Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

With such tight margins in the Senate and House the 2002 midterm elections will have a major impact on politics and policy. How did the parties handle their strategies in the midst of impending war on Iraq and the ongoing war on terrorism? How much did money reign supreme? How did two last-minute replacements on the ballot in Minnesota and New Jersey affect voters' feelings, much less turnout at the polls?

Bill Press, MSNBC co-host of “Buchanan and Press” and co host of WMAL's morning news, was online to take questions and comments on the 2002 midterm elections.

Press is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, whose twice-weekly column is syndicated by the Chicago Tribune syndicate. He is also the author of "Spin This!" and was chairman of the California Democratic Party from 1993-1996.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C. Republican: I was surprised, as I think most were, at how well the Republican candidates did yesterday; I was shocked, however, at the reaction of the Democrats interviewed this morning. Their collective response seemed to be denial. They asserted that, despite the losses, they thought that their ideas were better, their positions were better, and their candidates were better than the Republican ones. Well, simply put, a majority of the population disagreed with them.

Do you think the Democrats will re-evaluate their ideas, positions and candidates? I think (I hate to say this) that James Carville was right. Democrats can't win as me-too Republicans, because no one believes that they actually believe what they say when they try to sell themselves that way.
They have to offer an alternative that is different, don't they?

Bill Press: I agree with you and Carville. Democrats made a big mistake in trying to vote, and then run, as Republicans. Paraphrasing Harry Truman, if people are offered a choice between a real Republican and a phony Republican, they'll vote for the real Republican every time. After this bruising, I hope Democrats re-examine their leaders, their ideas and their campaign strategy. It's time for fresh faces, fresh ideas - and fresh energy. Go on the offensive.

Springfield, Va.: Now that the democrats are in disarray, doesn't this open the door for Hillary in 2004, she can run as the great liberal hope.
Clinton/Edwards.

Bill Press: I do think that, after yesterday's debacle, the 2004 issue is now wide open. And, sure, Hillary is a posssibility. But I think there will be more attention to finding someone OUTSIDE the Beltway. Even Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution. Both parties do better finding somebody not connected with the House or Senate to lead the ticket. Look at all the new Democratic governors: a lot of talent there.

Washington, D.C.: Lautenberg previously retired when the Democrats lost control of the Senate. Do you think he will resign, or will he stay for the full 6 years, health permitting? Do you see any other Democratic Senators who might not seek re-election in 2004 if they think they will remain in the minority?

Bill Press: Too soon to say what Democratic Senators might retire in 2004 if still not in leadership - but most of them are not quitters. Even if not in power, they get a lot of perks and they love the spotlight. Not to mention the money. Lautenberg, I'm sure, will complete one term - but I doubt he would go for a second. He doesn't want to become the next Strom Thurmond.

Portland, Ore.: Here in Oregon I think we mostly had a status quo election. The incumbent congressmen and senator won. The surprise was the governor's race where the Republican ran a really great campaign (I didn't vote for him) and the Democrat ran a really awful one (I did vote for him though). I don't know if that close race has been called yet.

My feeling is that even though there is considerable economic turbulence, voters haven't blamed the Republicans yet because it started toward the end of the Clinton presidency. I do feel that in 2004 voters will hold the Republicans accountable for the performance of the economy if there's not significant improvement.

How do you think the "bad" economy influenced the election? Or, why didn't it? Do you agree it will be more of an issue in 2004?

Bill Press: I think the economy, not the war, was the #1 issue in 2002. But Democrats at first failed to raise the issue - on the bizarre theory that, by debating Iraq first, they could later change the subject. Stupid strategy. Failed miserably. Plus, once they did try to start talking about the economy, they never put forth a plan or agenda for what they would do to bring good times back. In short, they blew it. But now Republicans have total control. If the economy continues to lag, or gets worse, they will get all the blame - and suffer accordingly in 2004. Cheers to Oregon. My son lives in Hood River!

Minneapolis, Minn.: I really like the Carville/Truman analysis from your first post and response. However, I don't feel like Mondale was running as a phony Republican. Paul Wellstone certainly didn't fit into that category! How would you explain Coleman's win?

Bill Press: You're absolutely right about Walter Mondale. I am devastated by his loss. He's a good man and it would have been great for the nation to have him back in the Senate. From my perspective, I think two things happened: Wellstone's tragic death actually motivated the Republican base; and voters went for the future with Coleman, rather than the past with Mondale...By the way, Wellstone proves my point. When you stand up for something, even if it's against the grain, voters will reward you. He opposed the president's popular war - and actually went up in the polls. God, how we will miss him.

