INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”

Guest: NRCC Chairman, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)

Reporters: David Drucker, Roll Call & Sean Lengell, Washington Times

Moderator: C-SPAN

TAPE DATE: Wednesday, August 1, 2007

AIR DATE/TIME: SUNDAY, August 5, 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

SUSAN SWAIN, HOST: Our guest on Newsmakers this week is Congressman Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. He is the man that the Republicans in the House have entrusted with regaining the majority this year as the Chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee.

Congressman Cole, thanks very much for being in the studios.

U.S. REP. TOM COLE, (R-OK), CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: You bet. Good to be here.

SWAIN: Our questioners, Sean Lengell of the Washington Times and David Drucker of Roll Call. Mr. Drucker, I’m going to start with you.

DAVID DRUCKER, STAFF WRITER, ROLL CALL: Thank you very much, Susan. Mr. Chairman, thanks for being here. Just wanted to ask you first and foremost about fundraising. I realize it’s not everything. If it was, it’s possible Republicans last cycle would have done a little bit better.

However, so far the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is severely out raising you guys. It’s almost 10 to one at this point in terms of cash on hand.

COLE: Well, big difference. Actually the fundraising is reasonably competitive. We raised the first six months $29 million. I think they were 35, 36, somewhere in that range. So not that really great a difference.

Our big challenge is we began with a very big debt. Essentially we were $16 million in the hole. So, you know, my emphasis is to get rid of debt before you stack cash. So our debt is actually now comparable with theirs.

I like to joke with our members. I remember as we paid off more debt than all the other committees combined. We actually were trying to run the place we say we say we’d run the country.

An do in that sense I think you’ll see that gap change over the course of next year. But no doubt about it, the Democrats have an energized fundraising base. They’ve got the advantages that come with being a new majority. We certainly have seen some changes in giving habits, a lot of business PACs and business interests in particular that used to favor us two to one are – they’re still favoring us but by considerably smaller margins.

So, you know, I think that’s to be expected.

DRUCKER: OK. I just want to follow up very quickly on that. Do you have a target for matching them in terms of your cash availability so that you can go head to head in terms of defending your incumbents, attacking the Democratic seats that you want to attack, and going after some of those open seats?

COLE: Yes. We do. Although remember, the real expenditures for the committee in terms of campaign outlays, other than a special election that may or may not come along, are really about a year away from now. I mean, we’ll be June, July, August of next year before there’s much cash moving out.

Between now and then we’ve got, you know, several major events. Our traditional two big dinners. We’ll have what’s called Battleground where Republican members that are in safe districts transfer substantial funds to us.

So I’m pretty convinced we’ll be well financed down the stretch.

SWAIN: Sean?

SEAN LENGELL, REPORTER, WASHINGTON TIMES: Well, other than fundraising, what do you think – what must Republicans do to recapture the House and even the Senate 2008? And what do you think your strengths are right now coming into this (ph)?

COLE: Well, our biggest strength right now is the Democratic majority, strangely enough, because the good thing about Democrats is given time, they’ll actually act like Democrats. And that creates the issues that you want to run on.

You know, they’ve got a lot of people sitting in Republican seats, 61 seats that George Bush carried, 47 that he carried twice. And with all due respect to the president, he was never overwhelmingly popular. He lost the popular vote in one of those elections, barely won it the second time.

So these are pretty reliable Republican seats that any Republican is likely to carry in a close presidential election. Given that fact, and we only have eight that John Kerry carried, we’re in a better position to play offense than they are.

I think, too, the Democratic majority is having to do what majorities do and that’s actually cast tough votes. We’ve seen a lot of them this week. We’ll see more the balance of the time that we have.

Essentially we’ve already got all the votes you would want in terms of tax increases, in terms of frankly linking waste – we would argue wasteful poor barrel (ph) spending with the supplemental for Iraq, things like card check (ph) where you take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot election on union organizing.

We’ve had a couple of trial lawyer votes this week. So we’ll have a range of issues that quite frankly we haven’t had in a dozen years.

And then the last thing is this Congress started fairly popular. Now it is the most unpopular Congress. Actually more unpopular than Republican Congress was on the eve of the 2006 elections.

Most of the country does not think it’s gotten very much done. What it has done they’re not very appreciative or approving of. And so, you know, politics is like life. You never get a second chance to make a first impression. The first impression of this Congress was bad (ph).

Our polling suggests the re-elect numbers for all incumbents, frankly, are at historic lows. Now, as an incumbent that’s not a great thing. But they’ve got a lot more incumbents than I do. And frankly we’re going to be running challengers for the most part.

