LYNN NEARY, host:
This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Lynn Neary in Washington, sitting in for Neal Conan.
There's a new battle these days on Capitol Hill, but the volleys are not being shot across the aisle. Instead, a partisan bickering and intraparty battle is being waged between moderate and conservative Republicans. Congressional Republicans are disagreeing over their own agenda from tax and spending cuts to oil drilling in Alaska. Last week House Republican leaders were forced to postpone the vote on a bill that would cut spending by more than $50 billion when moderates in the party withheld their support. In the Senate, the Finance Committee couldn't muster the votes for its bill to cut taxes by almost $70 billion.
The dissention among Republicans comes on the heels of a politically turbulent time for President Bush and the GOP. Hurricane Katrina, the indictments of vice presidential aide Lewis Libby and former House leader Tom DeLay, questions about the use of torture on detainees and news stories about secret CIA prisons overseas all have contributed to the breakdown in the GOP's famous party discipline. The latest sign of unease came today as Senate Republicans called on the president to explain his Iraq policy.
Today what are Republicans fighting about and why? And what does it mean for the future of the GOP? Join the conversation. We'd especially like to hear from Republicans this hour. What are your priorities? What direction do you want to see your party take? Our number here in Washington: (800) 989-8255. That's (800) 989-TALK. And our e-mail address is totn@npr.org.
And joining me now in Studio 3A is NPR's political editor Ken Rudin.
Ken, thanks for being with us.
KEN RUDIN (NPR Political Editor): Hi, Lynn.
NEARY: Let's start with what happened today. The Senate called on President Bush to explain his strategy for ending the war in Iraq and to report every three months on progress until all US troops are withdrawn. Are Republican senators now getting worried about the war? What's the meaning of this?
RUDIN: Well, everybody's worried about the war and the polls show that, not only Democrats and Independents, but Republicans as well. But actually what the Senate passed was a weakened version of what the Democrats had first proposed and that was basically an effort to set an outline for a time table for a ...(unintelligible) withdrawal of troops from Iraq and that was defeated 58-40. And then the Republicans came up with a weaker version. But, still, it's still not carte blanche policy for President Bush in Iraq. It calls on the president to advise the American people and Congress every so--couple of months about the conduct of the policy and the progress of the policy and, again, calling for a--I almost like to say Vietnamization because it's almost like a--basically, they want the Iraqis to take a greater role in the fighting. But, of course, the original thing--Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, `The Democrats only care about cutting and running and they only believe in defeatism.' And Harry Reid, the Democratic leader said, `Look, this has gone on far enough. We need some kind of a change in policy. This policy is clearly not working.' That's the divide between the two parties on Iraq.
NEARY: Mm-hmm. And there were other issues where the Republicans are pushing back against the White House. Senators voted to endorse the Bush administration's military tribunals, but also to allow detainees to appeal their status to the federal court.
RUDIN: This is the historic six-year itch, and that is when a party's been in party in the White House for six years and 2006 will be six years of the Bush White House in power, the congressional Republicans start to get nervous. One, President Bush cannot run for a third term, so you know he will not be on the ballot again. And, two, every member of the House and one-third of the Senate is up next year, and they really have to fend for themselves. So given the fact that the Bush--the president's poll numbers are at a historical low, given the quagmire in Iraq, given, as you say, the indictments of Lewis Libby and Tom DeLay and the culture of corruption Democrats like to say about the Republicans, and given the fact that, you know, everything else that's--the unease in the country, Republicans are nervous and rightly so.
NEARY: Because the divisions that we're seeing sort of on the surface now or erupting now have been below the surface of the Republican Party for a while. But they've been very disciplined. Why is that discipline breaking down?
RUDIN: Well...
NEARY: Does it have something to do with Tom DeLay?
RUDIN: Well, I--part of--well, it's like a--you know, what Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle, like, you know, `I know Tom DeLay and, Roy Blunt, you're no Tom DeLay,' I mean, the new--the acting majority leader of the House. But it's more that. It's really a lot of conservatives in the House have seen basically, you know, unstoppable spending on programs in the last five years ostensibly under a conservative leadership in Congress and the White House. And some of these conservatives have said, `Enough is enough. We've got to have some kind of fiscal restraint or we don't stand for anything as a party.'
And so they push these--some people say Draconian cuts, but they've pushed these cuts along in spending and, you know, it's in programs like school lunches and student loans and food stamps. And a lot of Republicans say, `Well, whoa'--a lot of moderate Republicans say, `Wait a second. You know, we have to run for re-election next year'...
