We are back and joined by former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, John Podesta; and former counselor, senior adviser to President George W. Bush, Ambassador Karen Hughes; Bob Woodward, of course, of The Washington Post; and Mark Halperin of Time magazine, he’s also the author of “Game Change.”
Welcome to all of you. So much to get to this morning. Let’s talk about the horrible circumstances in Haiti. On the cover of Newsweek this morning, the president himself writing the cover story “Why Haiti Matters.”
Karen Hughes, you’ve, you’ve seen disaster response up close as part of the Bush administration. Is it too early to make any evaluation of how well it’s going so far, how well the government is mobilizing?
Well, I think the — all the American people want our government to do exactly what our government is doing, and that is try to get help to those people as quickly as we possibly can. I have been through disasters. We had the tsunami in Indonesia. We had the earthquake in Pakistan. I traveled there shortly thereafter. And all the American people — I think it’s a wonderful picture for the world to see two former presidents from different political parties coming together to deliver the compassion of the American people to people in, in desperate need.
And President Bush has wanted to stay away from Washington and kind of out of the spotlight, but he felt the need to get involved here.
Well, I think this is a great way for him to come back into the spotlight, as, as you say. I — he was joking with you about not, not missing it too much, and I don’t think he’s missing the, the, you know, the, being in the news every day. But this is a, a big calling for him and a humanitarian cause that I think everyone’s heart has been touched by this, and he’s glad to do what he can to, to help raise funds for, for this desperate situation.
John Podesta, again, you’ve also seen this kind of disaster release — relief up close, having worked in the White House. How much of our response, our government’s response, is still heavily influenced by mistakes made in the response to Hurricane Katrina?
Well, I think the, the White House got right on this, and, and you saw not just people like Raj Shah, who you had on, Secretary Clinton, but the president himself, the, the very night of the earthquake in the Situation Room directing USAID and the rest of the resources, including our military assets, down towards that. And I think, certainly, they realize that they had to respond with alacrity, and I think they’ve done that. But I, I agree with Karen that I think that this effort, the president asking former President Clinton, former President Bush to come together and do this shows the best of America. The president, in his Newsweek comment, said, “This is who we are, this is what we do,” and I agree with that. And so I think we all need to support that.
America, of course, has a close relationship with Haiti, has been so involved
that’s when the U.S. ends a nearly two-decade occupation of Haiti. More recently, September 1994, 20,000 U.S. troops are sent by President Bill Clinton to help reinstall President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who had been ousted in a violent 1991 coup. February 2004, a controversial end to Aristide’s presidency during another violent rebellion. U.S. Marines land in Haiti to help restore order. Then late summer 2008, four catastrophic tropical storms and hurricanes hit Haiti; hundreds killed, nearly a million homeless or in need of aid. And the U.S. government commits over $30 million in additional humanitarian assistance.
So, Bob Woodward, the cruel irony of this is that you heard President Clinton say Haiti was just about to turn that corner. The question now, given how far back it’s been set, what’s the political will in this country to maintain the kind of commitment to Haiti that Presidents Bush and Clinton are talking about?
Well, I actually think it’s genuine. And what’s interesting politically and morally is you have two former presidents sitting there and saying, “We agree. We’re going to do this.” You have the kind of slasher mentality, the partisan mentality that people who are their backers on both the left and the right tend to engage in this kind of, “Let’s kill the other guy, let’s get out the chainsaw and rip him up.” And then you see the leaders there saying, “Now wait a minute, there is a consensus.” And I, I think when there’s a consensus, a political consensus in this country, people act on it. But this is a monumental disaster. And if you talk to people on the ground — and, I mean, the logistics of getting — I mean, the general was saying 70,000 bottles of water. You know, how much is that compared to what is needed? I think it’s millions of bottles of water, if not tens of millions of bottles of water.
Mark Halperin, we, we see this when we cover presidents. There is an interruption to the presidency of events like this that somehow become a priority that, that an administration never can anticipate.
Well, David, just don’t forget, just a few weeks ago there was another such interruption when there was the attempted — attempt to blow up a plane flying into the United States. That was seen as just this, a chance to take the, the temperature of the United States to say, “Can we come together at a time of crisis in a bipartisan way to try to deal with a big problem?” We’re now getting a second one of those. And from you — as you said, we’re seeing a president who had plans for this month that didn’t involve dealing with this crisis. I think they’re dealing with it extraordinarily well from a mechanical point of view, from a public relations point of view. But it’s going to involve two things going forward, I think. One is continued execution for what Bob suggested, which is getting more stuff there. And I think it’s also an opportunity for the president to try to keep the country together. The two former presidents, Clinton and Bush, come together, but we see Rush Limbaugh say something outrageous and not a lot of repudiation from Republicans in Congress or others to say, “This is unacceptable. It’s a time when the American people are showing our best to help, not a time for that kind of — to try to take partisan….”
