Guests: Mark Regev, Michele Levine, Donald Baer
FRANK LUNTZ, HOST: What does the rest of the world think of America? And should we really care? Is the road map to Middle East peace really dead? Can Israelis and Palestinians ever achieve peace? Could the United States get dragged into another Middle East war? Could unrest over there mean more terrorism for America right here? What does America really think of Howard Dean? Get ready for surprising results.
I’m Frank Luntz and these are AMERICA’S VOICES.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to see some vision. I want to see not just bashing Bush.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the war for the future of the Middle East.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have to invest in children. They are our future.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s still about the economy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should we not be rebuilding Iraq?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are so many people in this country are suffering.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You guys are so politically insane.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
LUNTZ: It’s been more than a year since we first heard the term “road map to peace.” I want to know from the panel, why do so many Americans care about what happens between Israelis and Palestinians? After all, it’s thousands and thousands of miles away. Why do you think so many care?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think because most people in the Middle East really get stirred up by what happens between the Israelis and Palestinians.
LUNTZ: That’s the Middle East. What about us here?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But it’s affected us here with people coming here as far as terrorism. Because we’re friends of Israel, they say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We care because what we’re doing here tonight, having an open discussion, the only place in the Middle East that could happen is the state of Israel. It is the only representative democracy in the Middle East. And for that reason, that is why for over 50 years we’ve cared about and will care about, for infinite, about the state of Israel.
LUNTZ: Why do you think so many Americans care about the Middle East when it really is far away?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s far away but it’s close by, because of what’s going on in Israel with the terror going on, it’s come over to affect us now. Now it’s higher on our radar screen.
LUNTZ: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How could we not care? I mean, what’s essentially going on over there is we have a common political culture with the Israelis. And there is a sense of rejection. A cultural rejection of Western modern culture in what is essentially a pre-Renaissance culture, the Muslim fundamentalist culture. They are in a state of rejection. They are not evil, they are rejecting Western culture. And in doing so, they are attacking the United States physically.
LUNTZ: I want to bring in my special guest who will hopefully shed some light on the current state of Israeli-Palestinian relations, Mark Regev, press counselor at the Israeli embassy here in Washington, D.C.
Welcome to AMERICA’S VOICES.
MARK REGEV, SPOKESMAN, ISRAELI EMBASSY IN D.C.: Thank you.
LUNTZ: I’ve got to ask you, right off the bat, this Geneva agreement that was supported by former President Jimmy Carter, that’s been supported by some major leaders in the Israeli community, some major people in the Palestinian community. In fact, the only people who seem to oppose it, is Ariel Sharon’s government. What is so wrong about peace?
REGEV: There are a large population in Israel have got problems with it. Also people from the left in the Israel, former Prime Minister Perez, the leader of the Labour Party, former Prime Minister Barak also has a problem with it.
It comes down to one or two very significant issues. Basically where you draw the line, an the idea of Israelis giving up the Temple Mount, which for us is very important, is a very, very sensitive issue for Israelis. Having said that, I mean, we all support the idea for peace. We all want to move forward, we all want to see if we can reach agreements with the Palestinians.
I can take up what the gentleman said before. I mean, the Arabs aren’t our enemy, Islam isn’t our enemy. We hope and pray that we can have peace with our Arab neighbors. The problem is that small group of Jihadist extremists, who are against democracy, they are against Israel, they’re against the United States. I think they are the enemy of every person who considers themselves modern person.
LUNTZ: I want you to comment on some polling that we have. It was conducted by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. And it showed that in 2002, 59 percent - 59 percent-of Europeans Union’s citizens saw Israel as-and I quote, “the biggest threat to world peace”. Ahead of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
And 17 percent of Italians polled said it would be better if Israel, and I quote, “ceased to exist.” Why all this hatred toward Israel? Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Holland, all of these countries that you probably would consider your allies and yet the people over there-and some people in America-think that Israel’s the greatest threat.
REGEV: Look, I can’t explain that. I can only say that the same polls have America, I believe, a close second as a threat to world peace. I mean, how can any logical person-I mean, any rational person say democracies like America, like Israel, are a threat to world peace, and not put up Iran and North Korea and countries like Libya and Syria? It just doesn’t make sense. Why people in Europe think that way? I just don’t know.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Carla.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Between a government that is a religious government and a democracy. A democracy includes all people of all religions, of all faiths, of all races. To me, having a religious-basically a religious country that is based on one religion, be it Jewish, Christian, or whatever, cannot be a democracy because you’re excluding everyone else.
LUNTZ: Go ahead.
