INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”

Guest: Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

Reporters: Quinn McCord, Hotline & Matthew Brown, Baltimore Sun

Moderator: C-SPAN

TAPE DATE: Wednesday, July 18, 2007

AIR DATE/TIME: SUNDAY, July 22, 2007 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET

Please use with attribution to C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*

* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network

Please contact Jennifer Moire in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at

202-626-8797 or jmoire@c-span.org for questions

© NCSC

Copyrighted material: use with attribution only

PETER SLEN: Well, the most recent campaign finance reports are in, and the Democrats are raising money at a record clip. The man in charge of campaign money for Congressional Democrats is Congressman Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat of Maryland, and he’s our guest this week on Newsmakers.

Here to question him are reporters Matt Brown of the Baltimore Sun and Quinn McCord of Hotline.

Congressman, if I could ask the first question.

U.S. REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, (D-MD): Sure.

SLEN: You’re raising money at a record clip. Congressional approval ratings are at a record low, almost. What’s the message that you give to voters to tell them, you need to reelect us?

HOLLEN: Well, there’s a lot of energy and momentum coming off the last election, when people asked for and demanded change. And one of the reasons I think you see Congressional ratings relatively low is because people are impatient with the pace of change, and frankly we all are, in members of Congress on the Democratic side.

We’d like to change things more quickly, we’d like to change direction of the war in Iraq. We want to move forward on domestic policy issues. And we have been blocked, in some instances, by the Republicans, and in some instances, we’ve made progress.

The good news in the numbers is that people recognize that the Democratic leadership, the Democratic members of Congress, are the agents of change. They’re frustrated with where Congress is right now, but they clearly recognize that the Republicans stand for the status quo, and Democrats are working to try and implement change, for example, on Iraq.

And therefore, while the overall level of Congress is relatively low, people continue to say, by large margins, they prefer Democratic leadership to the alternative.

SLEN: So, when you send out a fundraising letter, is the letter anti-Republican? Is that the message? Anti-President Bush, or is it pro-Democratic ideals?

HOLLEN: Well, our message is pro-Democratic policy, pro-Democratic agenda, and contrasting it with the fact that you have a White House that has been an accountability-free zone, and a White House that is, frankly, standing in the way of some of the things we want.

We want change in Iraq. We want to change direction. The president vetoed the bill. The Republican members in the House and Senate sustained the veto, meaning they voted in lockstep with the president.

So, when we send out a message, whether it’s on national security or Iraq, or whether it’s on domestic policy changes we want, we make it clear what we want to do, the direction that we would like to lead people, and where there’s a difference, we point that out.

SLEN: Matt Brown.

MATTHEW BROWN, BALTIMORE SUN, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Clearly there are special problems for you guys in terms of presidential vetoes and a slim majority in the Senate, which is holding things up in terms of progress on issues like Iraq.

But a year from now, if we’re essentially in the same place as far as Iraq goes, are you going to be able to hold the party together through that, and are you going to be able to continue to sell yourself as agents of change if, indeed, a year and a half has passed and nothing has changed?

HOLLEN: Sure. Well, of course, a year and a half from now, we hope very much that there will be significant change in direction in Iraq.

The situation on the ground is untenable. More and more Republicans every day recognize that fact. You have Senator Lugar and Senator Warner and others in the Senate making it clear they disagree with the president’s policy.

The question is, when will they stop just talking about the need for change and actually vote for some serious change? And we believe that, over time, they will see that, in order to protect our national security, and in order to make sure that we see that change in direction, they will begin to vote to change.

If they don’t, I think the American people are going to clearly recognize who’s pushing for change, who’s demanding change, who’s voting for change, and who’s standing in the way. If the president continues to veto our efforts to change direction, if he continues to veto our effort to have a withdrawal – for example, the bill we just passed in the House, by April 1st, of our combat forces, and change the mission in Iraq, I think they’re going to hold people accountable for standing in the way of change.

Our hope, our hope, is that the president will respond or that we’ll have enough Republicans join us so that we can change direction in Iraq. But if they continue to stand in the way of change, I think they’re going to have to answer for it at the ballot box.

BROWN: So, is this then going to be the strategy going forward, that you’re going to bring up the same votes – and I’m talking in a policy sense, not simply in a political sense – you’re going to bring up the same votes and the same issues in the hope of peeling off – beginning to peel off Republican votes in a way that hasn’t happened so far?

