Election 2008 Obama vs. McCain | Clinton vs. McCain | Latest 2008 Polls | Latest 2008 News

June 29, 2008

Rendell & Portman on "Fox News Sunday"

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace, and this is "Fox News Sunday."

From energy prices to the right to bear arms, to stopping North Korea's nuclear program, we'll tackle the big issues as we continue our vice presidential auditions.

Today, two men on all the short lists -- Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and former Republican Congressman Rob Portman of Ohio.

Then, a third-party run in November. Can he win? Will he block McCain? We'll ask the Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr.

Also, Obama and Clinton make a show of unity. But just how much will she help him? We'll ask our Sunday regulars -- Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And our Power Player of the Week runs a talk show out of a saloon, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And hello again from Fox News in Washington. John McCain and Barack Obama battled over new issues this week, and we've got two key advisers and possible running mates to continue that debate -- Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who comes to us from there, and former Republican Congressman and Bush cabinet official Rob Portman, who joins us from his home state of Ohio.

Gentlemen, let's start with the Clinton-Obama unity push this week. According to the latest Washington Post poll, 24 percent of Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries now say they'll vote for McCain and another 14 percent say either they may not vote or they have no opinion.

Governor Rendell, in the primary in Pennsylvania, voters from white union households went for Clinton over Obama 72 percent to 28 percent. What makes you think that they will now vote for Obama in the fall election?

RENDELL: Well, because of his economic message. Actually, the polls in Pennsylvania are very good right now. Senator Obama's up by double digits, and the reason is his economic message is starting to come through.

Pennsylvanians care about their budget even more than the budget in Washington, and people are starting to learn, for example, that the Obama tax cut will give them three times as much money as the McCain tax cut if they're ordinary working families. So things like that -- Senator Obama's position on the home mortgage crisis -- those things are starting to resonate with those blue-collar voters who are feeling the pinch more than anybody in this country.

WALLACE: Congressman Portman, speaking directly to those kinds of economic issues, explain how John McCain is to make inroads among Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and other states who voted for Clinton in the primaries.

PORTMAN: Well, Chris, first of all, Ohio and Pennsylvania are very similar in that regard. Senator Clinton did very well in Pennsylvania, partly thanks to Ed Rendell, partly thanks to a lot of those voters feel much more comfortable with the position she took than Senator Obama, who, among other things, does want to raise taxes.

He wants to raise taxes on everything from Social Security to investment income. Remember, there are 100 million people out there, including a lot of those working-class Pennsylvanians and Ohioans, who do have capital gain income.

In fact, about 25 percent of those folks make less than $50,000 a year, so they do care. Their taxes are going to go up. They're worried about that. Seniors disproportionately have dividend income. They're going to see their taxes go up under Senator Obama.

This is a fragile time in our economy and people are nervous about it, and for a lot of good reasons. This is not the time to put in place the biggest tax increase we've ever seen.

So I think people are nervous, and they're worried, and I think a lot of those voters are likely to stick with Senator McCain as the polls are showing now.

This week we had a town meeting in Cincinnati. Senator McCain showed up.

WALLACE: Wait, but let me -- I want to -- Congressman, let me jump in because I want to keep this conversation going.

Respond to that, if you will, Governor Rendell.

PORTMAN: I was going to say Hillary Clinton supporters showed up.

WALLACE: Governor Rendell, respond to that, if you will, and bring the trade issue in, NAFTA, which has been a controversial issue for both candidates.

RENDELL: Well, let me start out by saying that the Tax Policy Center, an independent, bipartisan institution, said that if you make less than $250,000 a year in this country, if you're in the 80 percent down in terms of income, Senator Obama's tax cuts will put more money in your pocket than Senator McCain's. That's number one.

Number two, Senator Obama has a good position on trade. He wants to see fair trade -- not just free trade, but fair trade. He wants to see the WTO enforced and Americans and American workers given a fair shake. So he's going to be a good president on trade.

We're going to keep international trade going, but we're going to make sure that it's fair to the American worker.

WALLACE: Congressman Portman, let's pick up on trade. Senator McCain is for the NAFTA agreement. You were one of the big supporters of the NAFTA agreement.

Isn't that going to be a tough sell to a lot of working-class voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio who may feel that NAFTA has cost them jobs?

PORTMAN: Well, no, not when it's explained as to what NAFTA's done. By the way, it's a 14-year-old agreement that Senator Clinton supported previously and President Clinton signed.

Exports are one of the few bright spots in our economy right now. It's true in Pennsylvania. It's true in Ohio. Ohio, actually, for the last eight years has led the country in terms of export growth. And it's created an enormous number of jobs, including to Canada, which is our biggest trading partner.

And when that message gets out there, it makes it look a little silly that you have someone going around the state of Pennsylvania and Ohio blaming NAFTA for anything from high energy prices to the common cold.

I mean, you know, NAFTA became the cause of every economic woe that our states face, instead of facing the real problems, and the real problems are that people's paychecks aren't going as far because gas prices are up - - Senator McCain has a comprehensive proposal there -- because housing prices have gone down. Again, Senator McCain has a comprehensive proposal there.

And finally, on taxes, as we mentioned earlier, you know, to raise taxes right now when this economy is so fragile is just not a good idea. People get that.