REGEV: Obviously there are many religious people in Israel, but also many secular people, the laws are secular laws. We don’t have a religious constitution in Israel.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The laws are different for the Palestinians than the Israelis.
REGEV: We had elections three weeks ago in Israel for local elections, for municipal elections and in some of the Arab towns there were very heated elections between different factions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Religious fanaticism lives on the other side of the wall, not on the Israeli side.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The wall is a problem, though.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to challenge Carla’s statement. You just said there’s a different set of laws for the Israelis, the Jewish Israelis, and I assume you meant the Israeli Arabs. That isn’t true. It’s the same laws. It’s a democracy, it’s a rule of law.
The difference between Israel and the other countries in the Middle East is that you’re dealing with a country which has a rule of law. Not a rule by tyrants, not a rule by mullahs, but a rule of law, just like we have in the United States.
LUNTZ: Let me ask, Ron, I want to ask you a question. How should the president at this point treat the Palestinians and the Israelis? Do you think that there’s a bias in this administration, should there be a bias?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t think there’s a bias. But I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that we’re all one people. And we need to work together and create some kind of unification process.
LUNTZ: What advice would you give to President Bush when it came to dealing with Israelis and Palestinians?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think clearly there’s an affinity toward Israel because it’s a Western, capitalist democracy like we are. So there’s more of an affinity there. And I think after 9/11, we started to feel some of the same pain that the Israelis feel every day.
You walk into a cafe to have a cup of coffee not knowing if you’re going to walk out in one piece. So-and it’s difficult dealing with a group that does not have elected leaders, where the real power, pulling all the strings is holed up in Ramallah, it’s tough to have an open dialogue anybody.
LUNTZ: Very quickly.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can Palestinians reside in the settlements that are constantly being built, and why do they call them Jewish settlements?
LUNTZ: Mark?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There’s a wall.
REGEV: First of all, inside Israeli proper there’s full rights for everyone. Equal rights for everyone. I was about to make the point, before we had elections in Israel for local governments. I think that’s the only example of the Arab populations in the entire Middle East who vote in a sovereign to decide who’s going to be their government.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What about these settlements?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)....if you were Jewish and you married a Palestinian that Palestinian couldn’t reside in Israel?
REGEV: There is no such law.
LUNTZ: Very quickly.
REGEV: I don’t know of such law.
LUNTZ: Let me ask you this question, because we’ve got to get out.
Five years from now, when we all gather here in this studio will there have been a peace agreement signed between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
REGEV: I hope and pray so. I don’t know. We should do everything-we will do everything we can to make it happen. I think more and more Arabs and Palestinians are standing up and saying this sort of corrupt dictatorial leadership that characterizes so much of the Middle East, that doesn’t serve their interests, whether it’s a dictator in Syria, a dictator in Egypt, or a dictator in Ramallah. The Arab countries, the Arab people also want accountable regimes.
LUNTZ: I hope that everyone will make the commitment that next year will be a year of more peace and less bloodshed between everybody.
REGEV: I hope so.
LUNTZ: Mark Regev, thank you for joining us on AMERICA’S VOICES.
When we come back, how safe are Americans anywhere in the world? We’ll talk to America’s top terrorism expert right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUNTZ: Welcome back to AMERICA’S VOICES.
With all this attention on homeland security, are we any safer today than we were a year ago? Can we ever win the war on terror? Let’s start with perceptions from Americans.
How many of you, by show of hands, feel safer today than you did one year ago? Safer today? One, two, three, four, five.
Who here feels less safe than they did? So more of you feel less safe?
Dar (ph), Tell me, why do you feel less safe than you did a year ago?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because they’re focusing more on peaceful protesters, fresh immigrants instead of really targeting what really needs to be targeted. I mean, mainly the outsiders or not outsiders but, you know, the terrorist outsiders, or just inside where they’re training people to be terrorists, basically, like for the School of America, for instance.
LUNTZ: Rodney, do you feel less or more safe?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it depends, if I’m flying somewhere in the country I feel pretty safe. I don’t feel as safe if I leave the country unless I’m on some kind of the military flight.
LUNTZ: Tom, more or less safe?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pretty much agree with that, in the United States I feel perfectly fine. I would really be very concerned if I was traveling Saudi Arabia, for example, as recent warnings have pointed out.
LUNTZ: My guest is an the foremost American expert on Middle Eastern terrorism, an MSNBC’s terrorism analyst. Steve Emerson welcome to AMERICA’S VOICES.
STEVEN EMERSON, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST: Good to be here.
LUNTZ: More people feel less safe now than they did a year ago, is that the correct perception?