So, you know, insofar as they squandered the opportunity they were given to make a positive impression, I think they’ve set us up well for the next elections.

LENGELL: I know November 2008’s a long way away, but how many seats do you think you could pick up?

COLE: Yes, as you say, it’s a long way away. We’re still in the recruiting season. So I shy away from numbers. I always tell people if I’ve got more Republicans the day after the elections than I had the day before, that’s a successful election. And then we’ll decide how successful based on those numbers as they go up.

So, you know, I just go back. And we’ll see what they do with the majority they have. The next election is going to be, you know, a new presidential election. So the asset they had running against the Bush administration I think will be much less to their advantage in 2008, and it’ll be a referendum on their performance in Congress.

So, you know, we’ve got a lot of ground to cover between now and then in terms of the things we need to do. And frankly they’ve got a lot of ground to cover in terms of whether or not they make themselves more vulnerable than I think they already have.

SWAIN: Let me just follow up on your explanation. How much of the low approval ratings with the Democratic majority in Congress is due to inaction on war policy?

COLE: Well, I like to say, you know, the Democrats were mad at the Democrats for what they haven’t done. The Republicans are mad at them because of what they have done.

So the real issue is I think they’re universal across the board. Republicans don’t like the tax increases, don’t like the growth in government, see the Congress as undercutting the president.

So that begins to energize our base. I think Democrats are not very pleased with the effectiveness of the Congress. And in this I think they read the failure to work in a bipartisan fashion.

Farm Bill this week was – or last week, was a pretty good example of that. We could have an overwhelming Farm Bill vote that would have passed bipartisan, been able to survive a presidential veto that had been forthcoming.

Instead, you know, by working the bill through to a point where it was bipartisan then dropping in two tax increases at the last minute. They lost the Republican support and they’re headed toward a veto.

Now that’s not going to make anybody in farm country happy regardless of whether you’re Republican or Democrat. It’s just simply mismanagement of the legislative process. And I think that the tendency to overreach by this new majority – and that’s typical of new majorities.

You know, we overreached ourselves right to the government shut down crisis in 1995. We took a lot of the luster off what had been, to that point, a pretty popular Republican Congress.

So I see them at this point making a lot of those kind of mistakes. And that works to our advantage electorally next year.

SWAIN: And one other follow up. And how much of this is really out of your hands? It’s all about excitement with your base about the top of the ticket.

COLE: I think a lot of it – you know, I agree with you. I think the dominant factor next year will be the presidential election. It’s going to be an extraordinary election. If I were a journalist or a historian, I’d love to cover it because when you’ve got the presidency, the House and the Senate all up – and what’s a wither (ph) America election.

And what is already producing historic – first time candidates, first legitimate female candidate, first legitimate African-American candidate, that can win, first Mormon that could win, first guy over 70 – I love that at my age – that could win.

And, you know, and a guy like Giuliani leading in the polls, which wouldn’t have been predicted, and who was talking about Fred Thompson a year ago? Nobody I know, including him.

So that tells me the American people are open to a range of possibilities. It’s much wider. We can’t control that. We need to be positioned to take advantage of that. It won’t be enough for us to simply be against the Democrats, although that’s something we have to do.

We’re going to have to have both at the presidential level and congressionally a pretty bold agenda of our own to advance and compete, you know, in the arena of ideas. I actually think this will be a classier and better toned election than we’ve had in a while.

It’s going to be intense. It’ll be hard fought. But it’ll be less personal and I think much more over competing visions and ideas for the country’s future. I certainly hope so.

DRUCKER: Congressman, I wanted to ask you, pick up on what you just said in terms of media bold (ph) agenda. There’ve been a lot of – there’s been a lot of talk both from you and other members of Republican leadership that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic House Majority is overreaching, that the public doesn’t like what they’re doing, and that that majority is too far to the left.

And I think what you’re saying is it’s simply not enough for you guys to regain the majority to point that out. Do you think that that in fact is enough that they’re overreaching and therefore people will give you guys another shot? Or do you need (ph) a message?

COLE: I don’t think that’s enough. You know, I don’t think that, you know, we’re going to get a chance to succeed because they failed. I think we’ll get a chance to compete because they failed. But we still have to be held to high standards.

What I see in the election environment now is neither a pro Democrat nor a pro Republican tie. This is not ’94 or 2006. What I see is a tremendous anti-incumbent tide that’s building up. A phrase I like to use is the American people are in a fiery mood.