NEARY: Right.
RUDIN: ...in a lot of these states that are not hospitable to Republican ideals.
NEARY: So is this in part about what is the strategy for winning, in some sense, in the sense that moderates are saying, you know, `Can we, you know, push for more tax cuts when we're calling for--cutting back on programs for the poor? That's not the way to win back voters.' Is that part of what's going on here?
RUDIN: It's a combination of survival, like re-election in 2006, and principle. Conservatives feel like if we stand for anything, we've got to make our stand on fiscal responsibility.
NEARY: Yeah. What about the recent elections? Republicans lost governor races in Virginia and New Jersey.
RUDIN: Well, you know, I think we overanalyze that to death at--probably I do, too. But, first of all, I mean, you can say that in 2001 when Bush's numbers were really, really high, Democrats won in Virginia and New Jersey as well. So we could say, you know, `It doesn't really mean that much.' Having said that, given the fact that the president's numbers are low, given the fact that a lot of generic polls show that most people would rather have Democrats in control of Congress than Republicans, there was a definite unease in GOP ranks.
NEARY: Is this a real sort of battle also just for control of the party? I mean, are the moderates saying, `We're tired of the conservatives--the social conservatives now'?
RUDIN: It's always been--I'm sorry, there's always been a battle in the party and actually the moderates really don't control that much of the party. I mean, if the party is--look, the party may be 95 percent strongly conservative and 5 percent moderate, but if you have a tightly divided Senate Finance Committee and one senator, in this case, Olympia Snowe of Maine, says, `I'm not going along with these tax cuts,' the Republican plan is in trouble. If you have an over--if you have a 15-vote margin in the House and a handful of moderates say, `I don't want ANWR in this package. I can't sell it back home,' the thing is in--the package is in trouble. So, again, it's an overwhelmingly conservative party. It's not really equally divided at all.
NEARY: Right.
RUDIN: But there are a handful of moderates that could make the difference.
NEARY: Yeah. And we've been talking about the moderates pushing against the conservatives, but even within the conservative within the party, aren't there different--aren't there different kinds of conservatives?
RUDIN: Oh, absolutely.
NEARY: And how is that playing out in...
RUDIN: Well, there are certainly social conservatives who--you know, who are obviously more of the religious conservatives, the religious right. There are fiscal conservatives who say that `George Bush is not one of us.' There--people like, you know, Jeff Flake and Mike Pence of Indiana, members of Congress says, `This spending is getting out of control. This is not what we ran on to get elected in the first place. This is not what we should stand for.'
NEARY: Yeah. What about leadership from the White House? Where's the White House now in terms of its ability to influence what's going on on Capitol Hill?
RUDIN: Well, figuratively, President Bush is off to Asia, and he can't be lobbying for these packages. But, again, his--again, as I said before, in the sixth year, it's really every man for--and woman for him or herself. The president's numbers are really down, and so you say, `Look, do I take--orders from the White House? Do I take orders from Karl Rove? Or do I look at the polls in my home district?' If the latter wins out, which it probably will, then the Bush influence on House Republicans is less and less.
NEARY: Apart from the polls, what do we know sort of anecdotally or what do we know about what members of Congress are hearing directly from their constituents?
RUDIN: Well, a perfect example is Jim Nussle, a congressman from Iowa, he's the chairman of the House Budget Committee. He is running--he's also giving up his House seat next year to run for governor. He is responsible or partly responsible for getting these packages of spending cuts through Congress: again, the school lunches, the--you know, Medicare cuts, Medicaid cuts. How do you push that through Congress and then go home and run for governor saying, `Wait a second, I may have hurt my own state'? So there are conflicts--personal conflicts from a lot of members of Congress, and that's what's determining what they do and now they vote.
NEARY: Let's see if we can get a call in here before the break. We're talking about dissention in the ranks of the GOP. The number, if you'd like to join our discussion, with NPR political editor Ken Rudin, is (800) 989-8255. We're going to take a call from Joel, and he is in San Diego, California.
Hi, Joel. You there? Hello, Joel. Not...
RUDIN: Joel's with the silent majority.
NEARY: Joel is not there. Perhaps Tim in Phoenix is there. Tim, are you there? I think we're having a little...
