With David S. Broder Washington Post Columnist/Reporter Tuesday, July 15, 2003; 11:00 a.m. ET
Mounting casualties in Iraq, the ongoing controversy over the use of U.S. intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and the poor state of the economy have taken their toll on President Bush's approval ratings. A Post-ABC News poll shows the president's approval down 9 points in less than three weeks. What does this mean for Bush's re-election effort? Is he vulnerable to any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates seeking the 2004 nomination? Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and columnist David S. Broder was online Tuesday, July 15, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the president's political future and the fallout over Iraq and the economy. Broder has written extensively about primaries, elections, special interests and the business of politics. His books include "Democracy Derailed: The Initiative Movement & the Power of Money," "Behind the Front Page: A Candid Look at How the News Is Made" and "The System: The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point." 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
washingtonpost.com: David Broder, thank you for joining us online. In your column today, you say that if Bush loses in 2004, we can look back at last Thursday as "the day the shadow of defeat first crossed his political horizon." How likely is that?
David S. Broder: I do not know how likely it is. The reason I wrote the column was to question the assumption that he is unbeatable. That's as far as I would go today--saying that he may be beatable. That is very different from saying it is likely he will lose.
________________________________________________
Utica, NY: Does the current unraveling of the administrations control on "the message" remind you at all of the Watergate days?
David S. Broder: No. But the lesson of Watergate amd ptjer scamda;s os that the coverup--shirking responsibility--is ultimately far more damaging than the original action or mistake. That is a lesson each new administration ignores at its peril.
________________________________________________
Melbourne, FL: Do you think if Gore were to re-enter, he could beat Bush? Also, which 2-3 of the present candidates do you see having any chance of beating Bush?
David S. Broder: I can't imagine Gore re-entering the race at this point, so I have spent no time calculating his chances of beating Bush. I can't reduce the range of Democratic possibilities to two or three. I think there are 4 1/2 or 5 who have a realistic chance of catching on.
________________________________________________
State College, PA: With all this mounting media pressure on the President, why do you think the public outcry seems so small in comparison to the backlash Clinton suffered and even Gore suffered with his slightly embellished claims during his campaign?
David S. Broder: I would urge you to withhold judgment on the public reaction for some time. Things trickle out slowly from Washington to the country. The most worrisome long-term facto, I believe, lies in the daily casualty reports from Iraq. That, more than anything else, could reopen the question of the rationale for going to war.
________________________________________________
Rochester, NY: Assuming President Bush is beatable, which candidate has the best chance to beat him? Each candidate has different strengths and certain candidates are riding high right now, but in the end after all is said and done, who do you think will come out of the primary to defeat Bush?
David S. Broder: As I said a moment ago, I think 4 or 5 of the Democrats have a realistic chance, and we will not know until votes are cast in the early caucuses and primaries.
________________________________________________
Boone, NC: Liebermann's campaign recently had some turmoil, which when public, usually means there's significant problems for the Candidate. Do you see Liebermann being the first of the major Dems to bow out? If not, which of the major Dems would you guess will go first?
[Read the Post's story Lieberman's Top Fundraisers Leaving]
David S. Broder: Again, I do not know who will be first over the line or first ut of the race. Lieberman has had problems getting his campaign working, but so did Gore at a similar point in the 2000 nomination contest.
________________________________________________
Fort Hood, Texas: Mr. Broder, what do you think the chances are the former Nato Supreme Commander Wesley Clark might run for President? And what do you make of his chances if he does? Would his nomination be problematic for Karl Rove's strategy?
Thanks from Fort Hood, Texas.
David S. Broder: I do not know General Clark well enough to decipher what is going on in his mind. Every day he delays announcing makes his candidacy more difficult, I would think.
________________________________________________
Richmond, Virginia: Do you find any similarities between this administration's legalistic parsing of Bush's language in the State of the Union and the parsing over the word "is" with regard to President Clinton's scandal?
David S. Broder: Yes.
________________________________________________
New Rochelle, NY: Do you think that the Democrats are in as much trouble as most people think? It's only July 15, and we are 7 months from the primary season. Should the democrats be cut more slack?
David S. Broder: The Democrats have some serious challenges to overcome--financial and political--but. as I've said to previous questioners, I do not think the electi9n of 2004 is decided in the summer of 2003. We will have a contest.
________________________________________________
Bowie:
Do any of the Democrats fall into the category of "could win the general election, but can't get nominated" or vice-versa?
David S. Broder: Given the current odds, you cannot make the case that any of the Democrats is a sure winner in November 2004. But much can and will change. I put little stock in the current horse-race polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, because most of the people who will vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, S. Carolina and other early contests have not spent 30 seconds thinking about the candidate they will support. That dynamic is yet to unfold.
