Archive: Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol, editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard, is one of Washington's most quotable and articulate spokesmen for the conservative movement. Veteran CBS News White House Correspondent Bill Plante brings a top political expert into the Smoke-Filled Room each week to answer your questions:

Kristol: It's a bit of a Republican myth that Perot cost Bush the election in '92. Exit polls actually show the Perot vote probably would have split even between Bush and Clinton. The same is true in '96 with Dole and Clinton. And I think the same will be true in 2000 with regard to Buchanan. I think that Bush will have to win this election on his own or lose it on his own. I don't think a third party will make much of a difference.

Plante: Another viewer asks, "Would it be helpful to the Democrats to bring up the issue of the Confederate flag flying in the capital of South Carolina? I could see Al Gore saying to George W. Bush, 'You call yourself a member of the party of Lincoln. But your refusal to take a public stand on the Confederate flag puts you in the party of Jefferson Davis.' Would this be an issue that the Vice President could successfully exploit?"

Kristol: If Gore decides to pretty much concede the South to Bush, which he may do, I could imagine him trying to use this issue a bit in some of the Northern states. On the other hand, it's a little hard to believe that this is going to be a cutting issue. In Tennessee, where Al Gore's from, there's probably Confederate flags depicted in various murals in state buildings and the like, so I'm a little doubtful we'll be hearing that much more about the Confederate flag this year.

Plante: Chris Ryan asks, "As a reporter, do you think that your recent endorsement of Senator McCain will in any way impact the access you will be granted to George W. Bush?"

Kristol: I didn't actually endorse Senator McCain. I don't think, quite. I certainly spoke well of him and, I guess, supported him. I have no idea if it will impact any access I would want to George W. I'm sure they'll treat reporters from our magazine fairly and that's what I really care about. I don't need any personal access myself.

Plante: Stephen Foxwell wants to know, "Why won't Sen. McCain run as an independent or Reform party member when polls indicate he would be a very viable candidate?"

Kristol: Polls now show that right after the McCain excitement, the McCain challenge, there's 20, sometimes even up to 30 percent of Americans who might vote for McCain as an independent. We would have to assume that nmber would drop unless Bush turns out to be a disastrous candidate. I think McCain ultimately would end up being a spoiler and would help ensure the election of Gore. At least, that's what I think he thinks.

Now I think if McCain were convinced in the next week or two that Bush simply couldn't beat Gore - that suddenly there was some catastrophe at the Bush campaign - he might think he owed it to the country to get in, to provide an alternative to Gore. But absent that, I just think it's hard to see how McCain wins as an independent candidate. I've talked to some of McCain's closest aides about this and one of them said to me, "Look, I can see how McCain can get 30, even conceivably 33, 35 percent. The trouble is if he does that, Gore will still be at 40 percent and will win and what would be the point of that?"

So I think McCain will be a loyal Republican. I wouldn't be surprised if he ran on the ticket with Bush as his Vice President. And if Bush loses, McCain obviously could think about running in 2004.

Plante: "What do you think about the Arkansas Bar Association considering removing President Clinton as a member? Will they do this before he leaves office?" Jan Campbell is curious.

Kristol: From what little I know about the Bar and Bar ethics and expectations of members of the Bar, it would seem that there would be a case for removing President Clinton as a member of the Arkansas Bar. But I don't know if and when they'll do this.

Plante: Larry Labadie says, "Given the fact that both Bush and Gore won their party's nominations fair and square, why do you think the media has pressed G.W. about why he has not adopted the McCain campaign finance reform issue, while not asking Al Gore why he has not adopted the Bradley health care, education, or hand gun control positions?"

Kristol: One reason is that John McCain won seven of the seventeen primaries he contested. Bill Bradley won zero of the seventeen he contested. Gore's knockout of Bradley was sufficiently clear and thorough, so that there is very little pressure on him to do much to reach out to Bradley voters. Gore got a lot more votes than Bradley while they were both competing. Gore got over five million votes. Bradley got about two million votes. In the case of Bush and McCain, Bush got about six million votes; McCain five million votes, so it's much move evenly divided. McCain energized the independent voters, many of the independent voters that a Republican needs to win. So it's not that unreasonable for the media to "pester" Bush about his strategy for reaching out to McCain's supporters, in the way that the media doesn't bother Gore. Gore is probably going to get the great bulk of Bradley voters without much trouble.

Plante: What do you make of the fact that both Al Gore and George Bush are sons and descendants of politicians? Is America developing a political class?

Kristol:/b> I think this is the first election in American history where both candidates are basically sons of wealth and privilege, in fact the sons of a senator and a vice president, a president. And in the case of Bush, a president, who himself is the son of a senator. Often there is one candidate who has that character, but usually the other one has come from humble beginnings. I don't know if that means anything broad about America or it's an accident about who happened to win the nomination.

More broadly, this suggests the election of 2000 looks more and more to me like the last election of this past century rather than the first election of the next century. With Gore, we have someone who's run for national office in the last three elections, in '88 for the Democratic nomination as President and in '92 and '96 as the vice presidential candidate. In Bush we have the son of the man who was on the Republican ticket in '80, '84, '88, and '92. It's a little bit same old, same old. After November 2000, will be the time for fresh blood and in some respects, fresh ideas.

Plante: Shelley F. asks, "Is it good or bad that the presidential election process takes so long in this country?"

Kristol: I think the nominating process is healthy. I think you need several months to look at these candidates. I think it's healthy to force them to go state to state. I think we learn more about them in that process. Having this several month long general election competition, I'm not sure is that useful, since there aren't that many candidates now, and we're going to have them treading water for a few months. I don't have a problem with the spread out primary system. I think it would be nice if we could move the primaries later into 2000 and then have a shorter general election campaign.

Plante: There's been a lot of talk about soft money and campaign reform. Another reader wants to know if the American public really cares about these issues.

Kristol: The American public doesn't care about the details of campaign finance reform. But the American public is, I think, eager to have a political system that they can respect more and that doesn't seem to be tainted by excessive amounts of slightly shady dealings or the appearance of impropriety. I think if you back to Perot in '92 and the interest in Powell in '95 and Ventura in '98, there's clearly a market out there for a kind of outsider who would clean up the process. One of the questions for the next few months is whether Gore or Bush, neither who is much in the way of outsiders, can tap into some of that outsider sentiment.

Plante: Lily M. would like to know, "Of all the statesmen, presidents, prime ministers and famous people you've met, who most impressed you?"

Kristol: I think I was most impressed by Richard Nixon's intelligence, by Margaret Thatcher's will and determination, by Ronald Reagan's charm, and y Natan Sharansky's humanity.

Plante: And finally, If you could wave a magic wand and pick the most qualified, best people to be President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Treasury, whom would you pick? (And you can't pick yourself.)

Kristol: I'll give you some controversy here. I think I'd like Clarence Thomas to be President, Bill Bennett as Vice President, Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of State, and Phil Gramm as Secretary of Treasury. That would be an all-star team.

About Bill Plante Bill Plante is a three-time Emmy Award winner who joined the CBS News Washington Bureau in 1976. He has been covering national elections since 1968. In 1984, he was part of a CBS News team that captured an Emmy for coverage of Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign. Plante is one of the most knowledgeable and respected political correspondents in Washington. (He'll do just about anything, including bungee jumping, to get a good story.)