TIM (Caller): Thank you very much, and I wanted to say I totally agree with what Ken has brought forward. I am a fiscal conservative, registered Republican, but I'm also happy to say that I did not vote for the president nor his Iraq policy over the past few years. I'm very disappointed with the fact that on one hand we see burgeoning spending, on the other hand, we see someone touting tax reductions. You cannot do both. You have to take one or the other. And I'm finally quite disappointed with our hyperfocus with a skirmish in the Middle East when we're avoiding major issues here in America. First and foremost would be the illegal border crossing down here in the Southwest. They're coming over by the thousands, completely unpatrolled. And I cannot tolerate that.
NEARY: So what does this mean, Tim, for you in terms of what you're thinking about when elections come up in your area?
TIM: Well, I'll tell you what, I'll tell every moderate Republican that if they have a replacement similar to Bush, they've got to switch parties. Because it's just not cutting the cake.
NEARY: OK. Thanks for your call, Tim.
TIM: Thank you.
RUDIN: You know something. We've been talking about everything else, but Tim makes a very important point: Immigration is also splitting the Republican Party down the middle. President Bush and the Chamber of Commerce and groups like that say, `Look, we should have more immigrants in the country, more--even if they're illegal immigrants, give them more opportunities for jobs.' And there are certainly social conservatives and people who live in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, California who say, `We're being inundated. It's like an invasion, and something's got to be done about that.' And you'll see that split in Republican primaries next year.
NEARY: All right. Thanks for your call, Tim.
And what about other Republican priorities. They just seem to be disappearing, what the original congressional agenda was: Social Security reform, permanent repeal of the estate tax...
RUDIN: Well, as far as Social Security reform, I think that was more of a Bush proposal and a Bush priority than a congressional proposal, and that seems to have gone by the wayside. And the permanent--again, the permanent cut in the estate tax, that's finding serious obstruction in the Senate by people like Olympia Snowe. But, again, if they get rid of that, then you have conservatives like Mike Crapo, the senator, who said, `If you take out the estate tax permanent cut, then I won't vote for it either.' So, you know, if you appease the moderates, you lose conservatives and vice versa, and that's the fight they have.
NEARY: OK. We are talking about dissention within the Republican Party, some of the problems the GOP is facing right now. Coming up next, Congressman Charles Bass joins us with a moderate view of the situation. Stay tuned and give us a call if you'd like to join the discussion at (800) 989-8255. NPR political editor Ken Rudin will stay with me.
I'm Lynn Neary. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.
(Soundbite of music)
NEARY: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Lynn Neary in Washington.
It's an unusual moment for Republicans in Congress. Fault lines are opening up over issues ranging from the Iraq War to tax cuts. We're talking about where the party may be headed and we want to hear from you. If you're a Republican, what are the issues most important to you and who are the leaders that are gaining your confidence? Give us a call at (800) 989-8255. And, of course, you can send us an e-mail to totn@npr.org.
Joining me in Studio 3A is NPR's Ken Rudin, and joining us now from Manchester is Congressman Charles Bass, Republican of New Hampshire.
Thanks so much for being with us, Congressman Bass.
Representative CHARLES BASS (Republican, New Hampshire): Good to be with you.
NEARY: Let me ask you first about something that happened last week. You were instrumental in getting a provision that would have allowed for drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge removed from the budget bill. Now how hard was it for you to go up against your party on that issue? That was a--that had to have been a pretty tough one.
Rep. BASS: Drilling the arctic wilderness has not business being in a budget document. It was just taking away from the primary message of the bill which was efforts to reduce the growth of entitlements. And so I just wrote a letter to leadership. I was planning to do it myself, actually, reminding them that they--not to call me if they wanted my vote if that was in there. And 24 other people came forward and said they wanted to join me. I gave it to them a week and a half ago and they called us in and said, `Well, if we take it out, how many of you will give us a commitment to vote for the package?' And 14 or 15 of us said, `We will.' So that was that, out it went. Pretty straightforward.
NEARY: How much is...
Rep. BASS: But, you know, I think most Americans, you know, don't like to see that kind of legislation in a budget bill. Drilling in the ANWR, in the arctic wildlife preserve is a separate issue. It's not a budget issue. Just 'cause it can't get 60 votes in the Senate doesn't mean that you should try to get around the Senate bill by putting it into the budget.
NEARY: You know, I'm just wondering how much the political atmosphere has changed, and would it have been possible to get that many people to support you on that, like, three months ago, let's say?