Arlington, Va.: What do you predict will happen in the Senate runoff in Louisiana next month? With all the money that will be pouring into the media outlets there, all I can say is that, as a VA resident, I'm glad I won't be hearing and seeing all the political ads to which Louisiana residents will be subjected over the next few weeks!

Bill Press: You're right about Louisiana. There's going to so much money poured into that state, it won't be funny. I think Mary Landrieu's got the edge, but Bush will probably move to La. until the election's over, or at least visit it 10 times. Fortunately, the Republicans are stuck with an unattractive, untested and inarticulate candidate. But anything can happen. Get it over with. Either way, Republicans will still control the Senate.

Washington, D.C.: The real story last night was how completely the broadcast networks abdicated their public role. Each of the former big three broadcast one hour only (from 10 to 11 EST); even worse, I couldn't count a single bucolic Dan Rather, "the electorate is ornerier than a buffalo in a rucksack" comment. But they clearly used the excuse of the problems calling Florida last time to bag serious programming for JAG and 24. I believe it will be a key moment in the nadir of broadcast news.

Bill Press: Agree. The coverage was really ho-hum. No plug intended here, but I thought Chris Matthews offered the liveliest broadcast here on MSNBC. Dan Rathers did get off one line about "cracklin' like a hickory fire," but all in all it was pretty lame. Everybody was afraid of getting egg on their face again. Frankly, I realized it was going to take too long to figure it all out, so I went to bed!

Washington, D.C.: In NC yesterday Democrat Erskine Bowles received the same number of votes as Democratic Sen. John Edwards did in 98 -- Elizabeth Dole's winning margin came from roughly 270,000 voters who didn't show up 4 years ago. As a result, Dole carried 22 counties that went for Edwards in 98.

Do you think this means Edwards will plunge ahead with his presidential campaign plans? Or will he reconsider and opt to focus on shoring up his support in Dole country so he can get reelected in 04?

Bill Press: Good question about North Carolina. I really expected Erskine Bowles to come a lot closer. If I were John Edwards today, I would be checking my base very carefully. He's smart, he's young, I like him a lot, but he might be better off working his butt off and running for re-election first, before heading for the big one. Besides, he could always get tapped for V-P.

Lyme, Conn.: How about Senator Chris Dodd for Minority Leader? Would he deliver a stronger message for the Democratic Party?

Bill Press: I'm a big fan of Chris Dodd's. He was a very effective Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and he would make a good Senate Minority Leader. Not to be too political here, but I also like Tom Daschle and think he's done a good job. Rumor on the Hill is that Dodd may make a play to dethrone him.

Orem, Utah Democrat: Isn't that a oxymoron!
While I'm disappointed that the Repubs have regained the Senate, now it's put up or shut time time for the President. He's got his Congress; let's see if his ideas work. For the good of the country, I hope some do work. For the good of Democratic Party, I hope he bombs (no pun intended) miserably. My real disappointment was the win of Erhlich in my home state. He's no moderate; he only plays one in campaign ads!

Bill Press: Welcome! I didn't think there were any Democrats in Utah. Didn't Orrin Hatch chase them all out? Two points. On Maryland, Ehrlich DID fool the voters, but KKT also ran a miserable campaign, starting with her mindless choice of running mate. On GOP success, as I said on today's show, the good news for Republicans is that they control the White House, House and Senate. The bad news for Republicans is that they control the White Hosue, House and Senate. As they say, be careful what you ask for....Now they bear FULL responsiblity for whatever goes wrong over the next two years.

Alexandria, Va.: With control of the Senate already decided, do you think interest in the LA race will be as great as it would have been if the Senate was 49-49-1?

What will happen next week? Will the lame ducks actually try to do something or will they just pass a CR to January (to fund the government) and then go about reorginazation?

Bill Press: Two good questions. On Louisiana, I do think there will be not quite as much attention, as I suggested earlier, because, no matter what happens, Republicans will still have 51 votes. On the lame-duck session, I don't see a lot happening. Republicans still won't have the votes to pass Homeland Security (a stupid plan, by the way) - and there's always the new wild card from Minnesota, Ventura's stooge, to contend with.