EMERSON: I don’t think there’s a correct or wrong perception. I think it’s a matter of-there’s no real way of evaluating how safe we are. It’s like you can put a temperature stick outside and say 68 degrees, we’re safer now than we were.
My personal belief, looking at all of the security procedures put into place after 9/11, that we’re safer now than we were prior to 9/11, but we’re not safe. Overseas, we’re much more insecure.
LUNTZ: OK, so then give me two changes, two aspects, two policies that Tom Ridge and George Bush ought to implement that would make us a safer country here. Be specific.
EMERSON: First of all, I think there has to be smarter type of, let’s say, intelligence-sharing among agencies. That’s something that we tried to implement after 9/11. There was a sort of a bell curve, there was a spate of six months of intelligence sharing. And now it’s gone back down to agencies don’t share intelligence.
That’s a real problem because no one can put the big jaw saw together. That’s really the key to understanding where the terrorists are, what their motives are and what they intend to do.
Number two, we really do need to have better understanding of the radical Islamic culture. Not try to be-pretend that somehow we can be conciliatory and we’ll get along, but understand there’s a hatred out there against us that’s thoroughly irreconcilable and implacable. And nothing we do will satisfy their demands so we need to take steps that basically secure us first and then try to figure out another long-term solution, which may not be-and probably will not be-in our lifetime.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’re safer now and I’m going to tell you why. The United Nations has now been backed up. We had 10 years of 16 different U.N. resolutions that were never backed up by anyone. No one stepped forward. Finally, our nation, our government, we have. Understanding now that terrorists out there realize there are consequences to their actions. I feel much safer.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Go ahead, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s the only reason. If we’d never been attacked by airplanes, the U.S. wasn’t going to back up anything, because they had 10 years to do it before and no one was. So we can only attribute that to the fact that we were attacked. As long as we’re not attacked and we’re not being affected, we don’t care what’s out there.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Sam, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is very sad because Americans have been dying at the hands of terrorists over 20 years. These Americans we call patriots, service members, just because it’s out of sight, out of mind, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been happening.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: One at a time. Liz, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’re building terrorists with our policies.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’re killing people ...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are always ...
LUNTZ: OK, hold on one second.
Building terrorism with our policies. Killing people as fast as we possibly can? These are very-I wouldn’t call them disappointment attitudes, they’re angry attitudes towards the Bush administration. Should we pat them on the back for what they’ve done in terms of terrorism, or should we kind of punch them in the arm?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’re making terrorists faster.
LUNTZ: Go ahead.
EMERSON: Let me say this. This is an issue that you know, I’ve been testifying about on Capitol Hill in terms of partisan critics of the administration say we’re building more terrorists.
Frankly, terrorists don’t need excuses to attack us. They will have had those excuses way before 9/11 and have them post-Iraq as well as prior to Iraq. My feeling is there’s enough existing hatred based on the fact we are not among them, we do not subscribe to their system, that they will continue to attack us.
So if I have to evaluate policies, I give the administration a pretty good high mark for what’s gone on in the United States.
LUNTZ: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The entire act was like swinging a bat at a beehive. It just created a breeding ground for more terrorists.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to make sure that we understand what terrorism is. Terrorism is right here in our backyard, and does not hold necessarily to an Islamic future. There are terrorists going on right on in Ohio, what we had here in Washington, D.C., that’s a terrorist act.
We don’t know who the terrorists are. They could be anybody. They could be any one of us in this room. We’ve got to be very careful in how-
EMERSON: We are safer for one reason, and of course, I’m one news banner away from being wrong on this. However, we’re safer for one primary reason. There are people over in Iraq that are dying, literally, maybe for the first time in the history of this country in place of American citizens on this soil. We are taking the fight to where the terrorists are.
(CROSSTALK)
EMERSON: That place is a vortex of terrorism.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Go ahead.
EMERSON: Listen, last two years we’ve seen probably around 11 or 12 major prosecutions, from Tampa, Seattle, Portland, Upstate New York, Chicago, these are incredibly important prosecutions, the most recent one was an American Muslim leader coming in from overseas about six weeks ago.
The problem here is that most Americans are very fearful about government powers. And yet, when these prosecutions occur, they occur only because of the Patriot Act and the fact that the government was entitled to investigate groups and individuals, that prior to 9/11, they were not allowed to touch.
I can tell you dozens of cases before 9/11 when the government suspected terrorists in the United States and their hands were tied.
LUNTZ: And very quickly, in 2004, are we more likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack or not?
EMERSON: Unfortunately, as we get more complacent, the vulnerability increases.
LUNTZ: I respect your wisdom and I hope that you are wrong. Steve Emerson, thank you for sharing your expertise with AMERICA’S VOICES.
