Focus 580; Smashmouth: Two Years in the Gutter with Al Gore and George W. Bush

In this part of focus 580 we will be looking back to the last presidential campaign we'll be talking with a journalist who spent a lot of time following the candidates. Starting in 1998 and continuing through the aftermath of the election. Our guest is Dana Milbank he's White House correspondent for The Washington Post and before that he worked for the paper style section and also was a senior editor at The New Republic. He has put out a new book that's based on the stories that he wrote all the way along throughout the primaries and then the general election the title of his book is Smash Mouth. Two years in the gutter with Al Gore and George W. Bush. Notes from the 2000 campaign trail. It's published by Basic Books. And if you like politics I think that you will enjoy the book. It has an irreverent tone. Which depending on how you feel about politics you might either like or you might not. And in case it's out in bookstores now and you can check it out let me just read you a couple of. Lines from the introductory section of the book. He says for he writes for the

purpose of this book is to celebrate the virtues of good solid in the gutter campaigning such nasty smash mouth politics are said by the goody goodies to be destroying our democracy alienating the electorate and suppressing voter participation. He goes on to write that he believes the opposite is true. Nasty is nice on the campaign trail. It's cool to be cruel. Contrary to everything you hear and read presidential campaigns are not getting more negative or nastier even if there were there's evidence that negativity doesn't necessarily hurt turnout or increase cynicism as the righteous have claimed. There is no reason to believe tough negative campaigning helps there. There is there. He says there is even there is reason to believe tough negative campaigning helps strengthen our leaders boost creativity and policymaking and bring reform to government. And our guest is joining us by telephone as we talk. You're welcome to call him if you have questions and comments of your own 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5.

Mr. Milbank Hello. Hello thanks for talking with us today. Apatow We appreciate it and it does certainly seem that your you're going contrary here to the conventional wisdom that says that says all of these things it says politics is getting more negative. It is bad it turns people off it's bad for turnout. First of all you seem to be saying that well you don't really think that there that those things are true and in fact some people who have looked at the issue have concluded that probably that's not true right. I think on this point the pre-commitment. You can go back Thomas Jefferson to see the scandal campaign coverage. Abraham was called an ape by his opponent. And nothing really changed or thing that's changed over the years started to make it of campaigning as if it were something instead of just accepting that you know that we should campaign in politics.

Now in terms of everybody say this polls that say people don't like negative campaigning but you know the same poll say 98 percent of the people are going to vote against the rocks. And we know that half of them are apparently lying or at least saying what they you know Repeat think they should say or what the pollster wants to hear. So you know. Hey there's a reason why we as Americans like more than we like to Sister nature and I don't see why we should make politics try to put it on a different plane from everything else. It seems also to be the case that maybe one of the reasons that reporters spend a lot of time talking about negativity is that candidates more and more seem ready to accuse their opponents of being negative. And that itself has become sort of a negative attack and Bill Bradley doing this or saying it to him you know you're making all these lies about me completely that itself is quite a negative.

So I think they will continue to treat the negative. I mean if they were doing this to each other. Bush was doing a few words throughout the campaign it's become a weapon. Yeah and just take this one step further I think when it when you're talking about the issue that it's probably it would it's not such a bad thing for campaigns to be carried out in a tough kind of bare knuckles way. What you're saying is that it's not that it's appropriate for candidates to make a groundless personal attacks on one another that the point is that there ought to be a really aggressive kind of dialogue and debate where somebody says look this is what I think this is what the other person thinks and really work on pointing

out what the differences are between them and their opponent. Right I think that the charges that are made should be grounded in truth. Now obviously you're going to paint your record in the best possible light and the other guys in the worst possible way but it has to be grounded in truth. It can't be completely false. And I think it should be relevant. No man's private behavior is relevant if it reflects on his own his temperament but it's completely irrelevant to the mix and one of the family members has done that and I think that that that has been a place you know in in reading the stories that you wrote as you followed candidates along through the primaries and then to the election. You won as a reader one has to wonder is this really who this really the best way to pick a president. And of course we in at least in this particular election and I'm sure in the past it's when we've come down to the point where we're getting ready to have the election and the parties have chosen their candidates often the response of voters is

this is our choice and we heard we heard a lot of that from people and maybe again that was a story that the press liked so and we knew that we had a lot of reporters saying that people are saying as this our choice right we did hear a lot of that same complaint again over the summer actually sometime around the conventions polls were done and indicated that people were in fact saying that they were pleased with the choice this time. And I think many of my colleagues in the press are ready to write the opposite story. But surely this is you know in general which is no way to pick a candidate you know based on somebody's barbecue. You can serve it at the Ames straw poll because you recruit a few 100 people out there or you'll get a nice bump in the media coverage and suddenly you're going to be and you're going to be in front of everybody else in the polls. Every time the campaign is covered by such a barbecue I think we've got one of the true problems. You know our guest in this part of focus 580 Dana Milbank he's White House correspondent for