And if you’re an incumbent, regardless of party, I think you’re at risk. This election to me, if I had to find the historical parallel, is much more like 1992 than it is like ’94 or 2006. If you remember, we had tremendous turnover on both sides of the aisle.

We lost a Republican president at the same time we picked up 10 seats congressionally. First time that had happened in 100 years that an incumbent party had lost a president, gained seats. And we came within two points or less of picking up an additional 20 seats.

You could see the change, you know, that frankly came to fruition in ’94. We may well be in a cycle of two or three elections, you know, with 2006 having been the first one, 2008, maybe 2010, we may not see a more stable political alignment emerge until 2012 or so. Again, not unlike, you know, 1990, ’92, ’94 where it really took a series of shaking elections before something new came out of the woodwork, so to speak.

LENGELL: Can you tell us – if voters gave you guys the gavel back in the House, what they would get, what you would do for them? What is your message? What is your agenda?

COLE: I think it’s early for us to do that. The next contract with America, not that I’m saying we would have a contract with America, you know, circa 2008, you know, wasn’t put together until, you know, September or October, the election year.

So I think right now the job for us is to go back to first principles. That is, remember who we are, remember that we are a party that believes in lower taxes, smaller government, that is strong on defense and foreign policy, that believes in traditional values.

And frankly we connect with our own voters and convince them that, hey, we understand. We got the message. And I think a certain humility on the part of Republicans is appropriate, you know, right now.

Frankly I think John Boehner’s done that very well. He preaches to his conference, to all of us continuously about the importance of earning back the majority, re-establishing trust for the American people. That’s something we need to do. I think we’re in the process of doing that.

And again, you know, there’s a time to let the other guys have their chance to, you know, get their identity established. And we think the Democrats have done us a lot of favors over the course of the last six months. And I think the American people have been reminded that it’s still the party of high taxes and big government.

And, you know, if you really push a Democrat and ask them what they want, they really do believe taxes in the country are too low. They’ll debate over whose taxes ought to go up, that they believe taxes need to go up, and they really do believe government’s too small, and you’ve seen that across the board in the appropriations this year.

The only area that hadn’t benefited from it is, guess what, the United States military where we actually came in less than what the president requested. And even though we’re at a time of war and probably arguably ought to be doing more.

So I think the classic Republican issues are going to be in play. I don’t personally think that will be enough. I think, you know, you’re going to have to have – if elections are about the future, and I think all elections fundamentally are, particularly presidential elections at the change of an administration, then we better have some bold ideas about what we’re going to do on healthcare and tax policy and can we really – and entitlement reform over the long haul.

Nobody’s going to be able to escape the immigration debates since we weren’t able to solve that as a Congress. You know, I actually think Iraq will be less of a factor in the election. But I think the post-Iraq war will be a huge factor because I think, you know, our presence will be lower in 2008 than it has been and the nature of our mission will have changed.

But I don’t think the challenge is, you know, imposed by terrorism in a very dangerous world or energy and security are going to be fundamentally different. But I do think they’re going to be much more highlighted. And I think the presidential campaign will serve the country well in doing that.

SWAIN: We’re halfway through our conversation.

DRUCKER: With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, what’s it like being the minority?

COLE: Well, I’ve spent most of my life in the minority. If you’re from Oklahoma, you know, I was a state senator. We still haven’t – we now have a tie in the state senate of Oklahoma. But in 100 years we’ve never controlled the state senate and only got control of the House effectively in 2004.

So, you know, I actually look at our minority as an opportunity and a big minority. People forget, this is the largest Republican minority in over a half century. You know, when I was executive director of the committee that I now chair in 1992, we thought moving from 165 to 175 was a really good year. And that was the basis from which we moved on to the majority.

It’s also the smallest Democratic majority, obviously, in over half a century. So the idea that we’re not effective because we’re not in the majority, I think, isn’t true. Quite the opposite. There’s a lot of levers of power and influence.

I think, you know, on occasion we can work hard and get things done together. And I think we’ve missed some opportunities in that regard. But, you know, I find this as an opportunity for us, again, to get back in touch with who we are, to make our case more vigorously, and frankly to hold the Democrats accountable for the kinds of activities and policies that we think are wrong that they’re pursuing.

SWAIN: What’s an example of one of those missed opportunities?

COLE: You know, I think the immigration bill was probably a missed opportunity. And I say that without endorsing the bill because I think there’s a process here that we needed to go through on a step by step, piece by piece, legislation.