But you heard President Bush dismiss that out of hand as doesn’t know what critics would be talking about and, and really focused on going out of his way to compliment the president on, on the response so far.
The former presidents, no question…
Yeah.
…showing extraordinary bipartisan leadership. I’m talking about other Republicans in this country who shouldn’t be silent at, at such an outrageous remark at a time when we should be coming together.
Let’s talk about where this president stands one year in, where there’s now so much on the, on the table. Look at some of these poll numbers that a moment in time capture where he is. From CNN/Opinion Research, “Do you consider the first year of the Obama administration to be a success or failure?” Forty-eight percent say a failure. And then this question from the Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll which asked, “If the 2012 election were held today, who would you vote for?” Fifty percent say somebody else.
John Podesta, there’s a reason why they’re four-year terms. The election is not today, as the White House likes to point out.
Right.
How did the president get to this point?
Well, look, he inherited the worst financial crisis since FDR, he — two wars. We were shedding 700,000 jobs a — in the month that he came into office. He’s had to move in, step in and build, I think, the platform for long-term success with the recovery bill that’s even, even Republicans admit either saved or created one and a half million jobs. He’s got to go further on that, I think. He’s ended up restoring America’s standing in the world. I think that he’s also a hair’s breadth away from actually making health care affordable and — for every American. And I think once that happens, and I think that, that the American people are educated, again, about what’s in that bill and what’s in it for them, I think that he’s, he’s laid the foundation for long-term political success. And, and I think that, that, he’ll, he’ll achieve that, so those numbers will change.
Well…
Karen, you see it differently?
…with all, with all due respect, you’ll notice he went immediately to the blame game. And I hope with the end of this, with this first year in office that we can stop blaming everything. It’s a human tendency to blame your predecessor, but it’s not very presidential. And…
I did, I didn’t even blame the, the — his predecessor. I just…
You started with “he inherited.”
No, I said what the…
Every president…
…what the facts on the ground were when he came into office.
Yeah. Every president inherits challenges. President Bush inherited a recession when, when he took office. I think the, the, the first year has been very disappointing, and the reason is that, that President Obama has not governed as he campaigned. The lofty rhetoric of the campaign has run into the hard realities of governing and, as a result, that euphoria, that Obama bubble has burst. And I believe the punctures were self-inflicted. He tried to do too much. I saw this morning in the newspaper — and don’t take it from a Republican — there was a Democratic senator who said that the American people, when they voted for change, did not think they were voting for higher taxes, higher deficits, and much more government intrusion in their lives. And that was Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.
Bob?
I did some research. Remember Ronald Reagan? If you look at Reagan now, liberals, Democrats, academics say he had a very successful presidency. Pretty universally agreed. Whether that’s right or not, we’ll, we’ll see what the next bounce of history is. But Lou Cannon, who is the White House correspondent for The Washington Post, wrote the — he’s the premiere biographer of Reagan, and after Reagan left two terms, he wrote his monumental work on this. But after a year in the Reagan presidency, Lou also wrote a book which I’m sure he doesn’t want remembered, and it was just called “Reagan.” And I got it out, and this is what Lou Cannon said right at this time in the Reagan presidency in 1982, “Reagan was, for all his optimism, running out of time. His reach had exceeded his grasp. Age and events had dimmed a sense of leadership.” Now get this, “By 1982 it was an axiom in the White House that Reagan, like so many of his modern predecessors, would be a one-term president. I believe that Reagan will not run again.”
But they did lose seats in 1982 in Congress.
Now, now, now what’s important about this, we don’t know with Obama, but it’s also possible for — you know, Lou Cannon was the best. Always kept his, kept his head about Reagan’s positive traits, negative traits. He had it wrong. So, you know, all of these pronouncements about disappointment and so forth I think are crap.
There have, there have — not to put too fine a point on it.
But, Mark Halperin, you know, the president himself said recently the American people are right to be deflated about where we are at this point, which is not an admission that he doesn’t, you know, that he thinks he’s doing a bad job, but the governing is difficult and that the problems are difficult.
Well, look, go back to the campaign. The country took a risk on Barack Obama, he was untested. And if you look at what Hillary Clinton and John McCain both said about him, they said, “He’s just words. He doesn’t know how to run the government.” I think, ironically, it’s just the opposite. He’s done, I think, an extraordinary job running the government, as John said, under difficult circumstances. He managed the economic crisis and kept the world from going into a depression. He staffed the government with very quality, quality people. He showed he could be commander-in-chief and manage these two difficult wars. What I think, ironically, the problem has been is he’s not inspired the country to feel a sense of optimism and renewal and to be unified in a bipartisan way. Those are the things I think people thought he would excel at. Those are, I think, are the problems. He’s making progress in governance, not necessarily in that bully pulpit leadership.
