law. Now, some Democrats...

BARNES: (LAUGHING) Well...

LIASSON: Well, wait a minute. Some Democrats think that merely, you know, passing the stem cell bill and having the president veto is an achievement of sort, it exposes who is on what side of this issue.

BARNES: What, people don't know his position? Of course they know his position...

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: Well, they made the promise to advance this and they're at least fulfill that. In terms of minimum wage, I think there's still a chance for compromise. It's something that originally, don't forget, the Republicans wanted not just tax breaks for small businesses, as the price for it, they wanted an estate tax repeal and they failed to get that.

KONDRACKE: If you...

BARNES: They may get it, an estate tax compromise, this year, not a repeal, but a compromise.

KONDRACKE: Well, you know...

HUME: Last word -- Mort.

KONDRACKE: You actually could get some stuff done. I mean, energy...

HUME: You agree with that, then?

KONDRACKE: Yeah. And energy independence...

HUME: All right, they think something's going to get done. We got to take a break. Next up with the panel, we're going to take a look at some - - a pretty sizeable shakeup that is emerging in the Bush administration. John Negroponte, the DNI, is a big part of it. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN MCCORMACK, STATE DEPT SPOKESMAN: You mention John Negroponte has come up. Certainly he is a person who's a diplomat's diplomat. He is somebody of excellent and -- excellent judgment, long experience both in Washington and abroad.

JOHN ROCKEFELLER (D-WV), SENATE INTELLIGENCE CHMN: This is note way to start off the New Year, with the White House, with their chief intelligence person just kind of walking off the job to take some other job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, what is the incoming chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, annoyed about? Well, John Negroponte is moving from the director of National Intelligence back to the State Department and it is not the only staff shuffle going on in the Bush administration. The administration and Pentagon officials now tell the FOX that the president intends to nominate Admiral William Fallon onto succeed General John Abizaid at CENTCOM, that's the Central Command in overall charge of the situation in Iraq.

And also officials say the replacement as the top general in Iraq would be for General George Casey will be Lieutenant General David Petreaus. The U.S. Army officially had no comment on that. We're back now with our panel.

What is emerging here. Harriet Myers is leaving. We don't know whether there's anything particularly noteworthy about that. She served for a very long time and it's probably not surprising she wanted to go back to private sector, but, as the White House put it.

It looks like we're having a fairly sizable shake-up. The president appears to be doing, although he's going about it in a somewhat gradual way, he appears to be doing the shake-up of his Iraq commanders.

Abizaid is going. Casey, who is resistant to the idea of more troops and made a very powerful case for it, that prevailed for a long time, is going to be gone. And we are hearing more and more details about the various kinds of troop surge proposals. So, what does all this portend? And Negroponte moving on, that's interesting.

LIASSON: Look, I think it's interesting that Rockefeller said this is not the way to start the New Year. Actually it's exactly the way to start the New Year because the president is trying to take control of his Iraq policy and he's going to put his own...

HUME: And redirect it so some extent.

LIASSON: And redirect it and he's going to put his own imprint on it. And it sounds like what he wants is a different direction, both militarily and diplomatically. I mean, moving Negroponte to the State Department, he is a seasoned diplomat. Whatever you might say about what he was not able to accomplish in the intelligence area, he is going to be -- he is a very strong diplomatic person.

HUME: It's someone they all -- members of this administration like Negroponte. He's in good standing.

LIASSON: Yes. In term of the military change, looks like the generals who are leaving are the ones who resisted this idea of more troops. Petraeus has a reputation of somebody who's very effective in terms of melding the kind of military...

HUME: Well, he's a troop trainer guy, wasn't he? He's the guy...

LIASSON: And also understood how you had to do all these different things in Iraq at the same time, both train the troops and do this kind of reconstruction and deal with the security crisis. So, it sounds like the president is moving to really, in a hands-on way take control.

HUME: I mean, it's not changing the policy, really. This is a change in the military approach.

LIASSON: Yeah.

KONDRACKE: Well, yeah, he's changing -- if we're going to get a surge, we're going get a surge, we're going to get rid of the generals who have presided over what is an ineffective policy. Everybody admits what we're doing now is ineffective and he's putting in a new set of generals.

Petraeus has this wonderful reputation, probably the best reputation, I think, of any general who served in Iraq. And I guess he's putting in what he regards as the first team to get it done. There are also widespread reports that Zalmay Khalilzad, the ambassador to Iraq...

HUME: He's going to the U.N.

KONDRACKE: He's going to the U.N., right. And what I hear at the State Department is that Ryan Crocker, who is the ambassador to Pakistan, would take Khalilzad's place in Iraq. So, it's kind of curious, frankly, that you take Khalilzad out at the same time that you would replace the generals, which means that there's going to be a whole new team in place in Iraq, at a very crucial and scary time, especially politically. I mean, Khalilzad has really pushed the Iraqi government. Now it may be that he's pushed them to the limit and that he's not welcome, really, anymore and it would be good to have a new face there. That could be the reason...

HUME: Well, they also need somebody to succeed John Bolton whom they liked, but whom couldn't get confirmed and so in comes Khalilzad in that sensitive job, as well -- Fred.

BARNES: Yeah, we're going to have a lot of very rough and tumble confirmation hearings, that's for sure. Iraq will be on the agenda, intelligence on the agenda. I mean, there'll be two people, we know this General Mike McConnell will be named to take over for Negroponte as director of National Intelligence, so he'll have a confirmation hearing, then his No. 2 two guy will have a confirmation hearing. So, all these issues are going to be bigger than ever.

---

Sponsored Links

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