The American people lost confidence in the country, the government, to just simply pass a law and that the law will be carried out because that’s what we did in 1986. We passed a law and frankly we didn’t enforce it under the Reagan administration, Bush 41 or Clinton. I would argue this president actually has tried to more on the border than anybody else.

But you’re not going to be able to pass an overarching comprehensive law. You’re going to have to pass a series of legislation, probably with different coalitions behind each one of those bills. You know, not unlike I think the Missouri compromise was done in three different bills in 1850.

So I think that was a missed opportunity. I think coming to grips, you know, with social security, which the president wanted to do both in the majority and in the minority is a tremendous missed opportunity that the Democrats will regret.

You know, history will treat him kindly for at least trying to deal with two of the great problems. I think we’ve got, you know, some opportunities in front of us. No Child Left Behind, the reauthorization there. I think that’s been a good piece of legislation. It needs to be tweaked. There’s some things that we can do.

And we’ve got some players there in George Miller, who’s, you know, an author, and Doug McKeon (ph), who’s an important player, that’s important to the president. So, you know, we’ve got some bipartisan successes.

I would argue for the Democrats, frankly, even more than us. They need to get something done. And they can’t get anything done with Republican buy-in in both the Senate and at the presidential level and even in the House.

If they over-reach, they’re putting a lot of those new members who represent relatively conservative Bush leaning, at least in 2004 districts, into very difficult spots.

DRUCKER: Excuse me. I wanted to talk to you about some of the ethical problems that are still plaguing House Republicans in terms of Congressman Doolittle, Congressman Renzi, now Don Young from Alaska. Ultimately all three of these men might be exonerated. We don’t know that they did anything wrong.

But is there still a perception problem? And does that complicate your effort to rebuild a majority when a competence and ethical problem, as viewed by voters for you guys last cycle was one of the things that contributed to your downfall?

COLE: Well, I, you know, I think – first of all let me talk about the individuals and then move more broadly to the political question. You know, I know all three. I’ve known John Doolittle since 1991 when he was a freshman and I was the AD at the NARCC. Rick Renzi and I are classmates. We work on Native American issues together all the time. Then Don Young is the ranking member on natural resources where I served. We work on Native American issues quite a bit.

You know, I’m very hopeful that any of these situations resolve themselves. And I think that’s what the members in question want. Certainly in the case of Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Renzi, they stepped back from their committee assignments. They had done the tough things that they need to do.

And, you know, the wheels of justice here need to move a little bit more quickly. I don’t expect them to move on a time – political time clock. But, you know, in Doolittle’s case, he’s had to deal with this for three years. Now that ought to be enough time to make a charge or not. And I know he feels that way.

We’re fortunate, I guess, in that these things have come up relatively early. And there is time to deal with them. So my hope is that that’s what will occur.

In terms of the broader political impact, I think you have to look at this as something that hurts you in particular seats. But, you know, I don’t think I get defeated in my seat because somebody in another seat has done something wrong.

You know, the big factors driving the 2006 election were Iraq and Bush fatigue. And then corruption was an overlay that hurt us in certain cases. I mean, there’s no excuse for what Bob Ney did. There’s no excuse for what Mark Foley did. There’s no excuse for what Duke Cunningham did.

You know, and we were punished pretty severely. We didn’t lose the Cunningham seat, but it cost us a great deal of money to hold on to it. You know, that’s a failure on our part. That’s not us holding ourselves accountable.

Again, I give John Boehner a lot of credit here because he set very high standards in that regard. He’s made it very apparent that there’s a zero tolerance policy for any kind of behavior. You know, you see us trying to hold ourselves, as a conference (ph), accountable.

Frankly I would argue we did a better job than the Democrats did with the William Jefferson incident where they literally used it to make a campaign point before 2006 and then were headed to put him back on homeland security. This unanimous vote in the Democratic conference to do that.

If there hadn’t been Republican objection, he would be back in a committee. So I think, you know, corruption tends to be bipartisan. That is human play (ph) exists in about the same quality, quantity and quality on both sides.

So I think it will even out. I don’t think it’ll be the dominant issue, particularly in the kind of election I think is shaping up.

DRUCKER: Hey, if the – I just want to say if the wheels of justice do not move any faster, would it help you guys if those three gentlemen announced that they would retire and around new Republicans about (ph)…

COLE: No. I never do that. I mean, people need to be free to do what – number one, to do what they think the right thing is. And that’s not my role. Again, I’m hopeful that everything’s fine with all three of them. You know, I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt. They certainly deserve a process that is speedier than this one.

