| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
What's at Stake in the November 2004 ElectionsMickey Edwards, Former U.S. Congressman and Member of the House Republican Leadership; Lecturer at Princeton U.; Thomas Downey, Former U.S. Congressman and Member of the House Democratic Leadership; Currently Chair of the Downey McGrath Group Inc., and Board Member of the Seed Foundation and Child Trends Foreign Press Center Briefing Washington, DC October 12, 2004
11:00 A.M. EDT MR. DENIG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. We are pleased to present another in our series of briefings on this year's elections, Election 2004. Today's topic is "What's At Stake In The 2004 Elections?" And I'm very pleased that we have two very distinguished and experienced briefers with us here today. To my far right we have Mickey Edwards, a former congressman, member of the House Republican leadership and currently a lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. And to my immediate right we have Thomas Downey, also a former congressman, member of the House Democratic leadership and currently chair of a government relations company, the Downey McGrath Group.
These two gentlemen will each have a brief opening statement and then will be very glad to take your questions.
Mr. Edwards.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, we've been asked to talk for just two or three minutes so that we have a lot of time for questions, so I just want to make two or three points, four points, maybe, about the election.
The first of them is that one of the things that has kept this race close to this point and is not a good sign for President Bush is that in the next debate, which is going to be Wednesday night, the discussion will finally turn to domestic affairs. As you know, the United States has much less of a national welfare system than is true in most other countries and the result of that is that there is a certain base of support for the Democrats and for John Kerry that has not really been addressed yet in this campaign. So while George Bush has a significant advantage in terms of the war on terrorism, which is an overriding issue for many people, I think there is a good chance that Kerry, who has been winning the debates so far, is going to get a good advantage out of the debate Wednesday night. Obviously, I hope that's not the case, but I think there is a good prospect of it.
A second point that I would use just to start off our conversation is that this is like the third or fourth time in the last week that I've been asked to address the question about: What's at stake? What does the election mean? And I just want to make this one comment in terms of foreign policy. I don't know whether Tom will strongly agree or very strongly disagree, but what's at stake for you and for your countries is probably less than you might imagine.
The United States is a very centrist country. What Tom and I and our friends consider to be vast differences are really laughably small differences from the perspective of many other countries. And most of the parts of American foreign policy, whether it's dealing with Israel and the Palestinian conflict, what we would do in North Korea, what we would do with Iran, even Iraq, where both candidates are committed to tracking down terrorists, tracking down al-Qaida, finding the terrorists and killing them and staying until the job is done; basically, you find that the policy differences in the future, looking prospectively, are not great and American foreign policy is going to be pretty similar three years from now or four years from now whether John Kerry wins or George Bush wins. So if you're thinking there's going to be some earth-shaking, cataclysmic change in American direction, that's probably not going to happen.
Finally, just one quick point about the election itself, and that is that we talk about the undecided vote in the United States. It's not really completely undecided because there's an incumbent. And when you have people are undecided when there's an incumbent, it means that they are willing to consider changing who's president, which means, at this point, the real problem John Kerry has had has been an inability to convince enough people of his viability as a replacement for the President. A lot of voters have doubts about George Bush; it's a question of whether John Kerry can convince them, you know, that he's an adequate replacement.
So I'll stop there so that we can, you know, have discussion.
MR. DENIG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Downey.
MR. DOWNEY: Let me make a couple of points and comment a little bit about Mickey's point about the direction of American foreign policy.
First, let me say that it is astonishing to me, and I suspect to a lot of Americans who have tuned in to the debates that we have spent so little time on domestic policy issues -- big issues concerning how to manage the healthcare crisis, the rising cost to the average American for healthcare premiums, the lack of coverage of 45 million people. How both candidates plan to address this are very much matters of concern to the vast majority of the American people.
But the fact that we are having this long debate -- one -- the first debate dedicated to foreign policy, almost exclusively about Iraq and terrorism suggests, and should suggest to you and to your readers, listeners or viewers, that it has -- we have an American election for the first time in my lifetime, really, where we are focusing more on foreign policy. My guess is, this next debate will be on domestic policy and you will start to get down to the nitty gritty of what the candidates have in store in terms of domestic policies.
I served as Vice President Gore's debate partner in 1996 and in 2000, so I've had the experience of playing Republican candidates from time to time, and thought about them a lot more than, I guess, the average viewer might -- I have thought about them.