HOLLEN: We are going to keep the pressure on to change direction in Iraq, absolutely, and we’re going to do it through votes, we’re going to do it through our public statements, we’re going to do it by calling on the president to change direction and continue to point to facts on the ground.

But clearly an element of that has to be continuing to ask for votes for change, because ultimately that’s how voters have an opportunity to judge their members’ records. And we think that everyone should get an opportunity to match their rhetoric with their votes.

We had a group of House Republicans that went down to the White House about eight weeks ago, said, “Mr. President, your policy’s taking us in the wrong direction.” But then they all trooped right back down to the House and voted in lockstep with the president’s policy, which they say has failed, and I think they have to choose.

They have to choose between telling their constituents back home that they’re independent and don’t like the president’s policy, and deciding to also vote the way they say they want to vote, or voting with the president. And we want to make sure that people have an opportunity to continue to vote on this issue because we think, if we keep that pressure on, ultimately we hope to see a real change in direction.

QUINN MCCORD, HOTLINE, STATE EDITOR: Congressman, there’s been some talk from your own Democratic incumbents back home that some of them may get primary challenges from antiwar candidates, or independent challenges from antiwar candidates, because they’re not moving fast enough on Iraq.

Does this concern you as the DCCC chair?

HOLLEN: Well, look, I’ve – let, a thousand flowers bloom (ph), so to speak. I mean, I don’t think anyone is afraid of the Democratic primary and the kind of contest they may face, and I think our members are in a good position to take a case to the voters.

And I think they’re in a very strong position because I think voters do understand that Democrats in Congress are doing everything possible. We just sent a bill to the White House that was vetoed. We tried to override the president’s veto. Republicans continue to vote in lockstep with the president. So, we’re going to continue to keep the pressure on.

The question for anyone challenging a Democratic member of Congress in the primary on the war is really saying, as a practical matter, what would you do differently, because we are …

MCCORD: … authorized the war. Do you (ph) de-fund it?

HOLLEN: Well, the bill we just passed and sent to the White House would essentially require a change in direction. It would require U.S. combat forces to be out of Iraq by April 1st. That’s a significant change.

And so, we are keeping our pressure on. I understand, and I think the Democratic leadership in Congress understands the frustration of the American people on this issue. We would all like to move faster.

At the end of the day, we’ve got to make sure Republicans join us in asking for change. Not every Republican. We’d like to have every Republican, but enough to either override the president’s veto or finally press the president to change direction.

September’s going to be a big day. The president has said, let’s look at what General Petraeus has to report in September. What we do know is that the sort of preliminary report showed that very little progress has been made on key issues in Iraq, especially with regard to political reconciliation in that country, which is essential to achieving stability and moving forward. And the Iraqis have not met those very important goals, and we say we can’t continue to have U.S. forces in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. We need to focus on the threat of al Qaeda.

We saw this past week, with the National Intelligence estimate, that, in fact, we took our eye off the ball, where the threat really came from on September 11th, which was al Qaeda along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Let’s finish the job there.

MCCORD: You know, in 2006, one of the things Democrats had going for them was no presidential nominee to dilute their message. Obviously, in 2008, you’ll have a Democratic presidential nominee, and of course, a lot of your freshmen are in districts that are Republican-leaning.

What are you going to say to the nominee of your party, the presidential nominee, what are you going to tell him or her in terms of things that will be helpful, or don’t say things that will be hurtful to our candidates? How are you going to get the messages not so …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Do you get a chance to tell them?

HOLLEN: Right. Well, that’s – you know, it’s a good question.

I think whoever the presidential nominee is will be sensitive to a lot of the issues around the country, and is going to want to carry as big a part of the American electorate as possible and have a broad message that reaches Americans in all walks of life.

And so, I’m confident and hopeful that our candidate will be in a strong position with respect to their message.

Clearly, where there’s a difference of opinion between a Democratic member of Congress and the Democratic nominee for president, the Democratic member of Congress, I think, will point that out.

We have lots of members here who are in districts that traditionally have voted for the Republican nominee for president, and they’re going to continue to exercise their own independent judgment on different votes.