I think he really misread the country. I mean, 2009 was a year of the greatest anxiety I’ve ever seen among the American people. People were worried. They felt they were at the whim of these big forces beyond their control — you know, Wall Street and banks failing and businesses that were too big to fail. And rather than calm that anxiety, I worry that President Obama in being overly ambitious and pushing this massive health care that people worry we can’t pay for and, and will have unintended consequences, he actually exacerbated that anxiety. And so I think he fundamentally misread the country. And I, I have to disagree with you, Mark, about
rescuing the economy, I think that happened before President Bush left office when they took the action that they did on TARP, and the banks have now repaid much of that money, but that’s what stabilized the economy and prevented the collapse of the financial system.
But he ran on health care, and President Bush went for Social Security in that year one of that second term, because presidents know you’ve got a window to work with.
I just think he did too — he tried to do too much at a time when the American people were fundamentally most concerned about the, the economy and the jobs.
Yeah, look, I think President Obama had a theory of the case, and that was that in order to create long-term sustainable growth that was going to get wages growing again so that the growth was fairly shared for — with the American people. He had to reform health care, he had to change the way we use and produce energy and, and move to a clean energy future, he had to reform public education. And I think that was his theory of the case. He, he injected himself into all those things. The House has actually passed, including financial regulatory reform, all those matters. The question is was that theory right? I believe it was. And when will it take effect?
Well, it’s interesting you, you…
And that, that is going to be measured by when do we get jobs grown again?
Jobs. But also, if there’s a theory of the case, it’s also a populous pitch that we’re hearing from this president. Here’s the cover of The Economist magazine as it talks about what the president has to do in a new year, “Time to get tough.” And this was the weekly radio address when the president talked about the banks in this country and a tax that he wants to levy against the banks to — as part of the TARP process and reclaiming some of that money. This is what he said yesterday:
Of course, I would like the banks to embrace the sense of mutual responsibility. So far, though, they have ferociously fought financial reform. The industry’s even joined forces with the opposition party to launch a massive lobbying campaign against commonsense rules to protect consumers and prevent another crisis. Now, like clockwork, the banks and the politicians who curry their favor are already trying to stop this fee from going into effect. The very same firms reaping billions of dollars in profits and reportedly handing out more money in bonuses and compensation than ever before in history are now pleading poverty. It’s a sight to see.
Bob Woodward, I mean, this is clear, he wants a fight with the banks, they want a fight on financial reform as part of this election year.
Well, not only that, but you, you talk of the theory of the case. I think one of the things, either rightly or wrongly, President Obama has done is said, “Look, we’ve got these
massive problems. We’re not going to solve them in a year or two years.” And it — in, in, in the world of politics and management it’s called strategic thinking. Go down the line, two or three or even five years, what do you want to do? And there are no fixes here. He realizes that and has set up a program. Now I, you know, I think Karen’s right in part that President Bush actually laid the groundwork for saving the economy, but Obama certainly has followed on that. And lots of the things that seem to be success, namely saving the banks, which Bush and Obama did. And, and, and if you really talk to the economists, it saved the American economy. Now the success looks like a failure because they’re paying all those bonuses.
You, you raised President Bush. Karen, I’ve been meaning to ask you this, in terms of taking the longer view, one thing that hasn’t happened is that former Vice President Cheney has taken a shorter time horizon, has been very critical of this president on national security. How does President Bush, who has remained quiet, feel about his former vice president being so critical of this president?
Well, I think, you know, you have to look at the fact that, that Vice President Cheney has served this country as a congressman, as a secretary of defense, as a chief of staff to the president, as the vice president. Far be it from me to suggest that he doesn’t have the full right to exercise his free speech and, and speak out as he can. President Bush has taken a different approach, has said he thought that he owes his, his — the — President Obama his silence, and so I, I think that he will continue to maintain that. I do think that President…
But is he critical of his former vice president? Does he disagree with that speaking out?
Well, again, I, I, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to put words in, in President Bush’s mouth. His interview with you was about Haiti, and I think that’s what he chose to talk about. I do feel that, that…
This is a way of saying read President Bush’s book when it comes out.
Well, I just don’t think it’s appropriate for me, for me to share that. But I, I do think that, that President Obama has, has made some decisions that have been very ill-advised in the area of national security. For example, the, the decision to try the, the, the Christmas Day — the al-Qaeda operative who came here to engage in an act of war against our country on, on Christmas Day in civilian courts is a mistake. He’s someone who was training in the training camps in Yemen. He might have knowledge of other pending attacks against our country. He should have been interrogated, legally, and, and designated as an enemy combatant and interrogated.
He did provide a good deal of information just being interrogated by existing methods.
Well, he could have used that. And…
No, he, he, he was, he provided a lot of information so far.