I think this is going to be a much more personally aggressive debate because it appears from President Bush's perspective, as you see in the run-up to the debate, that this is becoming much more pointed, much more personal, much more hostile, and, from my perspective, that's all welcome news because he wouldn't be doing it if he were ahead or if the trend lines were in his favor.
Mickey made a point that I do disagree with somewhat, and that is, what could our friends and neighbors around the world expect from a Kerry presidency that would be different than a Bush presidency? Certainly matters of style would be dramatically different. Senator Kerry is an internationalist. He's not afraid to suggest that he is. He believes in the cooperation of nations to solving problems, listening to other countries and their perspective is important to him. And I think that stylistically, maybe the French would be happy to actually have a president who speaks their language, though I'm afraid the French would not be saying "oui" to come of the Kerry demands for help in Iraq and around the world, but I think that there would be a very big difference in style.
As for substance, Mickey's right, in large measure, about his analysis of the country. This is a big, centrist place. It's not easy to make dramatic shifts, and I wouldn't expect them, but I would expect, and I understand that we have two of our friends from the Russian media, that the President -- I'm getting ahead of myself -- Senator Kerry has suggested that nuclear proliferation is his biggest concern and he has now talked at least once in the debates about moving the timetable ahead for the securing of fissile material in Russia from 13 to 4 years, so my guess is there would be a level of engagement with President Putin consistent with what we've seen here, but a bit more possibly aggressive with timetables and the like to move forward on his principal concern.
And I would also expect that we would have a far less ideological foreign policy, even though both, with respect to Kyoto and with the International Criminal Court, I wouldn't expect much change right away from that. But I think that people out there who are looking for an American president who is more willing to listen to their concerns and needs and respond a bit more to UN dictates and interests would be possibly welcomed.
I would say, and I'll end on this note, that Senator Kerry, like President Bush, would not hesitate to pursue vigorous, vigorously and aggressively, American interests if he saw them threatened, and that would include taking any unilateral action. So in that sense, there -- Mickey's right, there's not, there would not be a lot of difference.
MR. DENIG: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
They'll be glad to take your questions now. I'd ask you, as usual, to please use the microphone and identify yourself and your news organization.
All right, let's go to Latin America.
QUESTION: Jose Carreno with El Universal of Mexico.
This is more theoretical than anything else, but there are some others who believe that President Bush is directing himself to the most conservative side of the American electorate and to the most, let's say, patriotic or nationalistic or jingoistic, any way you want to call it, whatever.
I would like to know your opinion about that and I would like to see, or know -- I'm sorry -- to ask if, what kind of impact could this have on the rest of the electorate?
MR. EDWARDS: Well, I think it's true. George Bush is a conservative candidate. His appeal is primarily to conservative voters and to those regions of the country, which are more conservative. I think that's a correct analysis. I don't think it's jingoistic. I think it's merely a matter of some people are more inclined to believe that working in the best interests of the United States -- in the United States security -- means that sometimes you will act alone even if, if other nations are not prepared to go along with you. But, and his is -- I think he's less inclined to show deference to international opinion than John Kerry would be. But you're right. John Kerry is also appealing to those people who have a more of an internationalist flavor and to those who are, are liberal. And the United States is fairly evenly divided between those two groups, so -- which is why nobody in their right mind would take a bet on who's going to win the election right now. MR. DOWNEY: I think that's a good question, and it goes to the heart of, I think, the President's electoral strategy and also something Mickey touched on before. The electoral strategy is very much to galvanize the conservative base throughout the country because there is a belief that there aren't a lot of undecided voters and that this election will turn on who shows up to vote.
And the President's rhetoric has always been a bit more bombastic, with the exception of Iraq, than the policy. I mean, it is a bit more, you know, you get a rise out of -- these Republican events, one has to get a ticket and be, kind of, cleared to go to. So they are, they tend to be rallies of the converted. And at these particular rallies, people will leap to their feet when the President talks about going alone or bashing the UN. And I think that's a very-much-calculated strategy to generate enthusiasm for his base.
What does it mean? Well, to a certain extent, when you do campaign, you do, when you take office, like to keep your promises if you at all can. But I don't think from President Bush's perspective that it matters a whole lot. My guess is internationally, it's more alarming than probably it should be. But it is very much an electoral strategy, I think.