I mean, every member comes here, and what we’ve said to them, the DCCC and other places, is make sure you vote your conscience, your constituents and your country. And that’s what they’re doing.

So, I’m confident that, where they have a difference of opinion with our presidential nominee, they will point it out, and they will vote in the best interests of their constituents.

MCCORD: You’re not worried about any of the potential Democratic nominees leading your party next year?

HOLLEN: I’m not. I think we have a great batch of candidates, and I think you see a lot of enthusiasm and energy. They all seem to be gathering large crowds and certainly doing well in terms of the resources they’re putting together for their campaigns.

BROWN: With the presidential elections this year, we're seeing - or next year - we're seeing states leapfrogging each other to try and get their primaries ever earlier, so the cycle seems to be accelerated. How does that impact the congressional races, having primaries happen so early?

HOLLEN: Well, I mean there are two sides to it. Since, it's largely primaries, it mean it squeezes the primary schedule, which often means that there are less opportunities for a primary challenger to get up and running in time to challenge an incumbent in the primary. But it sometimes gives you, therefore, a longer time in the general election.

So, once you have the candidate, it sometimes gives - where you have a challenger on the Democratic side challenging a Republican, obviously it gives them a longer period of time before the general election to make their case. And the reverse is, of course, also true.

BROWN: Do you look at that as positive or negative or does it come out to a wash?

HOLLEN: I really think it comes out to a wash. There may be particular cases where it has some impact, but I think across the board, it probably comes out as a wash. Although there may - you know, I haven't looked at this question in the context of every race, but I do think there are some where, the earlier you get your primary over with, the better off you are in terms of recovering.

If you had a bitter primary where people really went at each other, obviously, the longer time you have to make up and put together your resources for the general, the better.

BROWN: What is the role of the DCCC in primaries? Are you getting involved in recruiting some candidates and discouraging others?

HOLLEN: Right.

BROWN: What role are you taking?

HOLLEN: Well, as a general rule, we stay out of primaries. We think that the primary's an opportunity for candidates to test themselves to see how they do. So, when you have two declared candidates, it would be the exception very much, rather than the rule, that we would get involved in. Right now, we're not involved in any Democratic primaries …

BROWN: But there …

HOLLEN: … there could be cases where, certainly before people get in to the primary, we might encourage somebody to try and work it out, and we may have a preference. But when it comes right down to it, if everybody files, we sort of let the candidates go.

Again, I want - there could be some exceptions to that rule under extraordinary circumstances. So far, we don't have any this cycle, but there are times when we have preferences before candidates file, and we do try and work with the local parties and the local community to work things out. Sometimes we succeed, and sometimes we don't.

BROWN: Work things out in favor of the person that you've identified as a strong candidate and that …

HOLLEN: Yes, we certainly - we might make an effort to do that, but where we don't succeed, we usually say, OK, let's let the process unfold and we'll go support whoever the nominee …

BROWN: Do you want to share with us where that's happening now?

HOLLEN: I don't have any really good example right now. I really don't. But there are - well, there are certain - there are cases where, for example, you might have had a candidate who ran last time who sees him- or herself as the presumed frontrunner, where somebody decides to get in and challenge him or her.

And sometimes the person who had, you know, carried the mantel last time says, you know, I should be the candidate. And sometimes we say, we think you should be, and try and discourage people from getting in, and sometimes we may say, you know, we think it's important for everybody to get in. But I don't want to get into any particular examples right now. Thanks, Matt.

MCCORD: Congressman, what keeps you up at night? And by that I mean, are there certain incumbents in certain states that, you know, you look at and you're like, this is going to be tough - tough to keep, tough to recruit challengers for? What are you worried about when you go to bed?

HOLLEN: Right, right. Well, here's what - I want to make sure that, as we move through this process of the next couple of years, that people are in a position to be able to point to specific changes they've been able to make.

And I think we're on strong ground in that regard. We had a good first 100 hours - I'm talking about on the policy front - we had a good first 100 hours, we made some changes with respect to fiscal accountability, a pay as you go rule, transparency, earmarks, moving an agenda forward in terms of minimum wage.

So I do think that the policy piece is very important, because I think it's critical when our candidates get in the field, they can be able to say, we have made a difference, or we've done our darnedest to make a difference.