________________________________________________
Topeka, KS: Mr. Broder,
You've written an excellent essay today, but shouldn't it also be pointed out that the very worst thing in the world right now is the possibility that Bush was actually correct in all his claims against Hussein, but by attacking the country and using a "less is more" troop plan, has scattered that nation's WMDs to the four winds? Doesn't that mean that, while Iraq might be better off, our attacks on the country have actually made our country less safe?
David S. Broder: If Saddam's arsenal has indeed been dispersed, as you suggest, it would very worrisome for the U.S. and for other cuntries in the region. I do not know if that is what happened.
________________________________________________
Memphis: Soooo...who are the 4 1/2 or 5 Dems that have a chance against Bush?
David S. Broder: I would say the leading prospects are those who hold or have recently held elective office--the four senators, the former governor and the former leader of the House Democrats. Two of the senators--Lieberman and Graham--appear to be a bit behind Kerry and Edwards in organizing for the first round of contests, but have time to make up ground. I think Dean and Gephardt are serious contenders, certainly in the early round of contests.
________________________________________________
Reston, VA:
Mr. Broder,
Do you see any similarities between the state of Mr. Bush's presidency today and his father's presidency in 1991 regarding his chances of getting re-elected?
David S. Broder: There are parallels, but also significant differences. This Bush is much more attuned to domestic politics than his father, but he is at risk, as his father was, from the weak economy and the equivocal situation in Iraq.
________________________________________________
New York: Do you see the growing rift between left leaning and even ordinary democrats and the DLC as posing a serious problem in orgazinzing a clear and succint democratic message? What needs to be done to unite the democrats and present a clear alternative to Bush?
David S. Broder: Ultimately, the message of the Democratic Party in 2004 will be set by its presidential nominee and the party is likely to look more unified once that nominee is known. There are real differences among Democrats; take the trade issue, for example. But those will be settled, at least for a time, by the presidential nominee's statements.
________________________________________________
Marysville, WA: Mr. Broder,
Tony Blair seems to be in much more immediate trouble then Bush. What impact would a political change in Britain have on the US?
David S. Broder: Not much directly, I suspect. And Blair's parliamentary majority will make it very difficult for dissident Labor members to unseat him before the next general election there.
________________________________________________
northfield, mn. : Do you believe the huge campaign fund advantage the Republicans have already amassed is just to great for the Democrats to overcome?
David S. Broder: It will give Bush and the Republicans a powerful tool in the winter, spring and summer of 2004--enabling them to help define the Democratic opposition and to prepare for turning out their vote in November. It is one of many institutional advantages for the incumbent, which means that he will have to be challenged on issues and be seen--as he is not today--as a failed president for the Democrats to win.
________________________________________________
Takoma DC : You mentioned that the casualties in Iraq pose a political problem for the president. What about the casualties of jobs here in the US? Will the economy still be a threat for the President or will the lingering Iraq situation over shadow it?
David S. Broder: Yws. And the Republicans have placed a big and risky bet on their economic-fiscal policy.
________________________________________________
Cincinnati, OH:
Does the intelligence problems and continuing questions about the war in Iraq strengthen Howard Dean in a way which it does not other Democractic candidates who voted to authorize the war?
David S. Broder: I would think that at least marginally, it does benefit Dean. But the more significant factor is that, for the first time, Democrats who were divided on the war have found common ground for criticizing the president's approach to the conflict and the management of postwar Iraq.
________________________________________________
Fairfax, VA: How likely do you think a Nader presidential run will be in '04 and what affect will it have on the race if it happens?
David S. Broder: I do not know what Nader will do. But if he runs, he will likely have a harder time convincing voters who supported him last time that there is no "a dime's worth of difference" (as George Wallace used to say) between having a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. It was never true, but Nader managed to make that argument stick in 2000.
________________________________________________
Burlington, VT: How big a factor do you think the projected deficits will be in the 2004 election?
David S. Broder: I don't know. Someone would need to step forward as Ross Perot did in 92 and explain to the American people the cost to them and to the country of passing on this huge debt to the next generation.
________________________________________________
Atlanta, Georgia: You say that Bush is NOT a failed president at the moment. What are three or four of his great successes?
David S. Broder: What most impressed the voters I have interviewed was his demeanor and sense of command after 9/11. The military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq redound to his credit, as does the fact we have not (knock on wood) had nother terrorist attack in this country. His domestic policies have been more controversial, and I have been critical of some of them, but obviously the tax cuts appealed to many Americans.
________________________________________________
Tokyo, Japan:
In light of the continuing battle against Al
Queda and the occupation of Iraq, how do
President Bush's statements and actions
compare to those of past wartime presidents
who had difficulty foreseeing how the future
would unfold in the midst of the struggle
they faced?
David S. Broder: That is a searching question. No wartime president of whom I have read--Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, etc--has had 20-20 foresight. Some have been more disastrously wrong than others--think of Lyndon Johnson. Bur my own powers of prophecy are not good enough to say where this president will rank.