So you know, I think when it's explained, when people understand that this has become sort of a convenient whipping boy for every other problem in America, and it's really not straight talk, and it's really not the kind of new politics that Senator Obama is talking about, I think people understand that we need to be able to be traders.

We need to be able to increase our exports. They create good jobs, high paying jobs and jobs with good benefits.

WALLACE: Governor Rendell, I want to move on to another subject, but before we leave the whole issue of the Clintons, have you spoken to your good friend, former President Clinton, since the primaries ended?

And do you have any sense when or if he'll come out and start campaigning for Barack Obama? RENDELL: Well, I'm going to answer that question, but first I've got to say this is the typical Republican mantra, to call Democrats tax and spend.

In fact, let me repeat again in case everybody's listening, the Tax Policy Center, an independent body, said the Obama tax cuts will mean more to you, three times as much, if you're one of those Americans who are in the lower 80 percent of wage earners in this country -- three times as much tax cuts, not tax increase.

In terms of President Clinton, President Clinton's going to do every single thing that Barack Obama asks him to do. He's disappointed, just like I am, but he knows the stakes are so high for this country. He's going to get out there in typical Bill Clinton fashion and make a great case for Senator Obama as our next president.

WALLACE: All right. I want to move to the issue of guns, which was in the news this week after the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional right for individuals to have guns. Here's how Obama and McCain reacted to that decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I have said consistently that I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right. And that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: Whether it be on his pledge on public financing, or his position on the Second Amendment or any other issues, he is changing his positions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Congressman Portman, McCain has also flipped on gun control. Back in 2002, he supported a criminal background check in gun shows. Now he doesn't.

And with Obama saying that he supports the Supreme Court's ruling mandating or saying that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, has he basically taken the gun issue off the table?

PORTMAN: No, I don't think so. What Senator McCain was talking about is that late last year and again this year, Senator Obama did support the gun ban in D.C., and now he seems to have changed his position on that.

And as Senator McCain indicated, he's changed his opinion on a few other things, including public financing.

Senator McCain's got a few decades of experience in being pro- gun, voting for that individual right, for the right to bear arms. So I think there's a big distinction here between the two candidates. And I think, you know, people in Pennsylvania and Ohio and other key states like that will be looking at that as one of the issues.

WALLACE: Governor Rendell, help me out here. Can you explain how Obama on the one hand can support, as he says he did this week, the individual right to bear arms, but on the other hand, he also supported earlier the D.C. total ban on handguns?

RENDELL: Well, let me begin by saying it comes with ill grace for Rob to call Senator Obama a flip-flopper. Senator McCain was against the Bush tax cuts.

PORTMAN: I actually didn't say that.

RENDELL: Now he's for them. Senator McCain earlier this year in California says he was against offshore drilling. Now he's for it.

Senator Obama's position is very clear. The Second Amendment is an individual right. There's no question about that. Does it have limitations? Sure, it does. As Justice Scalia said in his opinion, this opinion doesn't mean that governments can't restrict the flow and distribution of guns.

It's a limited right, like every one of our rights are. The First Amendment doesn't say you can go into a crowded movie theater and yell, "Fire," and be protected by the First Amendment.

So he is in favor of common sense rules that will regulate the flow and distribution of guns, but he supports individual Americans' right to have both long guns and handguns.

WALLACE: Well, I knew at some point we would get to the issue of flip-flop, so let's address it fully, because both candidates have accused the other of flip-flops, and from our reading of the record, both of them are right.

Take a look at this. In the campaign, Obama has changed positions on wiretapping, the NAFTA trade deal, public campaign financing, and unconditional meetings with hostile foreign leaders.

Meanwhile, McCain has changed positions on the Bush tax cuts, drilling for oil -- let's put up the McCain -- there you go -- the Bush tax cuts, drilling for oil, immigration reform, and interrogation of terror suspects.

Governor Rendell, explain. Why are McCain's flip-flops worse than Obama's?

RENDELL: Well, first of all, John McCain has switched positions on all of the things that made independents and moderates and even some Democrats like myself think that he was a new type of Republican. These are core issues.

The tax cuts -- who could expand on the Bush tax cuts given the economy we have today? But John McCain has, for political advantage. Barack Obama -- if you take, for example, wiretapping, he hasn't changed his mind. He believes there should be sanctions against the private companies who allowed individual Americans to be wiretapped.

He just voted for that bill because he thought the bill did other things. He's going to seek those sanctions later on in the Senate.

So a couple of things that you say are change of positions are, in my judgment, things where Senator Obama has a reasonable explanation for what he's done.

WALLACE: Well, I mean, just on the one example of FISA, several months ago he said he would lead the filibuster if there was an effort to strip the -- to allow immunity for the telecom companies. Now he's voting for the bill that gives them that immunity. That's a pretty big switch, isn't it?

RENDELL: But remember, when you're in the Senate, you have to weigh the entire bill. The bill on FISA restored court supervision of wiretaps. That's a huge victory for individual rights in America.

Senator Obama believed that was more important, that he had to go along and vote for it even though it didn't have the immunity provision -- or did have the immunity provision, but he has pledged later on in the Senate to try to strip the immunity position.

WALLACE: Congressman Portman, as we just showed, it's pretty clear that John McCain has flipped on a variety of issues such as the Bush tax cuts. Why are Obama's flip-flops worse than his?