The other area that I focus on is just making sure that people don't forget the importance of maintaining a Democratic majority in Congress in order to implement the changes that were called for in the last election, because, in a presidential election year, people are often paying attention to the presidential race. Last time, as you said, we had the sort of field to ourselves in terms of the congressional race was the only game in town.

Now, you have a presidential race, and it's essential that we let people - whether they're contributors or grassroots supporters - remember the importance.

And finally, on to this (ph) - we need to - we need to beat history in this race. Often, when you have wave elections, like we just saw - as you had in 1994 - there is some backsliding. In 1994, Gingrich Republicans came in. They won a big majority. 1996, the Democrats actually won net seats.

I think we can beat that past historical pattern, because I think we have strong political momentum, that we continue to be the party for change, and the agents of change, and I think people recognize that.

MCCORD: About backsliding, though, I mean, you often hear the argument that any targeted Republican incumbent who didn't lose in 2006, like a Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania or Deborah Pryce in Ohio – you threw everything you had at them in 2006. Why would anyone think they would lose in 2008?

HOLLEN: You see, I think people are continuing to call for change. I think one of the reasons you see that frustration with Congress is that people have a perception that things aren't changing as fast as they want it to.

And the fact of the matter is, the Democrats remain the party that's calling for change in direction in a whole host of areas - domestic policy and, as Iraq clearly shows, on Iraq. And I think that people continue to hunger for people who are going to move us in a new direction.

And Republicans are simply going to be - you know, their platform - what's their platform going to be? Let's take us back to the old days, the old Congress, the status quo? And I don't think that message is going to ring. I think that the message of change is much stronger.

So, even where you have those close races, I think we have a great opportunity in this next election to continue forward and finish the job.

SLEN: Just to follow up on Quinn's question, Congressman. Three of your targets from '06, Deborah Pryce, Heather Wilson and Tom Reynolds, all Republicans, when you look at the most recent finance campaign reports, have raised vast amounts of money, much higher than their opponents.

Are you targeting those three races again this year?

HOLLEN: Which were the three you mentioned?

SLEN: Heather Wilson, Deborah Pryce, Tom Reynolds.

HOLLEN: Yes, we are definitely targeting all those races, and we have strong candidates in all those races, and in fact, in some we have a primary which is an indicator to me that people see those as real opportunities to pick up.

And I think their fundraising will pick up, but I think even more importantly, they're putting together good operations on the ground. They've got a lot of grassroots support that they're building.

I would put out - point out on the fundraising front, that we have a lot more of our challengers who have raised more funds than the Republican incumbents than the other way around, so – in terms of their challengers against our incumbent members who are from tough, tough districts.

So, I think if you're going to look at that as a measure, we're in a very strong position, and in the three cases you cited, we do have good candidates that are in the running, and I think they're going to be in a strong position.

SLEN: And they're on the DCCC target list?

HOLLEN: Those are all seats that we think are opportunities for Democratic pickups, because we think, because of the closeness of the last election, it was a clear indicator that people are not totally happy with the incumbent. And we think the winds of change continue to blow in the right direction.

BROWN: If you look on the Republican side at the front-runners for president, you've got Mayor Giuliani, Governor Romney, Senator McCain, and possibly Senator Thompson. I think it's fair to say, probably far more diverse in their political positioning than Obama, Edwards and Clinton.

I'm wondering, going into the presidential election, where the top of the ticket is going to have so much impact, presumably on the congressional races. Who do you want to go up against?

HOLLEN: If I could pick my Republican?

BROWN: Yes.

HOLLEN: Well, look, I really think that our - we're in a good position regardless of who the Republican nominee is. I think you can have some regional impact, obviously.

For example, if you had a Republican presidential nominee from New York, and you did not have a Democratic nominee from New York, we may have, you know – who knows, you could have both, obviously, from New York.

Could that have an impact regionally in New York? Yes. If you had a - and so, I think it could have that impact.

BROWN: But it isn’t (ph) just regional. They are representing different issues and stressing different issues and presenting – so it’s - there's geographical reasons, and then there’s issue areas.

HOLLEN: There are, and I think it's too early to say, with respect to the Republican nominee, even if you took all those candidates who are out there right now that we know about, exactly what kind of message they would be carrying into a national election, and what all the differences among them would be.