MR. DENIG: All right. Let's go to Japan next.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up question to that --
MR. DENIG: Your name?
QUESTION: Ah, yeah. My name is Hiro Aida with Japan's Kyoto News.
And I just wondering, this might be addressed to Mr. Edwards. What do you think about this, well, conservative foreign policy or foreign policy which may appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party or George Bush's electorate? Is that -- I'm just wondering whether conservative foreign policy is necessary ideological foreign policy or not because my sense is, you know, if we go to a Midwest, or, you know, that heartland of the United States, the people's sense is a bit isolationistic and they want to protect the country but they don't like, too, the idea of a democratization or that kind of thing.
So I'm just wondering whether, you know, the ideological, or so-called ideological foreign policy so far implemented by the Bush Administration is really a conservative foreign policy and which may -- how the Bush Administration will change, or would change -- how you say? -- in the second Administration, in the second term, in terms of that ideology in foreign policy.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, in terms of using the word "ideology," both candidates have an ideology and both candidates have political supporters who are ideological in one direction or another. I wouldn't be inclined to say that George Bush, for example, or his supporters are more ideological than the people on the left, who have been supporting John Kerry. I mean, different ideologies, and as Tom said, the people who are supporting Senator Kerry tend to be much more deferential to international concerns than the Republicans do.
But, yeah, I think it's also true that every one of your countries, every single one of your countries believes in international cooperation, and so forth, but if the leadership of your country believed that your nation's security was at stake, would act unilaterally if that's the only way you could act. And I think that's the way a lot of people in the heartland of America feel about it.
But I will fall back on the point I made originally. I don't know of very many Americans who are isolationists. I think that ended really, you know, with World War II, and Americans got very involved, traveled the world, saw a lot of places in the world. And people who have been leaders in the conservative movement, people like Newt Gingrich and others, have been internationalist. They may have a different idea of, you know, how much they should be willing to do, contrary to the majority of other nations, but I don't see any withdrawal. In fact, on the left, as well as on the right, globalization is a specter that haunts a lot of people. So, I don't see a lot of difference in that regard. America is not going to become an isolationist country, no matter who wins.
MR. DENIG: All right, next question. Let's go to France up here, please.
QUESTION: Patrick Jarreau, Le Monde, Paris.
You said that there was a healthcare crisis in the U.S., but when you listen to the electoral debate, you don't have this feeling. Why is that so?
MR. DOWNEY: No, I think in the last debate, Senator Kerry tried to make it more of an issue and the opportunities just didn't present themselves. There is just no question that for the ordinary American, there is a serious problem. Their premiums have gone up anywhere between 20 and 30 percent over the last four years. That's an extraordinary increase.
The 45 million that you hear talked about as being uninsured is really more like 80 million if you look at the number over a two-year period of time. The Census Bureau question, which is what the 45 million connotes is, "Have you had -- lost health insurance at any time in the last year?"
And if you go back two years, you will find that the number of people who come in and out of the health insurance system -- they're unemployed or their coverage gets dropped, is a much larger number.
So here you have the cost going up for people who have coverage. And then you have this extraordinary high number of people who don't have coverage. This is a crisis. That's how Kerry has identified it. I don't know if President Bush has identified it. Clearly, President Bush's approach is very less interventionist. He's got a plan that would pick up seven or eight million people. In terms of coverage, he has no, from my perspective, no coherent plan to address the rising health care costs.
Senator Kerry, on the other hand, has a fairly elaborate plan of tax credits of what he calls a "Medicaid swap" with the states. Without getting into gruesome detail about this, this is a federal- and state-shared program; and for children this would now be a federal program under Senator Kerry to pick up all, cover all children right away.
So your question is correct. “They haven't talked about in the debates, so how could you say it's a crisis?” Well, it is. And I presume that in this debate on Wednesday, they'll spend some time on it because it's of interest. And our polling numbers show that it works very well for us. The more Senator Kerry talks about healthcare, the more support he is likely to get.
MR. EDWARDS: Let me just add to that that I think there is general agreement that there is a very serious problem in terms of affordability of healthcare. It hasn't been debated largely because of September 11, 2001, and then the invasion of Iraq, and other issues, which are perceived to be so urgent that a lot of the issues that ordinarily would dominate an election have been shoved off the table.