When we come back, how does the rest of the world see America? And should we really care? Straight ahead on AMERICA’S VOICES.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Ten, nine, eight, seven...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me interrupt you there, they’re on the countdown.
CROWD: three, two, one.
(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LUNTZ: We’re back on AMERICA’S VOICES. There’s heated debate these days about America’s image abroad. Is our nation seen as the world’s policemen, a positive liberating force? Or a bully trampling anyone who gets in its way?
I want to know first off, from the panel, should we care about the rest of the world and what they think? I’ve got to tell you something, I got it wrong. I was on Chris Matthews and “Hardball” and I said the public opinion, internationally, didn’t matter.
I don’t want to bias you, but having seen the impact of public opinion and what it does to governments and their cooperation toward U.S., it does matter. Am I wrong?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This reminds me a little bit of the ’80s, when there were very strong protests against Ronald Reagan, particularly in Western Europe. But now there are hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe who are free. The Berlin Wall came down because of Ronald Reagan’s resolve. So sometimes, as a leader, you’re forced to do things that are unpopular but you know are the right thing to do.
LUNTZ: But those people liked us back in the 1980s-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They didn’t. They hated Reagan. I was traveling overseas at that time, backpacking through Europe. I haven’t been over there recently, so I can’t compare, but Reagan was not popular.
And to your point about saying you were Canadian, every Canadian had a little Canadian flag sewn on their backpack.
LUNTZ: So, they wouldn’t be thought of being an American.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, they wouldn’t be called an America. Exactly.
LUNTZ: I want to hear from an expert. My guest is Michele Levine, CEO of Roy Morgan Research; she specializes in social research that focuses on values, attitudes and opinions worldwide.
Michelle, welcome to AMERICA’S VOICES.
MICHELE LEVINE, CEO, ROY MORGAN RESEARCH: Thank you.
LUNTZ: You’ve done a lot of polling over the years. Is America in worse shape now than it has ever been?
LEVINE: Well, the polls would suggest that it definitely is. We’ve been polling in Australia, and in many other countries all around the world, 45-country surveys. Essentially what we’re seeing is the feeling that people around the world believe that America now sees itself as the only super power and it can do what it likes.
That’s what the rest of the world thinks. Americans, on the other hand, don’t see it that way.
LUNTZ: And I want to give you all some statistics. In 2002, just before the Iraqi war, positive opinion of the United States in Germany was the 61 percent and 63 percent in France. By the spring of 2003 those numbers had collapsed to 45 and 43 percent.
At the same time, confidence that President Bush would do the right thing in foreign affairs was at 33 percent in Germany and 20 percent in France.
And 58 percent of Indonesian’s polled in 2002 said they had a positive opinion of the United States, but by spring of 2003 that had dropped to just 15 percent. It’s incredible.
Is this just George Bush? Is this America? Or is this a combination of the two?
LEVINE: I think it’s probably a combination of three things, to tell you the truth. Around the world, people are actually seeing Americanization as really what globalization is about. And many countries are not comfortable that their culture is being more and more like America.
People are actually wanting to hold on to some of their own culture.
And that’s been a slow and creeping sort of thing happening for some time.
I think then, of course, the situation in Iraq came on top of that. And most countries were actually divided in their view, just as I’ve seen today with people’s views here. But I think that what they saw was Americans telling them how-what was going to happen and how they should feel about it.
LUNTZ: Sonya.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To go on with what the speaker was saying when she was saying that people care about-people are up-internationally, people are upset because American values or American culture is creeping into their world. What other countries want is our-could be our capitalist structure, could be our property rates, could be those values.
LUNTZ: Positive values.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Positive values that America has. But the problem is the balance there. How do you continue holding on to your culture, having that kind of independence, and how do you balance holding on to your culture and having that kind of independence.
LUNTZ: We’re out of time. I need a quick answer to a tough question. You obviously aren’t from America. What advice would you give to America and Americans to improve these numbers?
LEVINE: Look, it’s all about the way these things are communicated. Number one, I think it would be really great if there was a lot more interchange of ordinary people to Australia or to other countries and those people coming to America. And seeing the real people, not seeing a single-minded speaker giving a very clear, perhaps a strong message but one which is seen as a very sing singular message.
LUNTZ: Well, we’ll make a deal. If you provide all of us free tickets we’ll be in Australia next month.
(LAUGHTER)
LUNTZ: Michele Levine, I want to thank you for listening and responding to AMERICA’S VOICES.
And speaking of people’s perceptions, later, our panel subjects Howard Dean to our famous dial test. Does his language resonate? And next, Bill Clinton’s wordsmith tells us the secret of Clinton communications.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUNTZ: Welcome back.
