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

---

February 05, 2007

Special Report Roundtable - February 5

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY REID (D-NV), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: What you saw on the Senate floor is Republicans giving George Bush a green light to escalate the conflict in Iraq. The minority can't rubberstamp the White House, so they've decided to stamp out debate instead. They are not permitting debate on the most pressing issue facing America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: That is a frustrated Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, finding out, as I noted earlier, that getting control of the Senate doesn't mean you actually get to run the place. This is -- what had happened on the Senate floor was an effort to move right ahead with the propositions, the resolutions that the Democrats are interested in expressing disapproval of the president's surge in Iraq, that has been blocked because the minority wants assurances that some other resolutions will also be considered, to wit, one by John McCain, sure to fail, that support the surge, and another by Judd Gregg of New Hampshire which declares that the Senate is on record against any cut in funds for the troops.

All of those may ultimately come to a vote, but the Republicans are insisting on it. Some thoughts on all this 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, I guess is it fair to say that this isn't turning out to be as easy or fun as it might have looked like on the day after the election for the Democrats in control of the Senate?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, one thing the Democrats said over and over again, even the day after the election, when you talk to the senators, was it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Durbin said it, Schumer -- I mean they said it over and...

HUME: On the vote they had, by the way, they got 49 votes to -- were needing 60 to...

LIASSON: So they lost one Democrat.

HUME: Right. And they lost -- well, they lost one...

LIASSON: And one wasn't there.

HUME: There were three Republicans who weren't there or it would have been 50-40 and they wouldn't even had a majority of those present and voting. But some Republicans weren't there. Lieberman voted with -- the Johnson and Lieberman -- Johnson wasn't there and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. So, they didn't come anywhere close to setting the terms of the debate the way they would like.

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Yeah, you know, the idea they're not have a debate, they started having debating even before they got to vote on this debate.

HUME: In fact this was a resolution to cut off the debate.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, and so they're going to have this debate. And they're just not going to vote on a nice, clean resolution giving people only one choice, which is what the Democrats wanted, they wanted their resolution to be voted on. And what Mitch McConnell and the Republicans are going to hold out for, and by the way, it was pretty brilliant of McConnell to hold his -- all of his forces together, including John Warner, the sponsor of this amendment, and Chuck Hagel, who's against what the president is doing -- hold them all together in line on this vote.

In any event there will be a vote on three different things and it looks as though Judd Gregg is the one that's likely to pass and that could be interpreted as being pro-president, you know. But, you know, there's going to be a majority, probably, of votes -- certainly a majority of votes for the Warner resolution and if they want...

HUME: Isn't the concern they have, though, they'll be -- that there'll be a majority of votes for the resolution disapproving the surge, but an even bigger majority...

KONDRACKE: Saying they won't cut off funding.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: And here's what Democrats won't allow, I mean, look they can have a debate this evening if they wanted to, they just have to agree that all three of them will be judged by -- they'll have to have 60 votes to pass, as Mara was suggesting. They won't agree on that because they figure that the Gregg amendment, the one that says we have to fund the troops, will be the only one to get over 60 and the Warner amendment...

HUME: No, be the only one -- could be the only one that passes.

BARNES: Passes. That's what they worry about, they don't want that to happen. And look McConnell -- Mort is absolutely right, McConnell is fantastic on this maneuvering and the procedural stuff. He knows that the minority has the advantage. He once blocked a campaign finance reform bill by filibustering sending the Senate conferees to the conference to decide on the bill -- very brilliant. But -- and at the end of the day, see here's...

HUME: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought we disapproved of filibustering around here.

LIASSON: Only if you're in the minority. Only if you're in the majority.

BARNES: All I'm saying is McConnell's very good at it. And I'll have to say, when you saw Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, they sounded like Republicans a year ago talking about votes on judges being blocked. At the end of the day, thought, Republicans would much rather see a headline around the world that says Republicans filibuster war vote or block war vote, they'd rather see that one than Senate rebukes president on war. So, they'd be happy not to have any votes, too.

LIASSON: In the end, if they make some kind of an agreement, they might get that headline.

HUME: But if the agreement, Mara, results in a -- in their -- in the Republicans not allowing any of these resolutions to come to a vote, unless there are 60 votes to make that happen, doesn't that raise the distinct possibility that the only one that might get 60 is the one that forswears a cut in funding for the troops.

LIASSON: Yes, and that's maybe why the Democrats will, in the end, agree to something like what the Republicans want, because you know what, you have -- they might have to and also they're going to get a majority, as Mort said, they're going to get a majority on these other resolutions.

KONDRACKE: Finally, look, this is a time-buying thing. Everything depends on what actually happens on the ground in Iraq. If things...

HUME: Well, we all understand that, Mort.

KONDRACKE: Now wait a minute. If things go badly, we will revisit, I predict, the issue of funding...

HUME: I know, but wouldn't it be easier for the White House if a whole bunch of Democratic senators, who are already on record, even on a non-biding resolution, saying that they don't want to cut funds.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, it'll help.

HUME: And it becomes a flip-flop, right?