I mean, I agree, there are - there are considerable differences on the Republican side, at least seem to be emerging. Although I will say, with respect to Republican nominees, it's sometimes hard to figure it out. They seem to change day by day, and reinvent themselves on issues day by day.

We’ve obviously seen that with Romney, we’ve seen that, with some respect to Giuliani, that their message seems to adapt to the political winds.

And so, let’s just wait and see, you know, who the Republican nominee is. I think we will be in a strong position no matter, you know, with our candidates. And as we were taking about earlier, to the extent that our Democratic candidates have a difference of opinion with the top of our ticket, I think they will express that clearly and make sure they are looking out for the interests of their constituents.

MCCORD: You had a few candidates last year that were basically not really supported by the DCCC, but came very close to winning, like Larry Kissell in North Carolina, Dan Seals in Illinois. Do you think the DCCC needs an improved process for identifying the late-breaking races, the closest races? Is there anything you think the DCCC maybe needs to improve on, even from last year, despite their…

HOLLEN: Right. Well, look, I would say obviously I think the results of last year indicated that the DCCC, overall, did a very good job of picking winners and making sure that we had resource go to people who needed the help the most to carry them over the threshold needed to win.

I mean, after all, this was a major election. Not a single Democratic member of the House lost, and we picked up 30 seats, as you know.

Looking back, are there some things that we have might done differently? The Larry Kissell race, which you mentioned, is probably the number one example.

If we’d had better information, I think we would have made different decisions in that race. Larry Kissell ran a great race. He lost by 320 votes. The information that we were using did not show the race that close.

When we went back, we saw some things which we wish we’d known about earlier. And, you know, we think that there’s a perfect example. We were talking earlier about candidates running again. We think Larry Kissell remains a very strong candidate. And we think he has a great message. He’s got a great grassroots support base, and it’s certainly a race that we are targeting.

MCCORD: But if there’s a contested primary, would he automatically get a pre-primary endorsement because he came so close last year, or not necessarily?

HOLLEN: Let me just say, Larry Kissell is an example of a terrific candidate. He’s running a strong race. He’s the only one in the race right now. And so, we have encouraged people to help him, to do everything they can for him. As I said, when it comes to official sort of endorsements, we do not get involved in the primaries.

But where you have a candidate like Larry Kissell, who is the only declared candidate out in front, we’re certainly doing everything we can to support Larry.

BROWN: How are you getting along now with the Democratic National Committee? I know that that was an issue between your predecessor and the committee during the last cycle.

HOLLEN: Well, we’re getting along very well. I mean, I think part of the tension the last cycle was a result of the fact that we were in different cycles with respect to our missions. I mean, Howard Dean’s mission is to make sure that he lays the groundwork for a strong presidential candidate.

Our focus in the last election was to win back the House, and that creates some tensions. Now, we’re all in the same cycle, and we’re very much on the same page. We talk frequently, share information. We want to make sure that we coordinate our strategies wherever we can. And so, there’s a good working relationship between the DCCC and Howard Dean and the DNC.

SLEN: Congressman Van Hollen, we haven’t talked yet about immigration. We have about two minutes left.

Is immigration going to hurt your party in the ’08 campaign, immigration reform?

HOLLEN: No. I don’t think it’s going to hurt our party. This was an issue, as you know, that was one of the president’s top agenda items. He called for comprehensive immigration reform from the beginning of his presidency. He tried to bring that back and work with, on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to get it done.

And at the end of the day, the president was unable to persuade the Republicans, including the leader, Republican leader in the Senate, to go along. And I think what this reflects is a weakened president who is unable to carry through on what has been his most recent top domestic priority.

So, what I think it reflects is the fact the president doesn’t have the weight to get things done. I think we’d all like to see immigration reform in the sense that we need to improve the security of our borders, and everybody agrees that that has to be a priority.

But we also need to fix a broken system. And it’s been my view that people of good faith on both sides of the aisle can come together and get that done. Unfortunately, what happened in the Senate was an indication that they can’t get it done. And I think, from our national perspective, that’s a very unfortunate situation.

SLEN: But can you see how, perhaps, Democratic members have opened themselves up to a 30-second ad, you know, supports illegal immigration, et cetera, that type of ad being played against you?