President Bush -- conservatives, generally, and Americans, generally, are very, very reticent about collective government programs. It's just not the way American democracy has unfolded. But President Bush, with differing sets of proposals, worked on getting more prescription drug coverage for senior citizens, has addressed -- not in the same way that John Kerry has -- but has also addressed, you know, healthcare concerns.
I think most Americans are concerned about something, whether it's access or affordability in healthcare, and I think both candidates are going to address it. But it's more a Republican philosophy to deal with it more through the private sector, through incentives to the private sector, or, you know, means like that.
MR. DOWNEY: Let me, for those of you, who obviously all have an opportunity and want to know more about this, the familiesusa.org website has just published a report at some considerable expense to them comparing both candidates and addressing this health care crisis in some significant detail if you have an interest in reading more about that.
MR. DENIG: All right. Let's go to the back on the right there.
QUESTION: Daniel Scheschkewitz, Deutsche Welle, Germany's foreign broadcaster.
Does any one of the two candidates have a coherent plan how to lower the huge budget deficit in the United States? Both say they will lower it by half, but I haven't heard any coherent plan so far.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, I have to preface that by saying I hope that as you're watching the elections here and covering them for your media outlets that you're focused at least as much on the congressional races and who is going to take control, because the United States, as you well know, is so different from most other countries in that the power of the purse is in the Congress, not with the President.
I personally always get a very big laugh out of it when I watch either candidate for president, this time or four years ago, or eight years ago, talk about what they're going to do. And I just wondered if they had forgotten that it was the Congress who would make those decisions.
But in terms of a coherent policy, they would differ. I think President Bush would be much less inclined towards spending on domestic programs, but on the other hand, believes you have to spend more, probably, than Senator Kerry would on military kinds of programs. Bush believes, as did Ronald Reagan, as do Republicans, generally, that the more you reduce taxes, the more you stimulate the economy and generate additional revenue, which provides more revenue to the government and reduces the deficits that way.
Yeah, I think they both have plans, but here is an area where their plans are considerably different, in American terms, from each other.
MR. DOWNEY: Well, I think that both candidates have not addressed this because the reality is, I think, that Senator Kerry's plan would be slightly better than President Bush's in terms of addressing the deficits. And that has to do with the desire on the part of the Bush folks to make their tax cuts permanent. And Mickey is absolutely right, by the way, with respect to the Congress, but if President Bush should have a Republican House and Senate, which I don't believe will happen, but if it does, and then he wanted to move forward with his privatization of Social Security, which, over the course of the next couple of years would be a short-term cost of anywhere between $2- and $2.3 trillion, we could be looking at deficits that make the current ones modest by comparison. Senator Kerry does not have any plan to privatize Social Security, but both candidates probably -- and mayby in this next debate -- they'll be forced by the questioners to address more specifically the fact that the numbers are a little light on both their sides in terms of halving the deficit over the next five years. MR. DENIG: Okay, let's go to Italy on the right here, please. QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency, ANSA. I have a question for Mr. Edwards and a question for Mr. Downey. Mr. Edwards, do you think that the American electors are paying more attention in deciding for whom to vote to a dollar less of taxes, or to a billion more of deficit? And Mr. Downey, you underlined the differences we can expect from the foreign policy of President Kerry, if he will be elected -- style differences, you said. Do you expect from the European allies style differences in approaching President Kerry or substantial differences? MR. EDWARDS: Well, let me answer my part first. I think the answer is neither one. In 1992, we had a third party candidate named Ross Perot, who had some impact on the election. He talked a lot about deficits. And in that particular election year, addressing the deficit became an issue that was important. That's the only time in my lifetime that the size of the deficit has really made any difference to the voters. Now, Republicans are defending the deficit. I have to say, Tom, when I first got to Congress the Democrats were in charge. You know, and they would say, "Don't worry about the deficit; it's just money we owe to ourselves." (Laughter.) You know, so that's never been a motivating factor for most voters. You know, it's one for economists. Most Americans would like to get their taxes cut, but I think the size of the tax cuts is not so much that that's going to sway their votes. I think healthcare, as Tom says, I think healthcare may be an issue that matters a lot to people, and the national security issue. But I don't think either