Stanton Park, Washington, D.C.: Mr. Press,

A friend claimed that Democrats received more votes in absolute terms in all House elections 1996 to 2000. Is this true? If so, did this happen again?

Bill Press: Frankly, I don't know if it's true or not, and I don't have the resources along of me to check. But, no matter. IT's how many seats you win, not how many total votes you get across the board, that counts.

Washington, D.C.: Like him or not, I think Gore is the only one who will stand up to the Bush principles. Especially if he can be himself and not go by what the analysts say. Do you think he has a chance?

Bill Press: Like him or not? I DO like Al Gore. I admire him for making such a strong speech against the war, when Gephardt and Daschle both crumbled. But where's Al been for the last two years? He should have been speaking out long before this. If he wants to run again in 2004, he's got to get out there and fight for it. Nobody's going to hand it to him this time.

Omaha, Neb.: As a former South Dakotan, I am fascinated with the Senate situation. What are Thune's chances of winning on a recount? On the other hand, does he contest the race based on allegations of voter fraud by the Democrats on some of the numerous Indian reservations?

Bill Press: According to people I've talked to in South Dakota, Johnson's lead is slim but solid. There probably will be a recount, but no change in the outcome. After that, I think it would be a mistake for Republicans to try to blame the election on fraud on the Indian reservations. They have enough trouble with blacks and Latinos, they don't need to alienate Native Americans, too.

Conservative Pressure: Isn't Bush and the Republican Congress going to face pressure from the wing-nut portion of its party (Falwell, the Traditional Values Coalition, the right to lifers, the NRA) to deliver which will irritate the moderates who provided them the victory.

While voters may think they want an Ehrlich or a Talent (right-wingers in Moderate clothing), they may not be so pleased when a more extreme, right-wing agenda takes hold.

Bill Press: Of course, Bush will always face pressure from the extreme religious right - Falwell, Robertson, Lou Sheldon and crown - to swing more to the right. But, I've been impressed with the way he's been able to ignore them so far. He doesn't bow to them, the way other Republican candidates/presidents have. Because he figures they have no place to go. And he's right.

Arlington, Va.: Dear Mr. Press:

I listen to you most mornings on the radio and enjoy it very much.

More a comment than a question -- my take on the election is that the net result is much more centrist. The Senate now has fewer liberal members (no Wellstone/Mondale or Torricelli), but also lost some extreme Republicans (Helms leaps to mind). Your thoughts, and wouldn't it be nice if a more centrist government spent less time on rhetoric and ad hominem attacks and more on substance and issues?

Bill Press: Thanks for listening to WMAL. It's two against one, but I always have a good time. Now, to your question: Yes, I agree, we have a lot more centrists: Democrats acting like Republicans; and vice-versa. But it drives me crazy. Remember, I'm a liberal. I agree that you always have to work together and look for necessary compromise. But I know there are real differences between the parties, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Harrisburg, Pa.: So last night (or this morning) what shocked you the most? Is there a silver lining for the Democrats?

Bill Press: What shocked me the most about last night was the defeat of Max Cleland in Georgia. He's a wonderful man and a good Senator. He's a triple amputee Vietnam vet. And Georgia voters threw him overboard for a ho-hum Saxby Chambless. Shame on them....Silver lining for Democrats? As Frank Sesno said yesterday on our show, the best thing Democrats could hope for would be for Republicans to take complete control over House, Senate and White House. Now it's all in their hands. Whatever goes wrong, they're totally responsible for. Hurts to lose, but could put Democrats in a stronger position.

Leadership Ouster: Who would you oust first?

Bill Press: I'm no longer a party activist. But I think there will be efforts made to dethrone Gephardt - which Harold Ford already started today, on our show - Daschle and Terry McAuliffe. Nobody's safe after a loss like this.

Arlington, Mass.: Here in Boston, we've just seen another Republican win a governor's race in a state full of liberal Democrats. What's your take?

Bill Press: Yes, what the hell is Democratic Massachusetts doing electing another Republican Governor? Beats me. I know Romney started off the anointed one, but I had heard he was starting to fade and that O'Brien was closing in. So, I was surprised. But not too surprised because a good friend of mine, big Dem. contributor in the state, told me he was voting for Romney because he thought, as a businessman, he would do a better job getting the state's fiscal house in order. Go figure.

Washington, D.C.: What time and station number is your radio show? I'd like to start tuning in.