________________________________________________
Lakewood, Washington: Why is the media only now questioning the credibility of the Bush Administrations WMD claims? It was common currency in the anti-war community before the war that these claims were exaggerated as were the claims of an al Qaeda connection. Is it because the prediction of many who opposed the war that Iraq could become an American "West Bank" now seems likely?
David S. Broder: You may be right in questioning the media performance before the war, but my impression is that there was more serious and extended debate about the need for the war in the press than in Congress. I have to say I was persuaded that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, though I argued at the time that a postwar Iraq was likely to pose greater challenges to the U.S. than the administration acknowledged. But the debate about the justification for the war is certainly more intense now than it was then. And we in the press cannot escape our share of responsibility for that.
________________________________________________
Houston, TX: The economy is beginning to get pretty bad even here in Houston. Even so, it does'nt seem to effect the president or the ruling party's numbers. What would it take to see some sort of public backlash in the next election?
David S. Broder: Again, I would urge some caution. The current environment--both at home and abroad--is full of peril for the administration, but opinion moves slowly in this country and I would not expect to see a "backlash" as yet.
________________________________________________
Bethesda: I've read many times that we won "the war" in Iraq brilliantly but may lose "the peace". Do you think that if our soldiers continue to be killed and we continue to fight we may eventually reevaluate that statement. I know the President said the major fighting was over but it looks to me like there's still a war and that we never actually defeated the enemy so much as we occupied some territory.
David S. Broder: As a non-expert in military affairs, I am prepared to believe that the occupation of Iraq with minimal casualties and little delay represented a triumph for the commanders and the troops. But occupation is not victory, as you point out, and the difficulties we are facing there are real and painful.
________________________________________________
Louisville, KY: How does the post-9/11 Bush compare with your impression of Carter during the first months of the hostage crisis in Tehran?
David S. Broder: It is difficult to compare the two presidents, when the nature of the challenges was so different. Bush avoided Carter's mistake of isolating himself from the country for months, but it remains to be seen if his policy response is more effective than Carter's.
________________________________________________
Shepherdstown, WV: David,
You wrote an article a year ago touting Dean as the Democrat to watch. Now that he's being watched, who, or what, would you say Dean needs to watch out for?
David S. Broder: I'm not sure I deserve any credit for prescience on Dean. When I wrote about him last summer campaigning in Iowa, it was simply because the Post wanted to take note of his candidacy--along with others we also wrote about at the time. What I saw then was someone who was more effective talking with voters than he had been, in other settings, when he was dealing with other politicians. A successful president has to be able to do both, and one test for Dean will be whether he can begin to translate his popular support into expressions of confidence from other Democratic elected officials.
________________________________________________
Knoxville, TN: News is always slow during the summer, which means the media is looking for a story. That rarely translates into anything good for any incumbent, including the president. While Bush is squirming a bit right now, isn't it a bit too early to put a nail in his coffin, especially given the gaggle of Democrat hopefuls who themselves have no platform, other than beating up Bush? Furthermore, it seems that everytime the media and/or Democrats underestimate Bush is when he "surprises" everyone.
David S. Broder: I think that's a very wise caution. And I hope I have been clear that I'm noi in the business of nailing anything into coffins.
________________________________________________
annandale, virginia: Don't you think the press shares some responsibility for the public buying into Bush's pre-war arguments that intelligence showed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq had connections to El Quaeda?
David S. Broder: Yes. as I said two or three questions ago, I think we (meaning me as well as others) have to accept our share of that responsibility.
________________________________________________
Dallas, Texas: I am continually amazed at the public disconnect between the seriously bad state of this administration's economy, the mistakes in Iraq and other foreign policy blunders, and President Bush's continually high approval ratings (even after this latest drop). If this situation had been caused by the Clinton team articles of impeachment would have already been filed. Why has he been so able to avoid responsibility?
David S. Broder: I doubt that Clinton would have been impeached over a similar economy and foreign policy record. But, once again, it would be a big mistake in my view to think that the president is out of the woods on either the economy or foreign policy. Opinion shifts slowsly in this country, but it has been shifting.
________________________________________________
Dawsonville, Maryland: Mr Broder,
Just how poisoned is the political atmosphere in Washington? Do you think the congressionla leaders have ceded too much power to the president and the administration?
David S. Broder: The partisan poison is pretty strong at this point. House Republicans are generally very willing to follow the president's lead; Senate Republicans, less so. The Democrats have been slow to find their voice, but they are beginning to do so.
________________________________________________
Anderson, South Carolina: Don't you think the job losses pose as great a threat to Bush's reelection as the Iraq quagmire?
David S. Broder: Yes.
I'm afraid that has to be my last question. Thank you all for a stimulating hour.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com: Thank you David Broder for joining us online today.
________________________________________________
| |
 |