HOLLEN: Well, none of our members support illegal immigration, but you are correct in that the Republicans will run that kind of ad, even if it isn’t based on the facts, unfortunately.

But I will say that there’s a broad difference of opinion within the Democratic caucus on immigration. Not that we shouldn’t do something, but exactly how you go about doing it, just as on the Republican side, you see differences between the president and the White House on the one hand, and Republican senators on the other. On the Democratic side, there’s a broad spectrum of opinion as well.

So, I think this is an issue that individual members of Congress will make decisions about based on what they think is in the best interest of their constituents. And I don’t think anybody is going to let themselves be Swift Boated on an immigration issue going into this election.

People are very cognizant of the fact that some of the Republicans in – will use desperate tactics to try and sort of misrepresent people’s positions.

And so, again, people have different positions, and I think they’re going to be in a position to explain where they are on this important issue to their constituents, in a way that makes it clear to constituents that that member is looking out for their interests.

SLEN: This week on Newsmakers, our guest has been Congressman Chris Van Hollen, first elected in 2002. He is chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Thank you.

HOLLEN: Thanks for having me.

SLEN: We’ll be right back with our reporter roundtable.

(BREAK)

SLEN: And we are back with our reporters, Quinn McCord of the Hotline, and Matt Brown of the Baltimore Sun.

Gentlemen, put on a political hat. You are looking out (ph) through your political lens. Mr. McCord, are the Democrats in a good position to maintain control of Congress in ’08 at this point?

MCCORD: As of now, I think they are. It’s true that their fundraising has been going a lot better than the Republicans. The Republican campaign committees are not raising very much money. They have no – very little cash on hand. Democrats are doing very well.

And it’s true that, in a lot of the targeted vulnerable freshman seats, Republicans don’t have as many strong recruits as you might have thought halfway through this year.

Now, of course, it’s too late to say recruiting is a failure for Republicans by any means. But as of now, especially with Iraq staying the way it is right now, unless it gets dramatically better, sure, Democrats are in a good position.

SLEN: Matt Brown.

BROWN: I think the downside to that, is that if Iraq doesn’t change, it’ shard to know how people are going to feel about the Democrats six months from now, or a year from now. As you mentioned, the approval ratings have dipped, in some cases, below that of the president. So, it’s hard to know how that’s going to play out.

If you’ve run in 2006 as agents of change, and then there is no measurable change on the issue that voters find most important, I don’t know how you sell that again in 2008.

SLEN: And Congressman Van Hollen said, you know, we tried our darnedest, and that would be, perhaps, a sell to voters. Antiwar demonstrators are showing up at Nancy Pelosi’s meetings. I mean, how do the Democrats reconcile that?

BROWN: It’s going to be a tricky needle to thread, I think, going forward, for those reasons. I think there’s a lot of agitation on the antiwar left that more hasn’t happened, and that there haven’t been larger votes in favor of cutting off funding altogether for the war.

MCCORD: At the end of the day, though, I suspect the presidential campaign will so polarize the country, as it has the past few times, that even Democrats, antiwar Democrats unhappy with the slowness of the congressional Democrats war efforts are still going to turn out to vote, still going to vote for Democratic candidates, both presidential and congressional.

So, that’s how I think it will probably swing. I mean, you might have some protest primary votes, but people will want to vote in 2008. And I don’t think people will be dispirited by the slowness of the Democratic efforts.

SLEN: Matt Brown, it’s the middle of 2007 right now. Is Congress done, basically, with any big legislative initiatives, given the fact that there is a presidential race in ’08?

BROWN: It certainly doesn’t look like they are going to try to immigration again, at this stage. And I think, as Congressman Van Hollen said, we’re going to see more of the same on Iraq. We’re going to see the same sorts of issues brought up and voted on. And they are going to hope to peal off Republicans, but they haven’t been successful in doing that so far.

And in fact, in some cases, they are losing more Democrats on votes than they are gaining republicans.

So, yes, it’s hard to know what major legislative initiative is going to come out of Congress, or out of the White House, between now and the election.

SLEN: Matt Brown is with the Baltimore Sun, and Quinn McCord is with Hotline. They have been our guests on Newsmakers this week.

Thank you, gentlemen.

QUINN MCCORD: Thank you.

MATTHEW BROWN: Thank you.

END