Rep. BASS: Good point. Because I voted against the House budget, even though it didn't have drilling in the arctic wilderness in it, but it had the capability of having it in it by giving the committee instructions to find savings, even though they weren't enumerated and there were only four or five of us then. And now another 10 signed on and that may be reflective of the fact that there's less faith in the direction of the Republican leadership right now and certainly reflected by the fact that we don't really have an acting majority leader and an acting whip and so forth.
And I, for some time now, been advocating that we have an election in January and get new leadership in place so that we know, you know, who's running the show and so forth.
NEARY: Congressman Bass, you are in New Hampshire now on your way back to Washington. What did you hear there? What are your constituents telling you? What priorities? What kind of leadership do they want from the Republican Party?
Rep. BASS: What's most interesting is what Republicans are telling me.
NEARY: Right.
Rep. BASS: And what they say is, `You guys--we elected you to reduce the size of government, to provide us with security at home, to reduce the deficit, to provide tax relief,' and so forth. And, `Sure, you're making a start on a flat discretionary budget and this effort in reconciliation, but the fact is when we read about this bridge to nowhere in Alaska or we read about all the new earmarks coming out in appropriation bills and so forth, we say, "That's not what we elected you to do."' And I've been calling on my leadership to surprise our so-called base by take--by making a few sacrifices themselves.
I'm joined with Congressman Flake from Arizona in proposing that all the earmarks in the transportation bill be eliminated and 90 percent of that money be returned to the state. Now that would surprise and cheer our base, our Republicans. Sure, we're--some of the things we're working on are great, but the fact is that we've got to get the deficit under control. And the way to do that is to cut spending. And there's one area of spending we haven't addressed yet, and that's all the special provisions in these appropriations bills and in the transportation bill that remain there to this day.
RUDIN: Congressman Bass, it's Ken Rudin here, somebody here who also remembers your father in Congress.
Rep. BASS: All right.
RUDIN: Tells you how old I am. But...
Rep. BASS: Ninety-three years old and doing great.
RUDIN: Who? Me or your father?
Rep. BASS: No. My Dad.
RUDIN: OK. That's great. ...(Unintelligible) Bass, I remember. But anyway, several things you kept--first of all, if they take ANWR out of the House package, there are conservatives like Joe Barton of Texas, like some people in California, say, `Well, we're not going to vote for it.' Two, what happens--are there a lot of people who think that even if they take ANWR out of the House version, Ted Stevens will still get his way and it'll be in the Senate version and it'll be rammed through in conference committee.
Rep. BASS: Well, the only way you can ram it through is to get one more vote in the House, and if there's still 14 of us that won't vote for it, I don't care how many times they run it through the conference committee or how aggressive Senator Stevens is, we won't have any reconciliation. I would suggest that there are a lot of senators who want to see tax relief, some of the tax revisions extended; that want to reduce the growth of entitlements that have other priorities besides drilling in the arctic wilderness and that they'll prevail in the end because otherwise there will be no budget for the country.
RUDIN: Yesterday, in USA Today, Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying, about the Republicans, "They'll take food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest." How do Republicans deal with that charge, which is obviously going to come up in 2006 elections?
Rep. BASS: That's same old-same old from these people. They've been saying that for years. The sad thing is that there are a number of like-minded Democrats who understand that in 50 years entitlements are going to consume 70 percent of the entire budget of this country and that we need to address them in a serious and thoughtful fashion and not make inflammatory, political statements, like Mrs. Pelosi does. It's just too bad that those Democrats aren't willing to break with their leadership as I have done to govern rather than just make political points.
NEARY: Yeah. Just one other thing because I know you have to catch a plane, Congressman. We didn't really address the issue of Iraq and what were you hearing there in New Hampshire from...
Rep. BASS: I think that the feeling on Iraq is ambivalent. We understand that pulling out of Iraq or changing our policy at this point would be a bad idea. I don't think anybody thought the war was going to be this expensive or this lengthy. But the fact is there is progress ongoing, and I think people recognize that. And, you know, this administration and the Defense Department and the Iraqi people have surprised us over and over and over again. We don't get that story as much as we should. I think constituents in general are concerned about where we're headed, but I think they understand that you can't just--you can't be fair-weather friends for these people.
NEARY: All right. Well, thanks so much for joining us today. I know you have to catch a plane.
Rep. BASS: All right. Thank you.