You know, I think that is unfortunate when these things get in the way of political decisions. And I would hope that’s a factor that the Justice Department takes into account.

But not much I can do about that or them. They’ll make the appropriate decisions, I think, as they have, as circumstances develop.

LENGELL: You mentioned that you didn’t think the Iraq war was going to be as big of an issue in 2008 as it was in 2006. But, you know, back in your district and districts across the country, I mean, how dominant of an issue of Iraq is the Iraq issue right now?

COLE: I think any time you’re at war that’s the number one issue. I have always felt that since we went into Iraq. There’s been times when that’s been to the advantage of one party or the other, depending on what the perception is of how the war’s developing. But…

SWAIN: But you predicted that it wasn’t going to be as important by the time you left …

COLE: Well, because I think there’ll be fewer people. I mean, I also sit on the Armed Services Committee. And I think the surge is never meant to be, you know, a permanent activity nor will we sustain this force level through 2008.

The numbers are going to come down, and the mission, in my opinion, will change. I actually think the military part of this from the early reports is going pretty well. I have a lot of confidence in General Petraeus. I know him well. I’ve met him in Iraq, had dinner with him in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I think he’s a tremendous – a great patriot and a tremendous military talent.

The part I worry about, quite frankly, are the Iraqi politicians because they have to take advantage of the opportunity that’s being provided. If they do then I think this thing can move forward successfully. If they don’t then I think the American people will begin to reassess.

And then again, by the nature of the – literally the size of our force and how it’s intended, I think things will be fundamentally different in a year. And we’ll see if I’m right or not.

SWAIN: Last question.

DRUCKER: If General Petraeus comes back in September and gives a positive report – and they are beginning to see indications that he will – and says, “I think we should continue this thing through the end of 2007 into 2008.” Do you think Republicans generally will support that and hold together…

COLE: I think without a doubt. You know, I think Republicans feel very strongly that the military deserves the benefit of the doubt here. We trust his, General Petraeus’, professional integrity. And frankly, you know, I’ve said repeatedly, I actually admire the people on both sides of this debate.

If he voted against the Iraq War in 2002 in October, 70 percent of the American people were for it, you’re a pretty brave person yourself. If you’re hanging tough now, it must be conviction. It’s certainly not for political advantage.

So I hope that’s the way we always look at it. When you’ve got men and women in combat, you’ve got to do what you think the right thing is. When the security of the country is at stake, you know, I tell candidates, “Just argue what you believe.” We can help you argue it well but decide what your core conviction on the issue is and go from there.

The American people will tolerate differences. They actually admire it sometimes. What they won’t tolerate is paying fast and loose or trying to score political points with American people in uniform.

SWAIN: And Mr. Lengell, we have two minutes. Your final question, please.

LENGELL: How long do you envision us being in Iraq? Do you…

COLE: I think we’ll have a presence there for a long time. I don’t think it will be as substantial as it is today. You know, there was a time when there were 800,000 Americans in Korea. Today there’s 29,000.

I’m not suggesting we’ll be in Iran as long as we have been in Korea. I don’t think we will be. But, you know, we have important strategic interest in the region. Stability in the region is critical to us.

If you say you care about genocide and you say you don’t want regional wars let alone ethnic and sectarian wars breaking out then I think you have an obligation to stay at some level and try to work through these challenging problems, which by the way I think would be there whether we had been there or not.

At the end of the day, we’re there because we think it’s important to American security because we live in a world where literally 19 people could get on airlines and kill more Americans than the Japanese fleet could at Pearl Harbor in World War II.

Stability in the region is important for security of the United States of America. And we made those same decisions fundamentally in the second World War in Europe and the Pacific. We made those decisions in terms of dealing with the Soviet Union over a 40 year period.

I think it’s going to take those kind of time frames. And we have that kind of stake in an area that’s unstable, that spawns terrorism, and where, frankly, nuclear weapons are, you know, available at the nation’s state level today, and God forbid, could become available at a terrorist level tomorrow.

SWAIN: Let me close with a very quick tactical question on elections. Do the shifting demographics in the nation mean an end to the 20-year dominance of Republicans in the south?

COLE: I don’t think so. I think at the end of the day, you know, we succeeded in the south largely because we reflect the political ideas. And I think that’s true of parties over time.

I don’t think our ideas and our principles, you know, have a, you know, a uniquely, you know, sectarian view. Quite frankly I would argue this is a center-right country and there’s a natural advantage for a center-right party, which is what I believe the Republican Party is.