The presidential election is less than a year away and the Democrats seem to be within striking distance of the presidency. But can they cross the finish line? Do they have the right stuff, the right words to win?
Do they have the right words, Ron?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With all of them running, yes, they have the right words, but there’s only one president that’s going to be elected.
LUNTZ: Who’s that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve got George W. Bush.
LUNTZ: Obviously, they don’t have the right words?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, they’re putting it all together. They’re trying to get it together, they don’t have it together yet. That’s why there’s so many running for it, because they don’t know who’s going to be the winner.
LUNTZ: Do you agree or disagree?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The economy’s strong, it’s is going to be tough to unseat George Bush as long as the economy continues to chug along. I think, the imagery of George Bush flying into Baghdad, he’ll continue to take advantage of that. And it’s going to be very tough to criticize a war-time president without sounding like ...
LUNTZ: But you’re a Democrat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am.
LUNTZ: And you sound like you’re defending a Republican.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m trying to be objective. I’m not, I’m not ...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is pretty easy to criticize someone that takes two and a half hours, spends millions of our tax dollars, to put on a uniform that he was afraid to wear when he was supposed to wear it during the Vietnam war, and saunter over there and eat turkey dinner at the cost to taxpayers of how many millions?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fifty million dollars...
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Hold on. Hold on. Let me ask you this question. I asked you about the Democrats. And you talk about the Republicans. And you talk about the Republicans. Don’t you-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because they have nothing else to say!
LUNTZ: Is that what it is?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they had an answer they would talk about the answer, not about what their perception of the problem is.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Hold on. Well, clearly you’ve just deafened the entire group.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s why we know who the next president is going to be, George W. Bush is going to stay in the House.
LUNTZ: And why is that?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let him finish what he started.
LUNTZ: I want to go to our guest. Don Baer, you know a little bit about keeping Democrats on message, you were director of strategic planning and communications for the Clinton White House. One could argue that Bill Clinton was the best Democratic communicator in the last 50 years. I know of your role, people respected you very much.
You hear that when I ask AMERICA’S VOICES to talk about the Democrats, they start talking about what they like or dislike about George Bush. Does that concern you? Or is that to be expected?
DONALD BAER, DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: Well, somewhat it’s to be expected at this point. There hasn’t been a vote cast yet, in the Democratic primaries. So, it’s still remarkably early even though everyone wants to pick a winner two months before there is even a vote cast, or a month before there’s even a vote cast.
So, it’s early yet. Still it’s cause for concern. I will tell you one candidate out there has gotten the tone right, at least for the moment. He’s got a blunt approach that a lot of people call refreshing. Some people call it arrogant. That’s Howard Dean.
LUNTZ: Oh, I thought you were going to say Al Sharpton.
(LAUGHTER)
BAER: But what he doesn’t-well, Al Sharpton is a great communicator. He’s done a terrific job for himself. But Dean has the tone right. But what he doesn’t have is the words right. And there are others of them who have some of the words right, but they don’t have the tone right. It’s about combining all of this.
I saw someone shaking their head over here. Let me say what I mean by this. Because I do think that Dean is perilously close to being seeing as purely an anger driven candidate. I mean, that’s what he’s been. We hear all this anger. There was anger over here about President Bush going to Iraq over the Thanksgiving holiday, a lot of anger out there.
Anger can only take you so far, in my view, in terms of national politics and winning a national electorate. It can get you on the screen. That bluntness can sort of get people to wake up and take notice and also think that you can deliver a punch and take a punch. But at the end of the day it’s going to take more optimism and a positive spirit to win.
LUNTZ: Agree or disagree?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree. Zell Miller represents the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. He says that Howard Dean represents the worst of McGovern and the worst of Mondale, which is cut and run and raises tax. Both of those candidates only won one state and the conservatives in the Democratic Party are so afraid that Dean is going to take the party back into the political stone ages.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a Democrat...
LUNTZ: Liz.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a Democrat, I really, really, really hate Republicans telling me what Democrats believe. My-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m telling you what I read in the press.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell us what you believe!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Talking about the Democrats.
LUNTZ: Liz, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My husband has never been engaged politically. He’s now working actively for Howard Dean. You go to Howard-and it isn’t only that we are for Howard Dean, even though a lot of us are really, really impressed. It’s that a lot of us will vote for anyone before we would vote for Bush.
LUNTZ: There’s your anger.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Wait a second, there’s your anger right there. There’s hostility in her voice.
BAER: Absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I disagree.
