...seating seats in both the House and Senate, and still angry about the tactics of the Bush
campaign, there are doubts about how much will get accomplished in Washington next year.
Joining me today to get an early fix on the new government, Elizabeth Drew of The New
Yorker and David Broder of The Washington Post.
And we begin with a Democratic viewpoint from party chairman Paul Kirk.
And Mr. Kirk, welcome.
Good to have you with us again.
Thank you, Chris.
One of the first things the Democrats are going to have to decide is who is going to
be the party chairman when your term runs out early next year.
And some party leaders are suggesting that you should stay on to prevent a bloodletting
between liberals, Democrats, conservatives, moderates, everybody in the party.
Are you going to stay on?
Well, I'm going to listen to the council of the number of the leaders and elected officials
in the party who said, don't say you won't stay on until we have an opportunity to chat
with you about it.
So that's my plan.
I owe it to them to visit with them and hear what they have to say.
But I don't foresee in any circumstances the so-called bloodletting and the division within
the party.
I think people are disappointed about the results at the top, realize that the party
nationally is probably stronger than it's been even when we had a Democratic president.
And the real thing I think people want to do is take prudent stock of what we could
have done better to win the election.
Well, given the fact that you say there isn't going to be a bloodletting, what would be
the reason then?
What would be the arguments that might persuade you to stay on?
Well, I'd have to wait and hear them out.
That's the point.
But I mean, seriously, what would be the possible?
You've obviously heard a lot of them already.
It's something that's been talked about a lot in Democratic party circles.
What kind of reasons might there be just to give an interim period for a cooling off?
I think those that I've talked with so far have said about my chairmanship that it has
been one of consensus building.
It has made the party, I think, stronger in terms of our technological base, finances
and so forth.
And what I've heard is they'd like me to continue in that role.
My plan had always been to serve through the four years.
And there's a meeting of the state party leaders in Phoenix, latter part of this week.
I basically let it be known that I'd listen to what they have to say and then make a decision
thereafter.
Would you listen to serving for another full term or is that out of the question?
The only thing you'd consider would be an interim appointment.
Oh, I think if I were to continue as chairman, the only way to continue is to continue for
a full term.
There has been talk about Lloyd Benson, who a lot of Democratic leaders thought did very
well during the campaign and represented the Democratic party in good fashion, that he
would assume some role of party leadership.
What do you think about that?
I hope Senator Benson already has assumed a role of party leadership.
I hope he'll be a strong voice for the party.
I expect he'll continue to be.
We'll have a new majority leader in the United States Senate.
And Lloyd Benson in his position as at least as chairman of the Finance Committee is going
to be one who's going to be looked to and will be a part of, I think, a strong bipartisan
government as we move on from here.
Michael Dukakis said in a news conference the day after the election that he also wants
to provide some leadership for the party.
Given his crushing defeat on Tuesday, what role should he play?
Well, I think he will have a voice.
Obviously, he goes back as governor of Massachusetts.
But even prior to his nomination, he was elected head of the Democratic Governors Association.
He will have a voice, I expect, as one of a number of the leaders of the Democratic
party.
Mr. Kirk, I suppose I need not remind you that the Democrats have just lost their fifth
out of six presidential elections.
Do you think the party needs to make any changes in the way it nominates candidates for the
presidency?
I think there may be visiting of the nominating process, Elizabeth.
I don't think, however, we ought to overreact quickly.
This election was in the face of perceived prosperity and relative peace and people basically
voting for the present they knew rather than the future that they were uncertain about.
So I don't think we ought to just go back into a total revision of our party rules.
We've been professional at that, to say the least, but it hasn't worked out quite the
way we want.
Well, is there something short of total revision of the party rules?
When you did say we should revisit the nominating process, what do you have in mind?
Where might you begin?
Well, I think some suggestions have been made about first trying to shorten the process.
And maybe by doing that, have some form of either regional or time zone primaries, but
still having smaller states that would kick it off so not just the very wealthy or better
financed or better known candidates could compete in an area as large as a region or
a time zone.
Those will be, I suppose, on the table for discussion.
I don't really conclude finally in terms of my own.
We talk about it somewhere.
Might this change the role of Iowa, which even though it doesn't always pick the most
liberal candidate, I think most Democrats feel it at least sets a very liberal agenda
and that this is where the Democratic nominees begin to get in national election trouble.
I think Iowa is always looked to and in some ways picked.
But one this time and the Democrats ended up so long, the irony is that candidates are
out in Iowa for virtually three years, whereas an important region like the South with Super
Tuesday this year, they're really only there for 10 days.
So that is all, I think, out of whack.
And I think with respect to the calendar, we ought to take a look at that phenomenon
as well.
So you would like to dilute Iowa's role in all this, among other things?