deficit or the tax reduction is going to sway a lot of voters. MR. DOWNEY: I think that the American people and Senator Kerry, if he becomes President, will want more than just stylistic changes from the Europeans for some help in Iraq. You know, we don't need to rehash here what's been spoken about significantly in the first two debates about the training and, you know, calling an international summit and bringing together our European allies. I'm reminded of what happened in 1980, when Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan, and my Republican friends said, "Well, there won't be changes right away, but the whole world will know we're stronger because Ronald Reagan is President." And I thought to myself, well, this is simply preposterous. You know, we don't have any more weapons. We don't have any more soldiers. Nothing has really changed except the leadership. Well, as I've learned over the years, well, changing leadership is important. Changes of style, tenor matter; they matter domestically and they matter internationally. And so, you know, would the French send us any help in Iraq if John Kerry becomes President? I don't know. I think that his approach to our European allies, "old Europe," as Donald Rumsfeld refers to them as, I think that we're likely to have a little different sense of how the French and the Germans are important to us, and maybe that will be in some way reciprocated. I don't know, but I think a change in leadership, in this case, is very much in the national -- not only in the national interest, but in the international interest as well. MR. EDWARDS: I dissent from that view. (Laughter.) MR. DENIG: Let's take the gentleman in the middle, please. QUESTION: Slavoljub Leko with the Croatian News Agency, HINA. The question is, Senator Kerry talks about preemptive unilateral military action in case that the United States is endangered, and on the other hand, he is talking about some kind of global test that -- of legitimacy that this kind of action has to pass. How could he actually bring together those two opposing views? MR. DOWNEY: Well, I don't really consider them opposing views. And I don't think he considered them opposing views, either. I think the global test would have been applied to Iraq, and the President would have failed the global test with respect to Iraq. And so when he talks about legitimacy, I mean, I think that, you know, if the Mexicans were suddenly marshaling tanks and troops on our border, as inconceivable as that would be, the idea of an international test to preclude a Mexican invasion would be clear to the whole world and justifiable, or if the Canadians were, or if some other country was rapidly arming its ballistic missiles after their recent having acquired them and the United States were to take a preemptive action as the Israelis did in 1981, that that would be the global test that Senator Kerry is talking about. I mean, he's not -- you know, President Bush tried to make a great deal over this. The fact is we failed the global test in Iraq because there was no reason for the precipitous invasion of that country. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States. He wasn't when we invaded. He wasn't -- certainly isn't now. And so I think this idea of a test needs to be viewed in the context of recent historical reality. MR. EDWARDS: John Kerry has a problem with sometimes not phrasing things as well as he should. You know, in all fairness, he did not mean by a global test, the idea that he was going to allow other nations to approve or disapprove our actions. And I have to say that despite the fact that it is my own party's candidates who are making the point, you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that with John Kerry as president, the United States would be -- would have weaker will, be more passive in the face of threat. I think, you know, that's not the case. John Kerry will be just as firm and to pick on the -- you know, the people who always get picked on here, if John Kerry believed that something was in the interest of the United States and it was not perceived in France or Germany to be in the interest of those countries to support it, he would go ahead anyway. So, I mean, I think we shouldn't make mistakes about that. MR. DENIG: All right. Let's take the lady in the middle, please. QUESTION: ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russian News Agency. A question to Mr. Downey: You told a bit about Kerry's politics if he wins, according to Russia, so maybe you'll tell us some of details and what do you think of what relationship maybe between Kerry and Putin in case Democrats win? Thank you. MR. DOWNEY: Well, I think that their relationship will be a good one. I mean, certainly, President Bush looked into President Putin's eyes and saw something a couple of years ago that I think came as a surprise to a lot of loyal Republicans who have historically looked at the Russians as a group that you couldn't trust; and a former KGB operative as president, maybe you'd want to be a bit more skeptical about what he was proposing. But President Bush and President Putin seem to get along and my guess is that Senator Kerry and Mr. Putin will get along. They have to get along. They have many more interests in common. And hopefully President Kerry will press President Putin on the issue of fissile material. Anybody who has traveled to Russia knows that the Russians need considerable help in securing the stockpiles, and -- but there have been a number of, let me just say, bureaucratic reasons why