LUNTZ: Is that going to help? Is that going to help the Democratic Party win?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
BAER: Well, it can take the Democratic Party so far. My view is you can’t win on anger alone. The country is desperately in need of a spirit of optimism, a sense about the future-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re still talking about this, this far into a primary season?
BAER: What do you mean?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s pathetic.
BAER: We haven’t had a single vote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re two months away from a vote and all you can say is what they should be talking about?
(CROSSTALK)
BAER: Well, excuse me there are-there are-I don’t know who we got here from the RNC but there are people who are out there. All the candidates are talking about this. If you ask the question about whether or not they’re using the right words and delivering the message with the right tone.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t care about the words, I want-
LUNTZ: OK, Rainier (ph), hold on. Please jump in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the things I think everybody’s ignoring, is let’s go back to the beginning. The presidential election in 2000, Al Gore received more votes. And after that-after that-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here we go, there he goes again.
(CROSSTALK)
BAER: A lot of people are angry about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Optimism plummeted.
BAER: Right, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The constitutional-
BAER: I heard a great line-
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... that place on the issues, I want to know, if nothing else, when I go to the polls, number one, I won’t be turned away by the police and number two, that my ballot will count.
(CROSSTALK)
BAER: I heard a great line recently, someone said he was old enough to remember when the president chose the Supreme Court instead of the Supreme Court choosing the president. So that was pretty good.
LUNTZ: So, what advice? We’ve got to wrap up. What advice, Don, do you have for the Democratic candidates, in addition to optimism, are there any specific words, phrases, messages?
BAER: This is going to sound somewhat counter-conventional, given we’ve got so much anger in the room and there is always so much talk about anger and divisiveness in the country.
I actually believe there’s a lot more desire for unity in the country than desire to be divided in the country, especially at this time in our history. And I think the candidate that can move ahead will be one who combines what Dean has done well, which is that tone and bluntness, and at the same time say there’s a spirit of common purpose that we have to tap in this country that will move us forward to be a greater America.
LUNTZ: If I can be blunt the anger in this room frightens me, but this is what I hear in Iowa, this is what I hear in New Hampshire. This is what I hear across the country.
I want you to stick around, if you can, for one more segment. Because when we come back we’re going to find out whether Howard Dean has the right stuff.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUNTZ: Welcome back to AMERICA’S VOICES.
This week we continue our series on the major Democratic presidential candidates with the frontrunner, Governor Howard Dean. You probably formed some opinions and so as our panel.
What you’re about to see is a visual representation of their specific reaction as they listen to Dean’s take on the issues. Here’s how it works. Earlier, we showed the panel some video of Governor Dean’s interview with Chris Matthews on “Hardball” earlier this week.
The panel used these dials to tell us scientifically which clips they liked and which ones they didn’t. The red line that you will see represents people who voted for President Bush in 2000 and the green line represents Gore voters. By turning the dial the panelists registered their moment-by-moment approval or disapproval of what the candidate is saying.
This if they agree, the line goes up. If they disagree the line goes down. And how fast the line goes up or down determines how much they like or dislike what’s being said. Let’s take a look at how the panel responded to Governor Howard Dean. Here’s the first clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST, “HARDBALL”: OK. Let me ask you about the national policy or foreign policy. According to “The Washington Post,” today’s paper, up in Manchester yesterday you said “Mr. President,” if you’ll pardon me, you’re talking to President Bush sort in the third hand here. “I’ll teach you a little about defense.” What did you mean by this?
HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I meant is, I think the president did a great thing when he went to Thanksgiving dinner in Baghdad. I think he gave the troops a great morale boost. But the truth is the president hasn’t served our troops all that well.
He sent them over there, on what I believe was a series of reasons that turned out not to be true, and then when they got there he doubled their term. So, a reservist over there now spends 12 months, probably will lose their civilian job, can’t support their family, and then one August night before the news deadline-or just after the news deadlines, he tried to cut combat pay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LUNTZ: OK, pause it for one second.
Let’s hold this right here. I want you to take a look. When he praised Bush’s trip the Republicans in here all responded favorably. And then when he attacked the president, it was very negative.
Now, you’re in the military. Your reaction to Bush’s visit and to Dean’s criticism of it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it definitely wasn’t a waste of money by any means. Morale is the biggest thing we have going for us. Our virtuous family members pay the sacrifice and they improve the quality of life, the morale of our troops. I really applaud his efforts going out there and being a part of there.
LUNTZ: Should it have cost that much?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the morale would have been improved a lot more for the troops by not sending them into an unnecessary war in the first place.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that’s...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That’s not thinking (ph) about (ph) the troops at all. The public opinion is what cost us many, many lives in Vietnam. The public has to be behind our troops. If it means standing over our president and spending money on them they deserve that.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: James?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s kind of a cheap shot to criticize Bush for traveling to Iraq. Because, I mean, Clinton, he had the most expensive travel expense account of any president, I think, in recent history. So...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Criticize them both.