KONDRACKE: Yeah, it'll be a flip-flop, but believe me, at the time, they'll flip.

BARNES: For the purpose of these resolutions, which are going to be argued about whether you're going to vote or not, over the next few weeks, what goes on in Iraq does not matter contrary to what Mort said, because...

HUME: Doesn't matter yet, you mean.

Well, look, it...

HUME: Too soon.

BARNES: It's too soon. Yeah, it's too soon, the troops haven't got over there, they really haven't really started the counter-insurgency in Baghdad, stepped up. You know, I agree McConnell is very good. Look, the way McConnell cast it for other Republicans -- if we give in procedurally to the Democrats on this, then forget it. They're just to, uh...

HUME: Roll over.

BARNES: Yeah, roll over us for the rest of this term. And the argument worked.

LIASSON: You know, and that was a very important test for the minority and they passed.

HUME: And they passed, right? All right.

Next up with the panel, we'll talk about the new explanations from Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards about their past votes for the war in Iraq. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM RUSSERT, NBC MEET THE PRESS: Let me bring you back to October 10 of 2004. You were running for vice president, a few weeks before the election, you were on this program.

SEN JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: I remember.

RUSSERT: The war is now a year and a half old, and I asked you about your vote. Let's watch.

EDWARDS: Sure.

RUSSERT: If you knew today, and you do know, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.

I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that. And that's why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: But he's not standing by it now. John Edwards has utterly recanted his vote on Iraq, says it was a mistake, said that he (INAUDIBLE) it's beginning to be critical by that time, in 2004, so he not only voted for the resolution to authorize the president to take us into the war in Iraq, he -- a year and a half later he said it was the right thing to do. He's now changed his mind, he's running for president as a Democrat, of course.

Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn't gone as far as John Edwards did. She says now that if she were elected she'll end the war, if the president hasn't, but she has not quite gone so far as to say her vote in favor of authorizing the president to use military force in Iraq was a bad vote.

What is going on here and will this -- obviously this has some political purpose in these Democratic primaries, but will this record that these two senators have on this issue ultimately allow them to survive with the Democrats and how will it stand up in a general election -- Fred.

BARNES: Um, look, they're playing a game of leapfrog and once one gets father out against the war, then another one leapfrogs them. And, look, and I think it's headed, as Mort suggested earlier, it's headed in the direction of a cutoff in funds and there you have, at the end, he's not running for president, but you have Russ Feingold out there, who has a bill, I guess, not just a resolution, a bill, that would begin the cutting off of funds, I think over the next six months, or something like that. They're inevitably headed in that direction. And I don't know who's going to get there first, Edwards or Hillary. And that seems to be where they think the Democratic Party is. I'm not...

LIASSON: Edwards is already there.

HUME: Edwards is there.

LIASSON: Edwards is there. He is pressuring the Democrats who are in the Senate, who are candidates, to remove the funding.

(CROSSTALK)

BARNES: He wants a cutoff for the surge.

LIASSON: He wants to defund the war.

BARNES: No, no. No he's not.

LIASSON: Defund the surge.

BARNES: Think about that.

HUME: He wants to defund the surge, he also wants to pull 40,000 troops out right now.

LIASSON: Troops out immediately.

BARNES: Well, over some period of time and that's a little vague.

LIASSON: That's the farthest to the left of the three major candidates right now.

HUME: Father than Barack Obama?

LIASSON: Yes, farther to the left than Barack Obama on pulling out. Sure, he wants a faster, speedier...

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: Hold on...

BARNES: Barack Obama says all the troops should be out by April 2008. I don't think...

KONDRACKE: All combat troops.

LIASSON: Combat.

KONDRACKE: All combat troops should be out. He's taking the...

HUME: OK, so what about this, politically?

KONDRACKE: ...Iraq Study Group.

HUME: What about this politically? Does this work, short-term and long-term, politically?

KONDRACKE: For primary election purposes, everything is a rush to the left, and they're all trying...

HUME: I know, but can they really get there having voted the way they said they...

LIASSON: I think...

HUME: Will Democrats believe John Edwards when he says...

LIASSON: Yes.

KONDRACKE: Oh, absolutely.

HUME: ...a year and a half into the...

KONDRACKE: Oh, they love him for it.

LIASSON: John Edwards is not going have a problem with the Democratic primary. I think the real question for these Democrats...

HUME: So, all is forgiven on earlier votes?

LIASSON: Yeah, among Democrats, primary voters, John Edwards has so many other things that they like.

HUME: Well, why doesn't Hillary go there?

LIASSON: Because Hillary has made a decision, I think, that it is not a good place to be if you're going to be a general election candidate.

KONDRACKE: Except -- now wait a minute. Hillary's got a problem, too. Her latest position is that if she'd been president in 2003, she would not have gone to war.

Now, what she said in 2003 was, this is Saddam Hussein's last chance, either he disarms or he will be disarmed. She voted against a resolution that the president had to come back to the Congress to get a further authorization to go to war which suggests now what she would have -- just a second -- what she would have done when Saddam didn't disarm would be to back off. She would have backed off, way back then, and that looks like a very weak position for her.

---

Sponsored Links

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