PORTMAN: Well, first of all, when you look at Senator Obama's changes recently, including accepting -- saying he would accept public financing and then changing his mind on that, which is really a core issue in terms of the new politics that he's talked about, this really -- it goes to more than just changes in facts and circumstances. It goes to sort of changing your approach to politics.

And I think when Senator McCain looks at some of these issues like immigration, which you mentioned, he's still for comprehensive immigration reform, but he believes enforcement first is necessary based on the change in facts and circumstances. We couldn't get comprehensive immigration reform through the United States Congress.

So I think there's some differences here in terms of why changes are made. And I think that's what voters ought to look at. I think they ought to look at the character and the judgment of these two people who are saying that they'd like to lead this country in a principled way.

You know, who's really doing it on the basis of principle? Changed circumstances sometimes lead to the reconsideration of your position. That's not a bad thing. The question is whether it's being done for good policy reasons or not.

WALLACE: And a real quick response from Ed Rendell on that. RENDELL: Well, even on campaign financing, Senator Obama never pledged that he would absolutely not do it. He said he would seek agreement with the candidate, the other candidate.

Senator McCain opted out of the campaign finance reform bill in the primaries and, in fact, got rebuked by the head of the FEC. So if he was out of it, Senator Obama was going to get out of it as well. So I think Senator McCain was the first person...

PORTMAN: But, Ed, we're talking about the...

RENDELL: ... who opted out.

WALLACE: All right. All right. All right. We're getting a little bit -- I do have one last issue.

PORTMAN: The issue is the general election.

WALLACE: I do have one last issue I want to get into with both of you gentlemen, and that's...

PORTMAN: The issue is the general election.

RENDELL: No, the issue is the finance...

WALLACE: Guys? Gentlemen? Let me move on. And that is -- I want to ask you both about the possibility that one or both of you could end up as the running mate for McCain and/or Obama.

Governor Rendell, you've been talking down very consistently your interest in being vice president, but last Friday you said that you'd be very interested in being a member of the Obama cabinet. What's the difference?

RENDELL: Well, the national media didn't listen. I said in 2011, it's my intention to walk out the door of the capital, the Lord willing, in January of 2011. I know that disappoints some people in the capital, but that's my intention.

And if there was a position open that I was interested in, like energy or transportation, I'd be honored to serve in an Obama administration, but not at the beginning, not until my time is finished.

Let me say just from an American standpoint, I'd love to see someone like Rob on the other ticket in case they win, because he was a great congressman and someone who I have a lot of respect for. But not me this time, by no means.

WALLACE: All right.

Congressman Portman, with that endorsement, which may be the kiss of death...

RENDELL: I've finished his chances, right. I probably ruined him. WALLACE: Honestly, what will you...

PORTMAN: I was I was going to say the same thing about Rendell. You're getting me in trouble here.

WALLACE: All right. Real quickly, Congressman, what will you say if John McCain asks you? And is your connection to the Bush administration on economic policy, on NAFTA -- is that a political negative at this point?

PORTMAN: I don't know, and I don't expect to be asked, honestly. I'm also, as you know, Chris, home after 15 years of commuting when I was in Congress and in the administration, and I've got three teenagers. It's time to be home. I love being home.

So I'm not eager to go back to Washington right now. I do love public service, and I heard Ed's comments the other day, actually, on a radio program where he said he'd be interested in being secretary of energy, perhaps, or secretary of transportation. Those are substantive jobs where you can make a difference.

And public service is an incredible privilege and honor. And I hope some day to be able to get back and do something that's substantive to help people.

And you know, this election has been interesting, because we're finally getting into the policy issues, and this is what matters, you know. It's not about the rhetoric.

Senator Obama's an eloquent speaker. The question is, you know, what's he going to do for the country and what's Senator McCain going to do for the country. And I think if you look at the record and the experience Senator McCain has and, frankly, his ability and willingness...

WALLACE: Congressman Portman?

PORTMAN: ... to take on some of these tough issues, that's what we're looking for.

WALLACE: In the interest of fairness, I can't allow closing statements.

But I want to thank you both so much for joining us today. Thanks for coming in. Please come back, both of you, and let's continue the policy debate.

PORTMAN: Thank you, Chris.

Thanks, Ed.

WALLACE: Up next, Obama is not the only one who has to deal with an independent candidate siphoning off votes. We'll hear from the Libertarian nominee for president, Bob Barr, when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: The last three presidential elections, Democrats have faced challenges from independent candidate Ralph Nader.

Well, this time Republicans have their own problem, Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia, who is now the Libertarian Party nominee for president, and he joins us from Portland, Oregon.

Congressman, you say the Republican Party has no vision, no agenda and a candidate who provides no excitement. What's wrong with John McCain?

BARR: What's wrong with John McCain is symptomatic of what's wrong with the Republican Party in these first years of the 21st century. They talk one thing but do something different, and that's become very obvious to the American people.

And when you look, for example, at what the Republican Party and the Congress has done since losing their majorities in 2006, you see absolutely no new program, new leadership or vision put forward.

And that's one of the reasons, Chris, why I think we see over 80 percent of the American people concluding that the country is on the wrong track and going in the wrong direction.

WALLACE: But in a race between John McCain and Barack Obama, as a longtime now former conservative Republican, don't you think McCain honestly would be the better president?