I don't think we have moved forward as fast as we can, and that requires presidential leadership on both their parts to move things along. And I think that Kerry has addressed that. And I think that the Russian relationship will be just as important as it's always been. And my guess is the leaders will be involved in a little bit more detail about the issue that Senator Kerry has identified as being the highest priority for him. MR. EDWARDS: Can I add one slight twist to that though? I think that's true. I think the United States is delighted that we have a much better relationship now with Russia, and that will continue with either man as President. But with either man as President, I think you'll see a lot more criticism aimed at President Putin's recent moves that are perceived to squelch democracy perhaps a little bit too much. And I think both Kerry and Bush would continue to try to cause a -- try to -- push for a reversal of that policy. MR. DENIG: Okay, let's go back to Mexico up front here. QUESTION: Jose Carreno with the Mexican newspaper, El Universal. There has been a lot of arguments, a lot of talk about how deeply divided is this country. So my question would be: Do you foresee that the division will continue, whoever wins? And what does President Kerry will have to do to approach to the Republican side and what President Bush would have to do to heal the division with the other side? MR. EDWARDS: Go ahead. MR. DOWNEY: You know, Mickey and I, I think, are probably pretty good examples of pretty conservative and pretty liberal guys who get along and like each other and figure out that there is a way to get along. And I think that's really much more an American tradition than not. I think that American divisions are exacerbated by the close contests in the House and the Senate and the relationships that exist there. And both institutions, the House, in particular, is, I think, in very desperate need of reform because the way politics works now in the House of Representatives, the most extreme of both parties are representative and dominant in the institution. The broad middle is really dramatically underrepresented in the House of Representatives and that's -- there's a real -- I think there is a real danger for the country there. Let me just posit a couple of scenarios and then I'll shut up and let Mickey address this. President Kerry, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate, if I were, if that were the case, I'd make all my proposals; the Republicans would dismiss them or not do them; I'd spend my first two years getting ready to run against the Congress in the off-year election and say, "Give me a group of people that understand that there was a change in the election last time. Give me a Congress I can work with." President Bush, with a Democratic House and Democratic Senate, which it strikes me as an extreme improbability, though my guess is that both the margin in the Senate and in the House could narrow, now it could only narrow by one in the Senate without it shifting, but it could narrow by eight or nine votes in the House, but then the President would still pretty much get his way.
If he had a Democratic Congress, as I said, it's a little hard to imagine that happening -- then you would see a significant amount of gridlock and an effort, I think, by the President, at least, maybe to reach out to the middle to get some of the things that he wants done.
But the polarization, to sum this up, the polarization that I see that exists and gets written about is the most, in the legislative bodies, much more in the House than in the Senate, and less so in the country.
MR. EDWARDS: I think either man would have to make a much more concerted effort to meet with leaders of the other party and to talk to them. The two houses are so evenly divided that even when you -- you could look at it and say Republicans have control of both houses, but if the Republicans lose half a dozen members, they could lose. One of the top priorities for Republicans recently, and for President Bush, was to have a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, and it was defeated in the House, which is controlled by Republicans.
Neither man, neither party can afford to lose very many votes. And I think nobody's going to be a successful president unless they're able to reach out across the aisle. And I think President Bush, if he's reelected, is going to do that a lot more in his second term. I think John Kerry will certainly have to do it.
But I do want to say one thing about -- will the divisions continue? Sure they will, because America is a very large country, and at the moment, we tend to have our perspectives pretty evenly divided.
We went from being a largely rural nation to a nation with large urban centers, and now those urban centers have kind of spun off to the suburbs a little more. And so it's moving back away from the welfare state mentality. We're divided. We have so many people in this country who are deeply, deeply religious. We have many people on the coast who are very secular. You know, we're a country with many contradictions and many varieties. And so when the election's over, you know, those divisions are going to continue to exist.
MR. DENIG: Let's take the gentleman in the back there, please.
QUESTION: My name is Wada -- I'm sorry -- I'm with the Japanese Newspaper Mainichi.
My question is, you have -- in the year 2000 you had a great confusion on the voting day and beyond because of what happened in Florida. Do you foresee the same kind of confusion this year?