Well, only in the sense that it is so predictably first, that it gets so much attention than
so many other states are involved.
We might take a look at it.
Mr. Chairman, Governor Dukakis and Senator Benson, as you point out, have natural forums
available to them from which to speak.
The third prominent Democrat, Jesse Jackson, does not.
What plans do you have to provide a base and platform from which he can speak for the Democratic
Party?
Well, I will be asking all the Democratic leaders, those who have been active in this
year, to look and focus on 1990, David.
That's the most important, really, election after the census and reapportionment.
It'll be a sea change in terms of the political landscape of this country.
That and obviously, he's been foremost spokesman before anyone else, a compelling way on drugs
in America.
And that is another forum that I think, I hope he'll continue to be forceful and articulate
on.
But would you like to see the party itself provide some kind of a vehicle, a platform
for Reverend Jackson?
Well I don't think so much it's a separate, specific platform.
He's a voice that will be heard and I, in those areas that I mentioned, I know will
be heeded.
So I don't think it's giving a special platform to Reverend Jackson or necessarily anyone
else.
I don't think in terms of the leadership, there's no special treatment for any particular
leader, but asking all of them to come together to work for the party, both on consensus and
again for the importance of 1990.
The indications are that the black vote really fell off pretty sharply in some of the major
states this year, in some cases providing half of the shortfall for the Democratic ticket.
What do you think happened there?
I think the black vote, white vote, others was low, extraordinarily low and unhappily
low and I think to a great degree, it was as a result of the tone and tenor and level
of the campaign debate.
And I think that was affected in all communities.
Mr. Kirk, thank you.
Thanks very much for joining us today.
Thanks to you, Chris.
And in a moment, we'll hear from one of the leaders of the new Bush team, Transition Co-Director
Craig Fuller, coming up when Meet the Press returns.
Congratulations and good to have you with us again.
Thank you.
Since the election, the dollar has been falling sharply and so have the financial markets
and there seem to be two reasons that people are giving for this.
First of all, concern that the Bush administration wants the dollar to go even lower than it
is and secondly, concern that the Bush administration is not going to be able to work out a budget
deal with Congress.
Given the fact that both the dollar and the financial markets are in decline, does the
Vice President have to do something soon to reassure the markets?
Let me take the two reasons you cited in order.
First of all, somebody who does advise from time to time, George Bush, made a comment
about the falling dollar that I don't think represented either the views of the administration
or the views of the Bush administration.
So I think that misreading some of the tea leaves might have caused it.
Secondly, George Bush said during the campaign that he was going to be ready on day one to
sit down with the Congress and negotiate a package that would bring down this deficit.
We're serious about it.
We know we have to take it a step at a time, but we are very serious and determined to
find a way to drive this deficit down.
So is that your basic effort to reassure the markets?
Well we can discuss it further.
But I think what the markets need to know is that George Bush is committed to what he
talked about during the campaign, and that's to get the spending under control and to reduce
the size of this deficit.
We've got to do it first, I think, by establishing and appointing an economic team.
That'll occur in the next several days.
That group has to sit down, take a realistic look of where things are, sit down with the
President-elect Bush, and come up with a program that we can work with the Congress on in the
early days of the Bush administration.
And let's talk specifically about the two issues.
First of all, on the dollar, the person you were talking about who has advised the Vice
President on economic matters, Martin Feldstein, said, speaking for himself, that he felt that
the dollar should fall perhaps another 20 percent to help with the trade deficit.
Specifically, is the Vice President, the President-elect, is he satisfied with the current level of the
dollar?
Well, I'm not going to sit here and describe for you President-elect Bush's economic policy
that he'll pursue once he takes office.
I can tell you he listens to a number of people on economic policy.
He listens to the people in New York.
He listens to people that are concerned about the dollar.
He has not supported what Marty Feldstein said.
It's not the policy of this administration, and it's not going to be the policy of the
next administration.
But give us time to set our economic team to work on exactly what we're going to pursue,
what course we're going to pursue.
On the possibility of a budget stalemate, people are saying, well, it's very nice that
the President-elect is going to be ready from day one to work out a deal, but they say if
he's not willing to give on his pledge of no new taxes, there can't be a deal.
If the markets are so concerned, and if they continue to decline, would the President-elect
reconsider his pledge of no new taxes?
I think that what the markets are interested in, and we've talked to some people who are
in that arena immediately, you know, right after the election, I think what they're interested
in is seeing a concerted effort, a serious effort, to look candidly at the problem and
take it head on right when the administration starts.
But specifically on taxes?
We ran a campaign, and George Bush ran a campaign that said raising taxes is not the answer.
That's what he says today.
It's what he'll say in January.
He will sit down with the Congress and work with them to find a way to bring this deficit
down by not increasing people's taxes.