BARR: This is very much a mixed bag, Chris. For example, on some of the civil liberties and privacy issues with which I and the Libertarian Party are very concerned, Senator Obama clearly is much better.

On other issues, those relating to the cost of government and government spending, while neither candidate is good, Senator Obama clearly would favor a more expansive federal spending policy.

So it's very much a mixed bag, but neither of these candidates is talking about the deep cuts in government spending and returning power to the people that we are.

WALLACE: What are your major beefs -- you said they have retreated from principle, but you weren't very specific. What are your major beefs with McCain and the Republicans right now? BARR: Well, let's take, as just one example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Nobody is really asking the question, "Why does the government, our own government, need to be spying on its own citizens -- that is, U.S. citizens -- in this country, without some good reason?"

The legislation that is now pending before the Senate, that just passed the House, that Senator McCain supports would provide the authority for the federal government to surveille American citizens in their own country without any suspicion whatsoever that they're engaging in discussions with terrorists or about criminal activity.

This is a fundamental issue that goes to the very nature and power of our government, but nobody's really talking about it.

WALLACE: But in those cases, and correct me if I'm wrong on foreign intelligence surveillance, they cannot issue a wiretap, a warrantless wiretap, unless it's communications between someone in this country and someone outside the country where they have reason to suspect that there is a terrorist connection.

BARR: The first part of what you said, Chris, is absolutely correct. The second part is not. The government does not under this legislation need to establish any link whatsoever between the U.S. citizen that they're seeking to surveille and suspected terrorist activity or contacts.

All they have to do is establish that they think one of the parties to that conversation is not inside the United States. This is far too broad an authority for the federal government to have.

WALLACE: According, Congressman Barr, to a recent national poll, you get 3 percent of the vote, and mostly from people who say that otherwise, if you weren't in the race, they would vote Republican, especially in a few states like Colorado, like your home state of Georgia.

Couldn't you end up having the balance of power and tipping those states from McCain to Obama?

BARR: First of all, those polls -- this is very, very early in the campaign. We anticipate once we really launch our campaign full- time after July 4th to see those numbers increase, not just in those couple of states that you mentioned, but elsewhere around the country.

And of course, I and the Libertarian Party will be on the ballot in, we hope, all 50 states, but certainly 49 states.

The fact of the matter is that the American people are hungry, particularly young people, for a new vision, a new choice, to open up the political system once again and not feel bound by the artificial constraints of the two-party system.

That's why it's important that I'm in this race, not as a spoiler for anybody any more than Senator McCain or Senator Obama would be a spoiler for Bob Barr. WALLACE: But I have to ask you the question that is always asked of Ralph Nader. You would have no qualms if, because of your involvement, you ended up helping elect President Obama?

BARR: If Senator Obama wins on November 4th and Senator McCain and I lose, it will be because he presented a vision and a platform and a candidacy to the American people that resonated with a plurality of the voters.

That's what each of those candidates needs to do. That's what I intend to do. And that's, I think, what the American people want. They're not so concerned anymore about partisanship over principle.

WALLACE: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Bob Barr. Libertarians generally, I think you'd agree, favor smaller government and few foreign entanglements, but let's take a look at your record.

You voted for the Patriot Act permitting more government surveillance, the thing that you just decried. You voted to authorize the war in Iraq. You introduced back in the '90s the Defense of Marriage Act and you introduced the so-called "Barr Amendment" against medical marijuana.

Congressman, how does that record make you a Libertarian?

BARR: Well, what makes me a Libertarian is the fact that I deeply and truly believe in the Libertarian platform and what resonates with most Americans, and that is to shrink the size of the federal government.

Let's take just one example there, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act simply stands for the proposition that each state can set its own definition of marriage and can't be forced to adopt a different definition of marriage forced on it by another state.

That's a very conservative principle reflecting the fundamental notion of states' rights in our country.

WALLACE: But what about voting for the war in Iraq, voting for the Patriot Act, voting -- in fact, introducing the amendment to ban the legalization of the medical use of marijuana?

BARR: With regard to the Patriot Act, I have fought over the last five years since leaving the Congress to limit or, better even yet, repeal the Patriot Act, and I was able in the Congress to secure a number of sunset provisions for the provisions in the Patriot Act, so we would have the opportunity to go back and review them and look at them.

The powers in the Patriot Act have been used and abused by the Bush administration far in excess of what the Congress intended for it, and it's those abuses that have led I and a lot of other folks who voted for it under false pretenses essentially to work against it.

With regard to the vote for hostilities in Iraq, that was a vote that was based on what we now know to be inappropriate and erroneously analyzed intelligence.

That vote certainly was not intended -- was not presented to the Congress or myself in the Congress at the time as a vote for a multiyear, perhaps multidecade, occupation of Iraq.

Here again, the administration has taken an inch and gone a mile, sometimes in very clear contravention of what Congress intended.

WALLACE: So you're willing to take no personal responsibility and say, "Hey, I was wrong?"

BARR: Oh, I do. I just said that I was wrong with regard to the Patriot Act, entrusting the administration with its assurances that the act would not be used and abused.

And I certainly was wrong, along with a lot of others in the Congress, who now realize that their vote in support of military operations in Iraq was not what the administration intended. They intended to occupy the country even though they didn't tell us or the American people that at the time.