MR. DOWNEY: Yeah, I do. I think that the underlying problems that exist in the state of Florida have not been corrected. The difference is that they don't come as a surprise to either party, and in the closely contested races, if you can imagine this, our party has 8,000 lawyers prepared to be deployed to Ohio and Florida on the local level to make sure that in the most hotly contested precincts or election districts, whatever they're called in respective states, there will be party oversight by both parties, my guess is, but certainly by the Democratic Party. So I expect problems, but there will be probably different ones than we've seen in the past.
MR. EDWARDS: And part of the reason for that is that the United States, unlike many other nations, is truly a federal system to the extent that we have a few basic federal election laws, but the mechanism for conducting elections is not done by the federal government, it's done by each state government. So we have 50 different state approaches to balloting, to the counting of provisional ballots, to what you have to do to attest to the fact that you're really legitimately a registered voter. And so, there will be problems somewhere. They may be in Florida. They may be somewhere else this time, but they're going to happen, no question about it.
MR. DENIG: All right, take the gentleman in the middle, in the back, please.
QUESTION: My name is Nishimura from Hokkaido Shimbun, Japan.
Last week, the Iraq Investigation Team reported that there were -- there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that shows the reason why the Bush Administration go to -- went to war with no basis of the rational basis.
So, nonetheless, the people, American people, still support George Bush -- one-half of the American people support George Bush. And I think it is why that they think that George Bush will protect from terrorist attack better. So I'd like to know, how do you think about the mentality of American people that they support George Bush? And, for example, the what's the policy like preempt attack, like that?
MR. EDWARDS: Do you want to do it first?
MR. DOWNEY: I'm afraid my answer may go on a little longer than yours.
Well, it's clear that there was a massive intelligence failure, and Senator Kerry points out that President Bush misled the American people on this issue. And I don't think there is any doubt but that that's the case. I think that President Bush came to office wanting to find a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein. 9/11 gave him the reason. And the facts were interesting, but less relevant than the desire. And I believe that if you can believe all of the books that have been written by the various participants, this interest in getting rid of Saddam was clear and present from the day he took office.
What does it say about the American people? That half of them still look at this and say, "Well, I don't really care that you've changed your rationale for invading Iraq. I believe that we're safer because of it." And I think that has to do with the fact that the country is pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and from a Republican perspective -- and Mickey can give you this better than I -- the President has been pretty good. He's kept his promise on tax cuts, he has a more aggressive foreign policy, and he is religiously conservative. Mickey talked about the country being very religious. And I think that President Bush is closely identified with folks who share a different set of religious and fundamental values than exist in other parts of the country. So I think he speaks to, directly, a very large segment of Americans who agree that they like his spirituality. They like his position on questions of abortion. They like a lot of other things. They have conjoined the idea of the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They believe the President when he says, "Well, you know, getting rid Saddam Hussein was a good thing."
The President only says things that his base is going to wind up agreeing with. So I think that that's the reason why, for a combination of reasons, you can have an American President who has just got it dead wrong about an invasion, changed 50 years of American foreign policy in terms of preemptive war, and is still managed to be supported by half of the American people.
From my perspective, last night at the concert -- there was this big, big concert here in D.C. If I look a little tired, it's because I stayed to the end. And James Taylor, who is a very famous singer, said, "Well, if you're undecided," which is a very narrow swath of people, "go to the guy, look at both candidates, and pick the one who is smarter. And that will be John Kerry."
Well, you know, I thought to myself, that's kind of interesting but that's not what the American people are looking for. And that's not how they're going to vote. This selection, as I said before, is going to be a turnout question. And I just happen to think that my side is a bit more energized this time than the other side.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, I would only add a little. I would say, first of all, I don't know that the American people all buy the argument that John Kerry is smarter. He has a different way of speaking, but if being able to communicate your thoughts in a cogent, clear manner, as you journalists do, is a test, I'm not sure that Bush would fail and Kerry pass it.
In answer to your question, I think what happens is every American knows now it was a mistake to believe that the weapons were there. But they're also judging by what kind of a president do we want, and almost every intelligence service in the world believed Saddam Hussein had the weapons. Madeleine Albright thought that he had the weapons. John Kerry thought so. Sandy Berger, the -- President Clinton's Security Advisor thought that. You know, they all were talked about the threat that was posed.
And so, the question might be said: How do you think -- and I think this is the way some Americans are looking at it -- how do you think a president of the United States should act if he believes that he has good information that the United States is in serious danger?