Just to follow on that point, Mr. Fuller, does the President-elect see any need for
him to make a personal statement in the near future about this question of the dollar?
You know, he's away taking a few well-deserved days of rest, and when he comes back, we will
sit down, and I think the first step is to sit down and look at the economic team he's
going to assemble to work with him and his administration.
President Reagan is still in office.
The economic policy is set by the current sitting administration, and we're not going
to rush out to suddenly issue statements that will reflect either a change in policy.
We see no reason to change the policies that are in place right now with respect to the
dollar.
Let's talk about the team, then.
Mr. Bush has appointed Jim Baker, who's probably his oldest and closest political associate
as Secretary of State.
Does that indicate that he wants strong Cabinet government, or will we see the pattern of
a lot of the policy being done inside the White House through policy councils such as
you coordinated in the past?
You know, I think one of the reasons that the people, the American voters, selected
George Bush is not only because of his experience, but because of the experience of people around
him.
I think he has an extraordinarily rich group of talented people to choose from in selecting
a Cabinet.
I believe he'll select very strong people on a Cabinet.
In fact, in this transition, we want to get the top people selected and have them lead
the transitions into their own departments.
To answer the question, I think you'll see a fairly strong Bush Cabinet.
There have been a number of reports that you and Governor Sununu and Robert Teter will
be the new troika at the White House.
Should we believe those reports?
Well, it's a little premature.
Everybody's anxious to divide up the pie.
At least in Bob Teter and my case, we selected a 70-day assignment.
We are determined to deliver the very best transition effort that we possibly can for
George Bush.
What happens after that, we're pretty relaxed about.
We're going to set our minds to setting up a government and not worry too much about
how that White House gets divided at this point.
Given the comment you made just a moment ago about the need to get the economic policy
side in shape, can we expect an appointment early of a new director of Office of Management
and Budget?
I believe the answer to that is yes, although I want to say that it's up to George Bush
when he gets back to examine the recommendations and make a determination on that.
But the economic team has got to make a decision.
And is it a good speculation that Richard Darman will be that director of budget?
You're going to hear me give an answer I'll probably give 90 times before I'm through,
and that is there'll be three to five names for each of these key posts that George Bush
wants to look at.
They'll examine them.
When he makes the decision, we'll announce it.
I can't do the job I need to do and participate in the speculation game.
Mr. Fuller, I want to come back to the budget and the budget deficit.
You said the Vice President campaigned on a pledge to sit down with the leaders of Congress.
As I heard him, he talked much more about his own proposal for a flexible freeze.
He's been elected.
He's going to have to make a proposal.
And I'm wondering how he's going to work this out.
He has to cut $30 billion from the deficit under the Graham-Redman law, as you know.
He has said that he would not want to make real cuts in defense or entitlements.
He wants to spend more for education and drugs, things like that.
There may be another $30 billion needed to bail out the savings and loans.
But even setting that aside, where does he intend to cut the budget?
Well, we've been dealing with this problem for eight years sitting in the White House.
And we know that what you have to do is look at the economic picture on the day you take
office, look at all the possibilities for a reduction, examine the growth rates that
you can expect over a period of time, and then sit down and hammer out with the leadership
in the Congress a budget package.
It will serve no use for purpose for me to sit down and lay out our negotiating strategy
or lay out our plan here.
Does this mean he will not make his own proposal?
He will just wait to meet with Congress and work it out?
Well, in the course of the campaign, he had a proposal that suggested that if you hold
the growth of spending to the rate of inflation, that you could expect to have enough money
to take care of some of these additional needs, provided you held spending down in other areas.
We've got a framework.
That's what he campaigned on.
That's the framework he'll take to the Congress.
But as you say, he has been looking at this for eight years.
I think a lot of people would like to know what he really has in mind in terms of making
plans.
I think that time will come, and it will be soon after January 20th.
Let me ask you one other one.
The day after the election at his press conference, he said that he did make an exception in the
case of taxes for the tax that was recently enacted to pay for the catastrophic health
program.
And that set a number of us to wondering whether this might be a way of raising revenues that
he doesn't call taxes.
For instance, what about raising the cigarette tax and putting it to health programs, or
raising the gasoline tax and putting it to transportation needs?
Might it be something along those lines?
Well, I didn't hear any cement cracking around his feet when he made the comment at the press
conference.
And I don't think you should look or speculate on where we might go to raise revenues.
That is not something that we want to take on in putting together our package.
Why is it such a secret as to what he might do?
Because I think a successful negotiation has got to occur without all of our proposals
being laid out at the table before we get to sit down with the leadership on Capitol
Hill.
Mr. Fuller, I want to go back to these stories that David was referring to that you and Johnson
Nuno and Bob Teter might all end up in the White House.