I hope so. But I — again, I think it’s a mistake to take someone — we have to be very honest about what, what is at stake in…
That is exactly…
…in this war against al-Qaeda.
That’s exactly what the Bush administration did with Mr. Reid, the shoe bomber, who was in very similar circumstances, was traveling to the United States.
Circumstances weren’t similar. He was not sent here by al-Qaeda to engage in an act of war against our country. It was not a similar situation.
Let me, let me get — bring — turn the, the, the subject to the politics of health care and, and fighting with the banks and the politics of Massachusetts, Mark Halperin. Today President Obama is on his way to campaign for Martha Coakley. She’s running hard, trying to fill that seat that was held by Senator Kennedy, and she faces a very tough fight in Scott Brown, who is the state senator who, in some ways, seemed to come out of nowhere, as a — been an effective campaigner and debater. And now this, this is a tough race. The White House, in fact, is bracing for a loss here by Coakley. They are talking about different routes to get health care passed even if she loses. What’s going to happen?
The press is famous for over interpreting the results of special elections historically. This one can not be overstated. The political and substantive implications of this race are enormous, not in the short — only in the short term, but in the long term. You are right, David, the White House believes this race is probably slipping away from them. They hold out some hope, that’s why the president’s going. There is a silver lining for them if they lose this race, which is, at that point, the only way I see they can pass health care is to go to the House of Representatives and say, “You must pass the Senate bill. We’ll work with you in order to try to find a way to make it better with other legislation.” But the benefits of that are twofold. One, they prefer the Senate bill. To extent the bill was going to move to the left in negotiations between the House and Senate, the White House didn’t like it. And they only have to have one vote then. They don’t have to re-vote in the Senate. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson don’t hold vetoes over a final bill.
What about the impact of the president? Does he have — what, what does he do coming in at the last minute?
Well, I mean, it may help. It may hurt. But, you know, what’s interesting from, who is Barack Obama as president? And, and, and there are people who tried — there was a column The Washington Post Friday in which Charles Krauthammer tried to essentially say he is a European-style socialist because of health care and he’s trying to do these other things. Now, I’m trying to do a book on President Obama, and calling him a European socialist is just not even in the ballpark. It’s like taking and calling President Bush, because he arranged and worked with Teddy Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, or a prescription drug plan for the elderly, calling George Bush a European socialist, which would be absurd.
Well, I’m not in the name-calling game…
Barack Obama is not that.
…but, Bob, would you, would you admit that he has governed far to the left of the way he campaigned? He campaigned as a centrist and has not governed that way.
Listen, I tell you, look at so many of these things that he’s done with the economy, so many of these things in national security. He sent — ordered 51,000 troops to Afghanistan. I mean, I mean that’s something…
And I, and I think that was right, and I applaud him for that. I, I applaud him for that decision.
OK, but that is a defining decision. Anyway, but we’ll see whether it works out and how it turns out.
John, John Podesta, what are the reverberations of Massachusetts?
I think they’d be big if, if she loses. I think actually that, that Martha Coakley will probably scratch it out at the end of the day. I, I take what Mark has, has to say, but I think she’ll probably scratch it out because they’ve — they’re are throwing everything at it. But it’ll, it’ll be big. I, I agree with Mark about one thing. I think that there are paths forward and that the, the Congress will find a way to pass healthcare reform because they know they absolutely have to do that having gotten this far. And there, there are a variety of different paths.
I think that the one thing I disagreed with about — that he said was I don’t think the, the White House would be happy with just the Senate bill passing. I think they want to see some changes and they have to find a way through reconciliation or…
If, but…
…other processes to get that through Congress.
If it passes, Karen, how do Republicans campaign on health care? Do they campaign against it, and will they be successful doing so?
Well, I think, I think if it passes, that’s almost the worst case scenario for the Democrats because it’s going to cost a lot more than we’ve been told and it’s going to have a lot of unintended consequences. So it’s — it would be bad for the Democrats if a bill didn’t pass. It would be worse for the Democrats if this bill passes.
Yes. Yeah, it’s, you know…
And I think it’s a victory for Republicans that we’re sitting here talking about the Massachusetts Senate race.
They do have….
We’re talking about Massachusetts. Massachusetts passed universal health care under a Republican governor and Democratic legislature. At the time, a majority of the people, having watched the sausage making, were against the, the bill by the time it finally passed. Today 80 percent don’t want to see it repealed. So things change.
And it’s been more expensive and less effective than promised.
Things, things, things change once they’re in effect. And I — if the, if the Republicans campaign on repealing a bill that extends coverage to 31 million people, creates an affordable platform for going forward…
All right.
…I think it would be a big mistake.
All right. The debate’s going to continue. We’re going to leave it there. Thank you all very much.
[transcript via MSNBC]
No related posts.