And so, if you don't get into psychoanalyzing him and assuming wrong motivation, I think Americans are probably willing to say, "You know, well, I probably would have acted the same way, and at least I'm glad that if he thought we were in danger, he acted to do something about it." And that's why -- it's not that, I mean, everybody knows he made a mistake. It's just whether or not they think that mistake should trump the other advantages they think he has, you know, that Tom referred to.
MR. DENIG: Okay, we have just a few minutes left. We'll take the gentleman on the far left.
QUESTION: My name is Thabet Elbardicy, Al-Jazeera TV.
I would like to ask about the effect of the results of the elections on the international arena and the global attitudes, and also, another question about the American attitude toward the global attitude. There is that view that most people outside the United States would like to see George Bush defeated. How does that affect the American voter? Does it make it want to keep him or just to go with the flow?
MR. EDWARDS: Well, I used to say, when I was a member of Congress, and people would say to me that something I was doing was something the President didn't like, I would say, "Well, I would be impressed by what the President wanted or didn't want if he voted in my district." And it's the same way. I think that -- I don't think Americans are going to go base their decision on trying to thumb their noses at foreigners. I mean, I don't think Americans are going to vote either for one candidate or against a candidate because of how people in other countries feel. They're just going to ignore it. They're, you know, they're going to make their decisions based on what they think is important and could care less, you know, what somebody in another country thinks.
MR. DOWNEY: Yeah. I agree with that.
MR. DENIG: All right. Let's go to Mexico for our last question.
QUESTION: Mr. Downey, you said that your side is very energized on this. But the little people believe in this country and this town that it's more energized against Bush than for Kerry. Has Kerry been able to grab, to really cultivate the position Bush and focus it, or as Larry (inaudible) says, "Bush has relinquished the title, but Kerry hasn't been able to grab it."
MR. DOWNEY: Yeah, it's a good question. You know, I never knew when I got elected the first time whether I was the result of people being angry (laughter) or in love. I really didn't care. And I suspect that in this instance neither will John Kerry if he wins.
I think it is more energized against President Bush than it is of love and affection for Senator Kerry. It isn't though, I would argue, that Senator Kerry has done a pretty good job of galvanizing the party's base. I think he's demonstrated in his two debates a command of positions and a sense of strength. He's done what he's needed to to convey to the American people that he can be president.
In 1980, an election that Mickey and I both remember, I was delighted, delirious at the idea that we were going to run against Ronald Reagan because I figured, "This guy's nuts. He's crazy, and you know, soon the American people will figure this out for themselves." And in both those debates, Ronald Reagan proved, guess what? You know, I was governor of the biggest state in the union. People could see him as a President and he slaughtered Jimmy Carter. I mean, right up until the week of the election, it was very, very tight -- very, very tight. And then it just broke completely for Reagan after, I think after, it was -- the second debate.
I suspect this is going to sound more like wishful thinking than analysis, but I think that, I think we are headed into the same territory. If I'm an incumbent president, I don't like the idea that there are a lot of undecided voters out there.
George Bush has done his level best to make this a referendum on John Kerry, not on George Bush. And I think Kerry has done a better job of keeping the focus on Bush, on the failures of foreign policy, and hopefully, on Wednesday, on the shortcomings of domestic policy. And if, in that final debate, people will look and say, "Yeah, you know, I think he's made the point about him not being clear on certain things," but if he has attempted to be very clear, I think, in the debates, and I think he's succeeded in that. If he accomplishes that, I think you'll see what happens to George Bush be very similar to what happened to Jimmy Carter.
MR. EDWARDS: I think the answer today is different than it would have been three weeks ago. I think three weeks ago there was no Kerry support; there was only anti-Bush vote. I think in the debates John Kerry has done a good job of reassuring a lot of voters that he was a credible alternative.
Now, it's still very close because, you know, not everybody has bought that, and a lot of people don't agree with his policies. But he is a much stronger candidate in his own right today than he was before the first debate.
MR. DOWNEY: Yeah, we were dead in the water three weeks ago. We were in trouble. And that's ended.
MR. DENIG: I want to thank Mr. Edwards and Mr. Downey very much for being with us here today. And thank you, too, ladies and gentlemen. |
 | |||
|