You worked in the first term Reagan White House where they had a quote troika of Meese,
Baker, and Deaver, and it created a good deal of infighting.
Wouldn't you be worried about the same thing in the Bush White House?
Well, you know, it's a pressure-packed place in which to work.
And I think that what George Bush is looking at is how he could assemble the right team
of people to take on the mission of guiding and directing the staff of that White House.
I don't want to tip my hand or try to influence how he makes that decision.
It's his to make.
He's got a group of people who, and I think it's a very favorable comment on his leadership,
a group of people that worked very, very effectively together for the last four years on this campaign.
We're dedicated to him, and I think we'll find a way to help him in the White House,
somewhere else in the administration, or somewhere in the private sector.
There's also a story in the New York Times this morning that Secretary of State Baker
is not only going to be in charge of foreign policy for the cabinet, but also will have
broad authority in domestic affairs, economic affairs, I don't know what else he wants.
What about that?
There are these stories that he's going to, in effect, be the deputy president.
Well, I don't think he would want that title placed on him so early.
He'll have a lot of work to do at the State Department.
He's a man of extraordinary capability, somebody that George Bush has come to rely on for many,
many years, as you pointed out.
If you have a strong cabinet, one of the advantages is the members of that cabinet are in the
White House, meeting regularly with the president, and able to counsel him on a wide range of
issues.
I think that's the kind of role Jim Baker would play.
But specifically, would he have authority or certainly considerable influence beyond
foreign policy?
He will certainly have influence beyond foreign policy, but there'll be other strong members
of the cabinet who will have their say on foreign policy issues as well.
So I think we're going to see a very strong team assembled to work with the president
on a wide array of issues.
Mitch Fuller, thank you.
Thanks very much for joining us.
My pleasure.
Thank you.
Busy 70 days ahead of you, and probably a lot longer than that, too.
And in a moment, my colleagues and I will take our own look at what the voters wrought
on Election Day 88, coming up when Meet the Press returns.
The Democrats gained seats in the House and the Senate and in state houses.
They're still angry at the way George Bush won this election, so they're going to make
life miserable for him over the next four years.
Do you buy that?
Some Democrats are angry at the kind of election that they think that Bush ran, and that this
is mixed in with all of the, I think, more frequent statements of course will be conciliatory
and accommodating, but that's what the losing party always says now.
I think basically it will be based on their reading of what real power Mr. Bush has, and
whether or not they fear him.
Fear is an important element in this, and I think unlike Reagan, who they knew who could
take to the television screens and get a lot of popular support, they will not fear President
Bush, and they will be much more inclined to push their own agenda.
David?
I think Bush begins a second campaign when he comes back to Washington tomorrow to enhance
his personal standing.
I think he's likely to win that campaign as well by the quality of his appointments, and
in the end I think by the time he's sworn in, the Democratic Congress will decide they
better do business with this fellow.
In an article this weekend, Richard Nixon wrote that George Bush comes to the White
House owing the far right very little, certainly far less than Ronald Reagan did when he came
into the White House in 1981.
How much clout does the hardline conservatives, how much clout do they have in the Bush White
House?
Well, as yet we can't tell.
One of the places everybody's looking, as you know, is to whether they cluster around
the Vice President-elect, Mr. Quayle.
I think this whole area is going to be a very big test of Bush, and we're going to see what
he really is made of.
He doesn't owe them very much, and during the campaign he made a couple of disparaging
comments about some of them.
But they can press Bush, and they can make life difficult.
They press on who obviously they... so testing of what sorts of things to wrap.
... foolish.
I think, Chris, to exclude them is administration.
I think there almost has to be somebody who is visibly part of that group or has the trust
of that group in the Bush administration.
But the real test will probably come when he gets his first Supreme Court appointment.
That's bottom line to them.
We only have about 30 seconds left, and I'm going to ask you to split it.
What happens now to Mike Dukakis?
Is he one of those losing Democratic nominees whom the party reveres in future years, or
one of those nominees they try to forget?
I think the amount of reverence will be held in check by the party.
I think he has a rebuilding job to do in Massachusetts.
David?
That's right.
I think he will be one voice, but only one of the voices that will be heard in the next
two years.
Elizabeth, David, thank you both very much for joining me today.
Even some Republicans think George Bush failed to win a mandate last Tuesday, but as our
quotation of the week indicates, that isn't about to stop them.
Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich suggested the Bush campaign lay out its policies now,
saying they should start waging a second campaign to assert an agenda for governing.
And let's meet the press for this Sunday.
I'm Chris Wallace.
As we leave, we know that this week marks the 41st anniversary for this, the world's
longest running television program.
And for all of us here at NBC News, have a good week.
Bye.