WALLACE: Finally, Congressman, let's talk about your viability as a candidate and the viability of your campaign. You have no campaign headquarters. You have yet to hold a single fundraiser. Best we can tell, you have about $300,000 in donations.

Why should American voters trying to make a decision about November take you and your campaign seriously?

BARR: The campaign is really just beginning. We do have a campaign headquarters. It will be in Atlanta, Georgia. We already have an entire staff in place, including Ross Perot's former campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, finance director.

We have an Internet team that worked for Ron Paul. We have held a number of fundraisers. We will be holding more. And we're, of course, launching a nationwide fundraising effort through the Internet.

I think the American people will be very surprised and very pleased with what they see out of the Barr 2008 campaign over the coming months.

WALLACE: Congressman Barr, we are going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for getting up early today to talk with us, and safe travels on the campaign trail, sir.

BARR: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Coming up, a show of unity between Clinton and Obama, but can he win over her supporters? We'll ask our Sunday regulars when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: To anyone who voted for me and is now considering not voting or voting for Senator McCain, I strongly urge you to reconsider.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I know how much we need both Bill and Hillary Clinton as a party and as a country in the months and years to come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Friday in Unity, New Hampshire at their first joint campaign appearance.

And it's time now for our Sunday regulars -- Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News, and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

Well, there doesn't seem to be much dispute. It was a great piece of political theater. I was amused that the New York Times even went into a detailed analysis of the body language on both parts.

But, Brit, how important in terms of uniting the party and getting her supporters to vote for him?

HUME: Well, it's a useful event. She said what you would want her to say if you were the Obama team.

Your poll numbers at the beginning of the program are interesting. What is it, 24 percent said they might go in another direction from among Hillary supporters. I don't think the number will be anywhere near that high.

But this is important because even if a fraction of those voters break the other way, 10 percent, maybe, that could decide the election for McCain. So this is something that has to be done. My guess is that over time it will and that very few Hillary supporters will back John McCain, but that remains to be seen. LIASSON: Yes, I agree with that. The only thing left, really, for Senator Clinton to do is to release her delegates, which she actually hasn't done technically.

I think that she's going to do everything she promised, campaign her heart out for him. The big question, of course, is still her husband, who gave a kind of -- what some people thought was a tepid endorsement of Obama, and it's unclear...

WALLACE: And not only tepid, a written endorsement.

LIASSON: A written endorsement, that's right. He didn't come out and say anything yet. But how he's going to be integrated into the effort -- of course, Obama always talks about how he needs both Clintons. That still remains to be seen.

I agree with Brit. I think he's going to get the lion's share of the Hillary supporters. I think what he has to work on now are all of those independents who fit the profile of the Hillary supporters that didn't vote for him -- white working class, Hispanics, others that didn't vote in the Democratic primaries but look a lot like the people who voted for Hillary.

WALLACE: Bill, how important are the Clintons? And will Bill Clinton stop sulking in his tent like Achilles and behave?

KRISTOL: Psychoanalyzing Bill Clinton is a tough task. I think Hillary Clinton was gracious. She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny that Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party, you know?

Republicans are much more open to strong women. And that's why McCain's going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket as vice president.

WALLACE: Is that your prediction?

KRISTOL: I'm moving from Jindal to Palin. She's fantastic. You know, she was the point guard on the Alaska state championship high school basketball team in 1982. She could take Obama one on one on the court. It would be fantastic.

Anyway, I do think -- I actually think Sarah Palin would be a great vice presidential pick, and it would be interesting to actually have a woman on the Republican ticket after Hillary Clinton has come so close and failed on the Democratic side.

WILLIAMS: Well, how about Colin Powell on the McCain ticket? Don't you think that would be a winner?

KRISTOL: No, no, no.

WILLIAMS: No?

KRISTOL: That's, again, misogynist thinking, you know? WILLIAMS: Misogynist thinking?

KRISTOL: You have to go for the gold here with Sarah Palin. She's great. She's a reform governor.

WILLIAMS: Mother of five, I believe.

KRISTOL: Mother of five. Ethics, incredible record of cleaning up -- she took on her own corrupt Republican Party in the state, cut spending.

WALLACE: Of course, they'd have a problem on ANWR, since she's for drilling in ANWR and he's against it.

KRISTOL: And she could persuade McCain to take the last step to the sensible position on energy and gas, which is to be for drilling...

WALLACE: Can we please get off Sarah Palin?

KRISTOL: ... for drilling in ANWR.

WALLACE: Not to say that she's not an important political figure in this country. But have you got something else to offer?

WILLIAMS: Well, no. I think the event in Unity really is now -- really comes down to the constituencies that Mara was talking about, but I would, you know, isolate it in some ways. I would say the Jewish voters and female voters who, it seems to me, still display some discomfort with Obama -- and then the larger picture, of course, is working-class white voters.

Can Hillary Clinton get out there and make a convincing case to those people to come over? You know, in the poll numbers that you put up, you said, you know, 24 percent said that they would not vote -- would go over to McCain, but it was the 14 percent that I think is more interesting, the 14 percent that said they might just sit this one out. They don't feel very strongly.

WALLACE: Or no opinion. But yes.

WILLIAMS: Yes. That's a problematic number. And as Brit said, you know, that could be decisive in this race.