Bill Press: I co-host morning drive on WMAL - 630 a.m. - from 5 to 9 a.m. Check it out....And, while I'm doing a little self-promotion, the paperback edition of my book, SPIN THIS!, just came out. Available at Amazon.com - or your local book store.

Oakton, Va.: Mr. Press --

Just wanted to let you know that I greatly enjoy your work. Keep it up!

Now, on to my question. Now that Bush has a majority in both the House and Senate, it seems likely he will be able to push through his conservative agenda. When he was attempting to push that agenda pre-9/11, his numbers in the polls were tanking, I assume because most Americans don't want anything that's too conservative (just like they don't want anything that's too liberal). If Bush does push his conservative agenda through now, how likley do you think it is that it will come back to bite him in 2004? This is assuming of course that we aren't engaged in some other huge crisis on the international level.

Bill Press: Thanks for the kind words. I share your thesis. There's no doubt Republicans will try to overreach. If they use their power to push through, for example: drilling in Alaska; a giant new, unnecessary government agency for homeland security; lots of right-wing judges; privatization of Social Security; and deny seniors prescription drug coverage as part of Medicare - they will live to regret it in 2004. Having given them so much rope, we can only hope they hang themselves with it.

Richmond, Va.: Virginia had a "status quo" election, too: the incumbent senator and 6 of the 11 incumbent representatives had no major-party opposition, and some of the other races had opponents who didn't present much of a challenge. Here in Henrico County, the opposition was "Cooter" from the Dukes of Hazzard, and the closest result of anything on the ballot was one of the constitutional amendments, at 65-35. I certainly understand why someone here would have chosen to bypass voting this year.
What responsibility do you think the major parties have to actually provide voters with a choice? To put up at least token, serious opposition in every race, at least for federal offices?

Bill Press: Too bad Cooter didn't make it, despite an appearance on "Buchanan and Press!" You're damned right. Both parties have a duty, I believe, to put someone up for every office. Nobody would run unopposed. And, as I said earlier, they should also offer a real choice, based on real issues and real differences between the parties. I've been at this political stuff for 25 years. The ones you respect, regardless of party, are those who believe in something and are willing to fight for something.

S.W. Washington, D.C.: Well, I simply can't say enough about the lack of spine shown by the Dems this year. That Truman quote should be stapled to the forehead of every Democratic senator.

That said, when was the last time a President had the House and Senate and won an election?

Also, how long does Trent Lott have before the wingers take his leadership away?

Bill Press: Sorry, I'm not a walking encyclopedia. Can't tell you the last time a president had both House and Senate and won re-election. But it certainly is no guarantee. And could work against him. As for Trent Lott, there are already rumors that Don Nichols might make a run for his job. Or maybe Bill Frist. Everybody recognizes that Lott was no great shakes at Majority Leader. He's no Bob Dole, nor no George Mitchell.

Boston, Mass.: Do you see any house or senate backbencher who is the Democrats equivalent of Newt Gingrich, someone who is an ideologue driven to reform his party and push it into the majority by challenging the status quo and pushing radical solutions to long-term problems? The two who pop to mind are Barney Frank and the late Paul Wellstone.

Bill Press: Democrats need someone like Newt Gingrich to lead them back to the Promised Land. But it won't be Barney Frank. He's never tried to for leadership. Maybe Nancy Pelosi. Harold Ford is certainly shaking things up, but he insists he's not a candidate. Big opening there for someone with cajones.

Vancouver, British Columbia: Hi Bill, After yesterday's Democratic debacle -- the sole comfort being Johnson's win in S. Dakota -- who will have the nerve to run against George Bush in 2004? I heard Mark Shields say last night that he thought John Edwards might now be spooked out of running. Not sure I agree. What do you think? Thanks!

Bill Press: Who knows about 2004? Yesterday's GOP win will certainly make some White House wannabes think twice, but that only makes it a more attractive longshot for someone willing to go for it, like Bill Clinton in '92. As I said earlier, I think it's also important to look outside the House and Senate: a Governor, sports figure, businessman. Think outside the box. New faces, new ideas, new look, new energy. Of course, my first choice would be for John McCain to quit the GOP and run as a Democrat - with John Kerry for VP.

Bill Press: Gotta go, guys. It was fun. Thanks for hanging in there. Don't forget Buchanan and Press, every afternoon on MSNBC, from 2-4 pm. EST. Bye!

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>