NEARY: That was Congressman Charles Bass, Republican of New Hampshire and he spoke to us from the airport in Manchester, New Hampshire.
And with us now for insight into what's going on inside the GOP is the former head of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie.
Thanks for being with us, Mr. Gillespie.
Mr. ED GILLESPIE (Former Head, Republican National Committee): Thanks for having me on, Lynn. I appreciate it.
NEARY: So how do you assess what's going on in your party? How damaging are these divisions and disagreements that we've been talking about so far?
Mr. GILLESPIE: Well, this is a natural ebb and flow in the legislative process. And what we're seeing right now is we're seeing the Republican majority trying to govern and take responsibility for the spending decisions and the taxing decisions and the allocation decisions that traditionally have been shared by both parties in the Congress. But what we have in the Democratic minority today is an unwillingness to participate in the legislative process. And it leaves only one party with that responsibility, which is fine, we're in the majority. We accept that responsibility. But it is not the norm for one party alone to have to pass all legislation in essentially both chambers, although there are times on the Senate side where you do get Democrats, as we saw today in the vote on the Iraq amendment. But the fact is that's where we are right now.
NEARY: We just heard Congressman Bass say that he's hearing concern back in his home state of New Hampshire particularly on economic issues. Some divisions over Iraq, not everybody in total agreement on that, but concern about congressional spending.
Mr. GILLESPIE: Well, there is concern about congressional spending, and the Republican majority in the House and in the Senate are moving to address that. That's indeed what this reconciliation package is. It would save $50 billion, and that goes a long way in providing relief to taxpayers in bringing down the deficit. I think those are both important goals, and that's what the Republican leadership in the House and Senate are working to achieve.
NEARY: What about the need for new leadership in the House? Tom DeLay is not on the scene. Is some of the--can some of the problems--can some of the problems that are occurring on the Hill be attributed to the fact that he's not there, that he's gone? Does new leadership need to be elected?
Mr. GILLESPIE: Well, I heard Charlie Bass, from New Hampshire, making that point. This is a discussion that's going on in the House of Republican conference right now, and there is a discussion about whether or not there needs to be new leadership. Obviously, Congressman DeLay is responding to allegations against him by--made by Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney down in Travis County, very Democratic area. He'll be afforded the opportunity to present his case in the legal system and in the public arena, as well. But obviously that's a big factor here in what the House Republicans are considering going forward. But I think that Tom DeLay is going to be, as any American should be, afforded the opportunity to present his case.
NEARY: We're talking about some of the problems facing the Republican Party right now with Ed Gillespie. He headed up the Republican National Committee in the last election cycle. We're also joined by NPR political editor Ken Rudin and we're taking your calls at (800) 989-8255.
Let's take a call from Cleve(ph), and he is in Rock Springs, Wyoming. Hi, Cleve.
CLEVE (Caller): Hello?
NEARY: Hi. Go ahead.
CLEVE: Yes. One of the issues I see on--confronting both Democrats and Republicans is this like whole agenda we're spending all this money and time on foreign issues and in Iraq. When is the people of this nation voted for--whether you're a Democrats or a Republican, voted for Bush, had about the domestic issues like--such as trade. It's just like we grow cotton here, have a textile industry, but everyth--all the shirts and pants and all the clothes we've got are made in China or somewhere else. Americans need jobs and domestic issues. You need to spend some time and money right here in this country and address some of the issues. And we have an influx of illegal aliens coming in this country all the time, and the taxpayers are the ones who have to pay for all the hospitalization of that. When are these issues going to get addressed?
NEARY: All right. Thanks for that--those points, Cleve. And, Ed Gillespie, that's the second time we've heard a caller bring up the issue of immigration, but also concern that perhaps too much attention is being focused overseas, not enough domestically.
Mr. GILLESPIE: Well, let me address each of the issues Cleve mentioned in turn. First, Iraq, obviously is a very important issue in our debate today, and it should be. But I don't think that it is a foreign issue. The fact is Iraq is a national security issue for the United States. It's an American issue. What we're doing in Iraq is not foreign aid. The Iraqi people certainly benefit from it, from the freedom and democracy that's being established there. But we will benefit as will all of the--every country will benefit from...
NEARY: But do you feel public opinion is beginning to turn on that and that that is--that's becoming a problem for the Republican Party whereas at one time, indeed, I think the party and the president used their strength in terms of talking about a war on terror--it seemed to be to their advantage. Now is it turning?