WALLACE: Let's turn to another aspect of the campaign, and it became more of an issue this week, Brit, and that is what's being called Obama's evolving position on issues.

We talked about gun control. We talked about campaign financing. He's now said he's going to support the FISA, the more government surveillance of terror suspects or government surveillance of possible terrorist links.

We all know it's traditional for candidates to move from their base to the center once they've wrapped up the nomination. Is that just what's going on here? HUME: I think it's beyond that. You see with McCain, he has a catalog of shifts, of flip-flops, if you will. Most of them, though, were known to us during the primary season.

Obama is making wholesale changes of a somewhat dramatic kind. I mean, the campaign finance shift was dramatic, unexpected, and utter.

Similarly, on this issue of the terror surveillance bill, Obama -- this exception to indemnify these companies was something he, as you pointed out earlier, was ready to lead a filibuster against. Now he's going to accept the bill.

Ed Rendell says, "Look, he's just trying to get a good bill. You've got to sacrifice the -- you don't want to sacrifice the better for the best," and that's all reasonable.

But Obama doesn't have a long history of doing that in the Senate. Obama is a guy, unlike McCain, who hasn't made a lot of compromises. So these changes that he's -- these shifts he's undergoing are remarkable.

The one on the D.C. gun ban is amazing. He said he supported the D.C. gun ban. And then the Supreme Court comes along and says that's unconstitutional, and he says, "Yeah, I agree with that." I mean, that's almost -- it almost makes you laugh.

LIASSON: He's a constitutional law professor and he supported the D.C. gun ban and an individual's right to bear arms, which he's managed to continue.

Look, one of the reasons he can do this is because he's a blank slate and he's fairly new. One of the downsides of that is when you are a blank slate, you are open to being defined by your opponent if you can't define yourself satisfactorily to voters before he does that.

WALLACE: But, Mara, don't you think if the main point, the main theme, of his campaign is I'm not another politician, when he's caught doing things that seem to be just another politician, isn't that more hurtful to him than it might be to someone else?

LIASSON: Yes, but you know what? I think that theme is going to shift a little bit. I don't think the theme is -- he is shifting now to somebody who's pragmatic, safe.

Don't forget, if the thesis that a lot of people hold that this is a referendum on Obama, Obama has to prove to the country that he's safe because the fundamentals are so much in the Democrats' favor, that's what he's working on now. He's not trying to lay down markers about how different he is.

HUME: So change, you believe, is out?

LIASSON: I don't know about change. He wants a big change from the Republicans. There's no doubt about that. I'm talking about the different kind of politics thing. That seems to be taking a backseat...

WALLACE: I agree with that.

LIASSON: ... to making himself into a pragmatic, centrist...

WALLACE: You can see it in that -- in the latest ad, he's talking about values.

LIASSON: Yes.

WALLACE: But to be fair, Bill, let's bring in McCain, because he has made a lot of changes. And the one point I disagree with with Brit, some of them are recent -- for instance, drilling. He has flipped on that in just the last couple of weeks.

KRISTOL: Voters tend not to blame candidates if they adjust their views, A, based on a plausible notion that circumstances have changed. If gas prices are $4.50, the relative value of preserving a pristine -- in a pristine way this worthless wasteland up in northern Alaska, ANWR, changes...

HUME: But he hasn't flipped on that.

KRISTOL: No, he hasn't flipped on that. That's the next flip, when he puts Sarah Palin on the ticket. But anyway, but, no, so -- but voters tend not to punish political leaders for adjusting their views, especially if they come toward the voters.

The next big flip for Obama, and this will make Brit even more astonished, will be on Iraq. He's going to go to Iraq, meet with General Petraeus, decide the surge is working and walk back from his immediate unconditioned withdrawal.

And suddenly, it's going to be, "Well, we're going to be very careful, gradual." "Honorable withdrawal," Obama said the other day -- an honorable conclusion to the Iraq war.

WILLIAMS: Well, it seems to me that McCain has a problem here. McCain's problem is trying to balance a desire to move to the center, which is what Obama is doing with all these flip-flops, and McCain's need to get the base to embrace him and close the so-called passion gap that's in all the polls right now, where the Republican base doesn't feel very strongly about John McCain.

He's trying to do both at the same time, and I think it's a real problem. He's got to find somebody on the vice presidential side that can fire up the base for him, get these 527s involved so they can "swiftboat" Barack Obama and attack his -- but you know, it becomes -- the thing that kills me about Barack Obama in this situation is why would you be so obvious about the gun ban.

I mean, that's an issue that's so critical in urban America, and all of a sudden it's OK for individual rights? That's not true. I mean, it's ridiculous. It's damaging.

It's a reckless decision by the Supreme Court, and it's damaging to people who are living in this country to say, "Oh, let's have guns everywhere."

WALLACE: The preceding comments are solely those of Juan Williams.

All right, we need to step aside for a moment, but coming up, that landmark Supreme Court ruling on the right of Americans to bear arms. What's the practical effect and the fallout in the presidential campaign? Some answers in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1956, President Eisenhower signed the Federal Highway Act. The largest public works project at the time, the bill funded construction of the nation's interstate highway system.

Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WAYNE LAPIERRE: This goes down as a real permanent part of American constitutional law, the Second Amendment as an individual right, and that's a monumental day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, reacting to the Supreme Court overturning the D.C. ban on handguns.

And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan.

Well, by a 5-4 majority, the court said that individuals have a constitutional right to the private use of guns. However, the court also said that the government has the power to restrict that in some areas -- for instance, guns around schools. Mr. Justice Williams just said that it's a reckless decision.

Mr. Justice Hume, what say you?

HUME: Well, I don't think it's a reckless decision for this reason, which is that it's not a -- the court made clear that -- the Scalia opinion made clear that it is not an absolute right, that other values must be weighed and that reasonable restrictions on the use of -- ownership and use of guns are permissible.

It was taking on by far the toughest gun restriction law, the toughest gun ban, in the country, which it overturned as unconstitutional. It leaves a lot of room for legislation, common sense legislation, on this. And there obviously will be some.

Some gun bans -- Chicago's perhaps, for example -- are likely to go out the window because of this, but there'll continue to be restrictions on the use of firearms over time.

Still and all, though, this is an issue the court had waited centuries, really, to address. Finally it has done so. And my guess is this opinion will stand for a long time.

LIASSON: You know, and politically, it's so interesting, because I think one of the main reasons that Obama -- and Hillary, too, by the way -- in the Democratic primaries both said they believed in an individual's right to bear arms were because they knew where the court was going. I think that part of the decision was not unexpected.

Also, the Democratic Party has by and large given up on this issue. They've decided this is one of these issues -- that it's not going to be front and center.

Now the question is what Obama thinks about his own hometown's, you know, gun laws, because those are probably going to come up, not necessarily before the election, but soon.

KRISTOL: It's amazing to have two 5-4 decisions back to back that are so contrasting in their underlying judicial philosophy and the kind of arguments that are made.

Justice Scalia in the gun case makes the argument based on the original public meaning of the Constitution and that's debated at great length in the opinions. The day before, Justice Kennedy, the swing vote in the 5-4 child rape case, the death penalty for child rapists...

WALLACE: He was the swing vote in both cases.

KRISTOL: Right, he was -- writes an opinion that's entirely the opposite kind of jurisprudence -- "Evolving standards, we kind of think that these days people don't think in most states that child rapists should have the death penalty, so we're going to strike down the death penalty for child rapists," though there's obviously not a word, a syllable, in the Constitution that supports that.

It reminds everyone, I think, how closely divided the Supreme Court is, how big the gulf on the court is between these two divergent modes of interpretation, and therefore how much the next president's appointments to the Supreme Court -- how much difference he could make.

WALLACE: I want to pick up exactly on that point, Juan, because, I mean, not only were those 5-4 decisions, so was the decisions on detainee rights at Guantanamo.

With the court so narrowly divided, and with -- if you just look at the actuarial tables, the likelihood that the next president will get to appoint one, two, possibly even three more judges, is this the year that the Supreme Court will finally become a big voting issue or no?

WILLIAMS: You know, I think every time we think it's going to be, it never does.

WALLACE: Right, right.

WILLIAMS: But I think you look at -- Justice Stevens, I think, is 88. Ginsberg is in her 70s. And they're both on the left side of the court at the moment. So what you're looking at is if you get a McCain administration, it's likely to secure the court for the conservative point of view for a generation.

If you get an Obama administration, I think he's likely to balance and shift some of those votes. It seems to me that what -- the question is which base takes this more seriously given the gun decision. I think the base that's likely to get more excited here is the liberal base. And I think there might be...

HUME: Yes, and moreover, I would say about that that when you're looking to answer the question of how many Hillary voters will come around, think of people who were in the Hillary camp coming down toward election day and looking at what a McCain court would look like as opposed to what an Obama court would look like.

That, I think, for them and for certain other segments of the electorate will be a very powerful voting issue.

LIASSON: But Obama has less opportunity to change the makeup of the court than McCain would. If you're saying that the people most likely to retire are the liberals, all Obama could do is kind of maintain the current balance by replacing them.

WILLIAMS: That's what I'm saying, right.

LIASSON: McCain would be the one who has an actual opportunity, perhaps, to replace some of those people with more conservatives.

WILLIAMS: But the thing is if he could put in people who had some more energy -- I mean, the idea that the court would act as if the Constitution is not a living document and act as if the Constitution is written to apply to a time when we have, you know, these automatic firearms, and we haven't had Columbine, and we haven't had people use guns against us in the most horrific ways, drive-by shootings and the like on our streets -- well, of course, the court's like out of touch with the realities of, you know -- what are those called -- magnetometers in airports, and the conditions of our lives.

I mean, what are they thinking? Where do they live? What is going on up there?

HUME: Juan, I think what's...

WALLACE: Would you like to answer one of those three questions?

HUME: Yes, I think what's going on there is the court is looking to the organic law of our country, the Constitution, and interpreting what those words mean.

Now, Juan, there's nothing about that court decision that would make it permissible for children to have automatic weapons. There's nothing about that decision that would allow people who are crazy and found to be so to have weapons of any kind.

There is room within that legislation for reasonable restrictions on the use of firearms. The examples you've cited, it seems to me, are -- where everyone would have a gun and so on, is a gross exaggeration.

WILLIAMS: Let me just say...

HUME: So it's an important decision, but it is not...