And, you know, our biggest problem has been historically the racial, the ethnic, the cultural divisions in the population have kept us – we should be doing, for instance, much better in the African-American community on the basis of ideas and principles than we do.

And so we’ve got our work cut out for us. But I don’t think we need to change who we are to be successful politically.

SWAIN: Mr. Cole, thank you very much for being with us this week. We’re going to take a short break and we’ll be back to talk more about politics and the challenges for the Republican Party and the Democrats next year.

(BREAK)

SWAIN: After a conversation with the Chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee Tom Cole of Oklahoma, we are back with our two reporters, Sean Lengell of the Washington Times, David Drucker of Roll Call.

Gentlemen, Mr. Cole described this as a building year. The real work comes next year with the bid to regain the House of Representatives. And he talked about this being kind of a 50/50 nation and gives us his chances as pretty good.

What are his challenges for both of you, really?

DRUCKER: Well, I mean, his challenges, number one, are recruiting good candidates that have the sort of innate talents that it would take to up-end Democrats in certain districts, win an open seat in other districts. He needs a good candidate. Without a good candidate, you don’t have anything.

Second of all, he needs to find a way to either raise more money, I think, as compared to what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is raising or at least raise more, raise enough, because the Democrats are going to use a lot of this extra money to attack Republican seats that they have not attacked in the past because they didn’t have money.

So he’s going to need to worry about defending those seats. And if he wants to go on offense, he’s going to need the money to go on offense. Message alone is not enough. It is important because if you don’t have something people want to buy then they’re not going to buy. But if you don’t let them know what you have, they’re not going to know it’s available.

He needs to overcome the money challenge, I think, because the Democrats are doing a heck of a job.

And finally, he’s going to need a little luck. Right now the Republicans are in a bit of a political downdraft. The base is a little bit disenchanted with their own people, Republican base in terms of their own members.

Democrats are energized for the first time in many, many years in a way that they haven’t been. And that sort of thing affects political races because when people believe they can win, they work a lot harder and donate a lot more money. When people don’t like who their candidates are or believe that their efforts are futile, they don’t work as hard and a lot less gets done.

SWAIN: What would you like to add to that analysis?

LENGELL: Certainly I think that the money issue is a big issue. And, you know, they’re still a year and a half away before the elections. But it’s coming up fast, and I think that’s got to be a real concern for them.

Also the war, I think the war is going to be a bigger issue in 2008 than the Congressman implied. Again, a lot can happen in the next year and a half. But that was the dominant issue in 2006. And I think that there’s a very good chance it could be a dominant issue in 2008.

And so Republicans certainly have their work cut out for them. But again, it’s a marathon. It’s a long, hard, you know, 18 months here between now and November. And we’ll see what happens.

SWAIN: One specific issue we didn’t talk about that you’ve written about in Roll Call is the NRCC’s basically hands off policy regarding primary challenges. What is, with the money situation you described, really what kind of options do they have in the primaries? And what are the members’ concerns?

DRUCKER: Well, the members – and a lot of people I don’t know realize this, the members are the people who support the NRCC. It’s their dues from money that they raise that keeps this thing afloat in part. It was created for them.

And tactically if you look at just pure tactics, the Republicans are much better off if the NRCC backs its incumbents other than those who are ethically challenged, those who have, you know, may have broken the law because that’s a bad candidate. You really want a different candidate.

But they’re, you know, districts throughout America. Some are very Republican. Some are moderately Republican if we’re talking about GOP districts. Some are sort of independent districts where a center-right or a center-left candidate can win.

When you have an incumbent whose got name ID, who has a record of serving his constituents and is well liked, you’re much better off in an election year going with that candidate rather than going with somebody new who you have to build up, introduce to the voters.

And the Democrats are going to be a lot more likely to spend a lot of their money in a district like that than a district where you have an incumbent.

However, Tom Cole has said in the past that he doesn’t want to get involved in primaries, not even necessarily where he has an incumbent. He doesn’t want a candidate who gets through the primary with his help and is not battle tested.

But I do know that at least in the past week or so he has endorsed a Maryland representative, Mr. Gilcrest. There are a lot of conservative Republicans who think he is way too moderate. There is a Republican primary in that district.

So I think Tom Cole is short of dancing on a fence. On the one hand he’s not going to get involved in primaries. On the other hand, well, when he sees it’s beneficial to him he’s going to do it. And it’s something I would expect anybody in his position to do.

SWAIN: Well, we’re out of time. Thanks to both of you for your questions this week.

DRUCKER: Thank you.

LENGELL: Thank you.

END