Mr. GILLESPIE: Well, Lynn, public opinion on Iraq has ebbed and flowed from the beginning, from the outset, and I think as people see progress being made there, they see a plan--Senator Frist and Chairman Warner put forward a plan on the floor of the Senate today that talked about the need for victory in Iraq and that's the best way to have our troops return from Iraq is after having succeeded in establishing a stable, free republic there in Iraq, that the Iraqi people stand for themselves and arm themselves in terms of an army. But that will make us safer here because it will not be a breeding ground for terrorists.
I want to go, though, too, to what Cleve raised relative to trade. Trade is a very important issue. Ambassador Rob Portman, the US trade representative, recently negotiated a textile agreement with China which was very significant, was of benefit to both countries in terms of job creation. It's always one of the most important issues in our electorate, and we are--seeing we're going on nearly two years now--two solid years of continuous job creation month after month after month, that is a result of the president's pro-growth policies. But people do have concerns about the economy, and I think that that's--will be a central issue in this election. And the president's positive agenda and the Republican pro-growth agenda will be pitted against what Democrats are for. It's hard to...
NEARY: Ed, I just need to remind...
Mr. GILLESPIE: ...know what they're for right now.
NEARY: I need to remind our listeners that you are listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.
Go ahead.
Mr. GILLESPIE: Well, it's hard to tell right now what the Democratic agenda is. It's mostly an agenda of attacks against Republicans. But at the end of the day, they're going to have to put forward what their view is on the proper level of taxation, the proper level of spending, the right trade agreements, what we're going to do about health care and retirement. Republicans have an agenda on those things...
NEARY: Right. I think--let me bring--Ken Rudin...
Mr. GILLESPIE: You bet.
NEARY: ...wants to come into the conversation.
RUDIN: Ed, hi. Quick question. You made a point that the Democrats were staying on the sidelines, and that's absolutely true. The Republicans stayed on the sidelines in 1993 when President Clinton pushed through his budget plan, his tax increase plan, whatever you want to call it. And I think it only passed by, like, one vote, certainly one vote in the Senate and maybe one or two votes in the House. Republicans stayed away, but the Democrats had to come up with this bill and they paid for it. And I think that's one of the reasons Republicans control Congress today, is because the Democrats fumbled their chance. My question is: Do you see a 2006 as any way similar to a 1994, when it's Republicans who have to vote on school lunch cuts and student loan cuts and whether those votes come back to bite them in 2006?
Mr. GILLESPIE: Well, a couple things about that, Ken. That was the largest tax increase in American history. And you're right, then-President Clinton wasn't able to get a Republican vote for that. But Republicans routinely, in the course of the Clinton presidency, contributed votes to--remember, it was clearly a bipartisan majority for NAFTA. There was a bipartisan majority for the crime bill at the end of the day. There was a bipartisan majority for welfare reform. All these things took place under the Clinton presidency. You don't see Democrats in the House or the Senate--more so in the House--participating in that kind of bipartisan approach, and I think there will be a backlash against that by the voters.
The thing about '94, though, Ken, as you well know, is that Republicans ran on a positive agenda, a 10-point plan for what they would do if they took control of Congress. It was called the Contract with America, and it included a lot of things in terms of welfare reform and national security and commonsense legal reforms and education reforms. And we ran on that a platform. Again, you don't see a positive agenda from the Democrats. It's a constant stream of negative attacks against the president and the Republicans, a constant leveling of charges. But you could offer a reward right now for a Democratic idea and not have anybody claim it because they are not putting forward positive policies, and that's what people, at the end of the day, cast their vote on.
NEARY: All right. Thanks so much for joining us today.
Mr. GILLESPIE: Thanks for having me.
NEARY: Ed Gillespie headed up the Republican National Committee in the last election cycle, and he spoke to us from his office here in Washington.
Ken, just briefly, the Democrats--what do they have to do? This is a very vulnerable moment for the Republicans.
RUDIN: Well, I hear music in the background, but quickly, there are some people who say, `Just run as a Democrat and you win,' but I don't think it's that simple because even though polls are not so high on the Republicans, they're not especially high on the Democrats, either.
NEARY: All right. Thanks so much for being with us, Ken.
Ken Rudin is NPR's political editor. And you can also read his newest Political Junkie column at our Web site, npr.org.
I'm Lynn Neary. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.
Copyright © 2005 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.