WILLIAMS: Let me just say I'll tell you who's going to drive this, Brit.

HUME: It's not...

WILLIAMS: NRA is going to drive this, right? NRA is going to drive it, because they're going to go after undoing the very restrictions that you say would make for common sense law. They're going to say, "Oh, why would we need a waiting periods?"

KRISTOL: Let's talk about reality. Let's talk about reality. What city's gun law was struck down?

WILLIAMS: The District of Columbia.

KRISTOL: Was that reducing firearm violence in the District of Columbia?

WILLIAMS: I would hope so.

KRISTOL: Are poor children in the District of Columbia not dying at a much higher rate than in most cities -- almost every other city, unfortunately -- in the United States?

So I don't think that -- from a policy point of view, I don't think this incredibly strict gun control law is doing a lot of good. It really is keeping guns out of the hands out of everyone except the criminals and the gangsters.

WILLIAMS: Your point is well taken. You know, there's been this terrible wave of murders in the District of Columbia, mostly black on black, driven by the drug culture, sad to say, but don't you think it might have even been worse if there was a greater availability of guns?

HUME: It might have been less.

WILLIAMS: You think it would be less.

HUME: Could be.

WILLIAMS: If all of us were sitting on the panel with guns, I think we'd be shooting our husbands and wives.

HUME: Look, it's an old slogan, Juan, that if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns. And that, I think, is meaningful in this regard. It's an old saw, but there's wisdom in it.

WILLIAMS: Guns do not make me feel secure. Guns scare me. And it seems to me that we have an invitation here to have more guns.

WALLACE: Nobody packs heat on the panel.

But let me ask you, Bill, I mean, what about the court itself? There was a sense at the end of last year that the liberals were in disarray, very angry, and that the conservatives were on the march. I don't think you quite have that sense this year.

KRISTOL: No. I mean, Justice Kennedy -- it's the Kennedy court.

HUME: It's the Kennedy court.

KRISTOL: He's the swing vote. And so arbitrarily, the conservatives win some and the liberals win some.

WALLACE: And, Brit, because I know you like to beat up on Justice Kennedy, your feelings about his legal reasoning this year?

HUME: Well, I think, you know, you read his opinions and they don't have that kind of clarity and force that well argued opinions do.

He gets into the swamp of relativism. And you know, when he starts evolving the standards of this country, there's no tether on the man and he and the other justices can go anywhere they want.

WALLACE: But they're all on vacation now until October. Correct? Not a bad life.

Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.

Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: You may think T.V. studios on Sunday mornings are the time and place for Washington talk shows. But our Power Player of the Week proves you can put on a talk show almost anywhere.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOYNT: It's over in an hour from soup to nuts, and I honestly believe we're the only talk show that takes place in a saloon.

WALLACE: Carol Joynt owns Nathans, a well-known Washington watering hole in the heart of Georgetown. But what makes it special is that for the last seven years, the last three on television, she has run a weekly talk show out of the place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOYNT: I hope this doesn't make you sad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOYNT: I try to have a conversation, you know, two people on a couple of bar stools having a conversation in the back room of a saloon with an audience.

WALLACE: Through her connections, she's gotten guests like Dan Rather, who's in the middle of suing CBS.

JOYNT: When I asked him how his family had felt about him filing this suit, he puddled up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER: In the spirit of those times, I would say, I understand what you're saying. I know you care about me, but I think I need to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOYNT: On a lighter side, when I was interviewing Valerie Plame, who's -- everybody always makes such a big deal out of her looks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOYNT: Has Playboy offered you a spread yet?

VALERIE PLAME: My God, I'm a mother of twins. What, are you kidding me?

JOYNT: I can't imagine that stopping...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Joynt calls her interview the Q&A Cafe. This week she was talking with former Kennedy speech writer Ted Sorensen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED SORENSEN: I started work for him in January 1953.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: She finances the production herself, then provides it free to local cable stations in hope someone will pay her to keep doing it, which takes us back to 1969, when Joynt was hired as a reporter by the United Press wire service.

JOYNT: I was 18 years old.

WALLACE: Straight out of high school.

JOYNT: Straight out of high school. And my beat was -- were the streets, you know, the protest movement. I had a gas mask and a helmet, a pocket full of dimes, because that was all you needed back then.

WALLACE: Three years later, she was working for CBS and Walter Cronkite.

JOYNT: He said what you could say back then. He said, "There's a lot of pressure on me to get a woman writer, and I want somebody with wire service experience, so will you do the job?"

WALLACE: Over the years, Joynt kept working in news as she got married and had a son. But when her husband died suddenly in 1997 at age 58, she inherited his saloon and because of financial complications had to keep running it.

JOYNT: I would have been very happy to stay in news. News never scared me. Owning a restaurant scares me every day. But since I've created the Q&A Cafe, it's given me a little bit of sanity.

WALLACE: But now her story has taken a new twist. Her lease runs out in April and the owners of the building want to sell.

JOYNT: I don't know how we'll pull through. If we don't succeed, if Nathans is the Titanic, I guess I hope the Q&A Cafe is my life raft and that I make it to dry land.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Joynt has considered moving Nathans to other locations, but her lawyers say she could get sued by Nathan's Famous, the hot dog company.

And that's it for today. Have a great week, and we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

About Us | RSS | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2008