LUNTZ: Let me ask this question, I want a show of hands. This a legitimate-you may disagree, but is this a legitimate comment by Howard Dean to attack Bush for going to Baghdad? Is it legitimate? Raise your hands if you think it is a legitimate attack.
Two, three, only four people. That’s interesting. Maybe he went a little bit too far. Let’s take a look at our next clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: There was a purpose just to see if they could do it, and they did. We’re spending a lot of money in Iraq, we’re spending money building tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, which are never going to be helpful fighting terrorism. And we’re not spending money on human intelligence and on cyber intelligence and on cargo inspection and on buying the enriched uranium stocks of the former Soviet Union. If that gets in terrorist hands we have a major national security problem.
So, what we’re going to do is focus on terrorism and not on nation states, unless the nation states merged with the terrorist organizations as they did in Afghanistan. Now, I supported the action we took in Afghanistan to fight terror. But by and large this president, I don’t believe, has any idea how to fight terror. I don’t think he’s being particularly successful at it either.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LUNTZ: Again, we get that same sharp reaction, of course, when the president is attacked. What’s your reaction to Dean’s focus on terrorism?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was in agreement from the start with the action in Afghanistan. And I tend to think that something that’s been overlooked in the fray. I did not support the entry and the preemptive strike into Iraq.
LUNTZ: So when Howard Dean differentiates the two, that’s a reason to support him?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I resonate with that, yes.
LUNTZ: Your reaction?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t-I think they’re going where the terrorists are going. And if we need to, you know, protect our state, then we need to go where the terrorists are and-
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think ...
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Stu?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There’s a bigger picture here, which I think the American public and certainly Mr.-Dr. Dean doesn’t get. Which is we are in world war IV, as former C.I.A. Director Woolsey said. What we’re doing here is an attempt on the part of the administration to try to stop the clash of civilizations. And how do you do that? By showing the Muslims that there is a difference, there is another alternative to either a dictatorial state or an Islam mullah.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Quickly.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The whole problem is that you can’t fight terrorism essentially because you never know who is the terrorist. That’s the problem. That was the problem in Vietnam. Because they didn’t know who they were fighting.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: But can Howard Dean communicate the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan effectively to you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I think he blends them together and says in a way they’re one and the same. They’re just two different countries.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he lacks credibility.
LUNTZ: Hold on, I want to show one more clip and then I want to get Don Baer’s expert opinion on Dean’s communication style. Let’s take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor Dean, do you believe Republicans use race to divide whites and blacks?
DEAN: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As a campaign tactic?
DEAN: I do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how do we overcome that as a nation?
DEAN: We talk very directly to white working-class people and African-Americans about their common interests, which are jobs, education and health care. We’ve got to stop having the campaigns run in this country based on abortion, guns, god, and gays and start to talk about education, jobs and health care.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LUNTZ: That was a pretty positive reaction among Republicans.
BAER: There’s a fundamental lesson about political communication that you see in this. It is so wonderfully borne out. When he talks substance, or what sounds like substance to our ears, when he’s talking about policy, when he’s talking about things that can lead to real results for real people, both sides go up.
When he gets to an accusation, he holds his base, the Democrats, the angry Democrats are still going up, and the Republicans go through the floor. And so do the swing voters, who aren’t really represented here.
LUNTZ: So, what advice for Howard Dean then?
BAER: Substance, talk about what you’re going to do to help make America stronger and make life for the American people better. And begin to get rid of the accusations. Now, one of the reasons he’s in the accusation phase, I suspect, is he’s fighting in the Democratic primaries and he’s seen that has helped him with the core-base Democratic voters, but it can’t take him to the finish line.
LUNTZ: Your reaction?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was talking about what unites us as a country and that’s education rather focusing on what separates us and that was refreshing.
LUNTZ: Your reaction?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think that it is a unification process because most revolutions, most coups occur when there’s anger, you know, against ideology or the man itself. And that man right now being Bush. And that’s what-that’s what he’s touting to.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But in the end he’s not going to be able to go to the center during a general election with any credibility. He’s slowly trying to move to the center now on some issues but it’s not going to work for him.
LUNTZ: Sonia.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bush is so far to the right that I think, you know, anything-anything to the left of Bush is going to be near the center.
LUNTZ: Last comment.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t know that-I don’t know that Dean going all the way to the left will be very effective either, though, if Bush is all the way to the right. But Dean’s doing-after-if Dean-if Dean does, in March/April of next year Dean will have to come out with a plan and stop using anger base.
LUNTZ: All right, how many of you think Howard Dean is going to get the nomination regardless of whether you’re voting for him? Almost all of you, that’s got to be great news for Howard Dean.
Don Baer, I want to thank you very much for listening to and responding to AMERICA’S VOICES.
And when we come back, this week’s buzz. Guarantee to make you cooler at the water cooler. Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUNTZ: We’re back on AMERICA’S VOICES. It’s time to get interactive.
We’ve just heard a lot about the Democrats, so let’s be bipartisan.
Regardless of your own political beliefs, how successful were the Republicans in achieving their agenda in 2003? It doesn’t matter if you’re Republican, Democrat or anything in between. We want your answer no matter what political party you support. Go to our Web site at voices.msnbc.com. And let your voice be heard.
We’ve been talking about terrorism and homeland security. We want to mention that today is the 62nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. There are a lot of parallels we can draw between 1941, and right now in 2003.
Have we changed as a country? I don’t think any of you were alive back then. I’m not going to point to anyone, because that’s how I get into trouble. But think of the type of country we were back then, the unity, the spirit, the patriotism. Are we a stronger country today or less strong today, than we were back then?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’re not as strong today, because today everything is about divide and conquer. The rich don’t want to be taxed too much, the poor don’t want to be taxed too much. But instead of looking at what’s good for the whole, we only look at what is good for a segment.
LUNTZ: Maurice, do you agree?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. To some degree, I agree just that, yes, we are split a little too much. So, I agree on that note. But are we stronger? I think the preemptive policy that we’ve taken on, the preemptive strike, I disagree with that completely.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just think of what we’ve accomplished from 1941, when you were pretty much black or white. Now we have the society, we have the rainbow here, and we all, for the most part, get along.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But now we’re sort of going backwards because after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they were sort of isolated here in this country, and we’re doing the same thing to Arab-Americans right now, that we did to the Japanese back then.
LUNTZ: James, are we stronger today, or less strong?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we’re a different country now. I mean, it’s become obvious that the U.S. is the lone super power. It is very difficult for, I think, Americans to understand how it feels from the other point of view. That’s why I think there is so much anti-Americanism right now.
LUNTZ: Tough question for you, but I need an answer. Which do you think is more significant in American history? The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, or the attack on the World Trade Center in 2000?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would have to say Pearl Harbor.
LUNTZ: Why?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because as the horrific event brought everybody together for a longer period of time, I believe, and everybody agreed-and came together to fight. Where, unfortunately, 9/11 happened, and people were upset for a time, and it seems that people are starting to move on with their lives and they’re still afraid, but they’re not as concerned.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: Mike, which do you think was more impactful on America?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they were both impactful. But in the continuum in the same sense, in that in 1941 we were attacked, we realized that we couldn’t hide within our borders, and we had to take a strong stance in the world. And the same thing was reinforced in 2001. Now we realize that we can’t just stay in America, we can’t stay in our previous areas (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Roosevelt called for a group, collective work, getting us free. Bush is calling for new doctrine of social Darwinism that separates us all.
LUNTZ: Carla?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I don’t think that we are isolated at all in the world within our borders this time. I think it was probably more true in 1941. We have hundreds of military bases all over the world. Imagine what it would be like if Communist China had a military base in Florida? How would we feel about those people? This is the same way people feel about us. We have military bases all over the world in places that don’t want us.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: James?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They enjoy the security and have the luxury of complaining about it, whereas we’re the ones providing it. And that’s where we’re divided with the rest of the world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why are there American bases in Germany? Why is Western Europe enjoying more prosperity and freedom than it ever has in its history?
LUNTZ: You’re going to close up this conversation. Are we more frivolous? Should we be more serious? Should we be more single-minded? Or do we, because we are so powerful, have the right to the pursuit of happiness?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think we all have the right because of those men and women back in 1941, that divine spirit has been passed from generation to generation, and still exists within our military ranks. The military service members are Americans and we all should strive to emulate one way or the other. They’re a reflection of the society held to higher standards.
LUNTZ: And on that note, I’m sure we all appreciate what the military has done, and we will reflect on them in this holiday season. That’s all the time we have this week.
We’re proud that we’re the only show on television that gives real Americans like you the chance to question and challenge your leaders. I hope you’ll check us out every week at the same time. And remember, whether you agree or disagree, keep talking and keep listening. Honest debate promotes true understanding.
I’m Frank Luntz. Thanks for watching.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2003 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2003 FDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, Inc.), ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user’s
personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and FDCH e-Media, Inc.’s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.