The Washington Post before that also worked for The New Republic and spent a lot of time on the campaign trail starting in 1988 following candidates and he's published a book of his basically his notes from the campaign trail smash mouth as the title somewhat adapted from a comment I think that Governor Bush made where he was he was characterizing the political rhetoric of the day as being trash mouth. So I think some Someone suggested to you Well why not call the book Smash Mouth. You know as people who were watching the new XFL there were some. The poem Sportster. Which is which has come into vogue and I think that's appropriate because you know my wife will take it. You know we don't say we don't say you know the Ravens won the Super Bowl but unfortunately they made X number of tackles in the process I mean that's part of the game and you know it was proven wrong with that. So I think the

political writers cover politics the same way and accept that. Each Other is part of the game. You know I just was interested I was reading an article the other day about the fact that some of the people who worked in the two campaigns got together for a public sort of deconstruction session talking about what they did and didn't do and that the Democrats for their parts talking about you know what they could have done to get a win and the Republicans what they could have done for a more decisive win and I was struck here by one of the comments from ma Carter Eskew who was a strategist for Mr. Gore who said that he thought one of the problems was that there was really no plan after the nomination was secured. He said The joke was that everybody was sitting around measuring drapes for the Oval Office as if they just took it for granted. Well I guess they initially had taken it for granted that he would get the nomination and then they sort of took for granted that it would be a walk. Do you think that that's that's true

of this campaign. Well I don't actually Don't you know I mean I think it's. It's very second guessing and say X Y and Z was wrong. When a candidate loses you know for hiring a lot of sort of hired guns you can have deep loyalty to him so it's not particularly surprising that they would come out with all sorts of new series of the various ways in which TNA screwed up but I think that both candidates ran a solid campaign and like the campaign or the campaign has clearly run very poorly ran a better campaign but it's hard to find examples of where Gore really didn't get something that he really shouldn't. Sure there were mistakes along the way. They reached the larger question of should you have run record. But in terms of the tactics of the weather of the campaign

I don't think I don't think anybody is particularly faulting them. Well I did want to ask about that specifically because it is in the post mortem that he is one of the things that seem to be said over and over again that you know we had this great period of economic prosperity something that the the sitting vice president should have been able to capitalize on. And yet he seemed to have a hard time tying himself to that and perhaps part of the deal was that he didn't he wasn't sure that he wanted really to tie himself to the president. People kept saying well you know Bill Clinton is one of the greatest campaigners ever still and if he had gone out there on and on the stump for Mr. Gore it might have made a difference. Do you not saying you know what the strategy was right or wrong but I wonder if as things went along and you saw with the Gore people were doing and it was was this indeed something that was talked about when people talked about strategy was there debate about you know do I want to how much do I want to be seen standing next to.

The president sure there is a perpetual debate about it. One of my colleagues at the Russian post has been a terrific story about the screaming match that occurred between Clinton and Gore after the election blaming them for the loss because the whole Lewinsky scandal and Clinton blaming Gore for law saying look you didn't have me out there he didn't run on my record you know and it was particularly interesting that is they were both right that the only reason that Gore didn't have an easy walk to fix three because of an impeachment on the other hand the core was in believing that he could not run on Clinton's record without wrapping himself in Clinton's morality that it was abuse or way to make that break and he just figured it was all or nothing. So you know that these were the two problems here. One conceivably could have been addressed and the other one was the way the you know the way the campaign turned

out they really had no choice. We have a caller to bring into the conversation other folks who are listening are welcome to call in if you have a question for our guest Dana Milbank the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have toll free line that's good anywhere that you can hear us that's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. First caller here is in champagne. Illinois. Yeah thank you. And I didn't catch the very beginning so if I'm causing you to repeat yourself forgive me and you can be very brief with this part of a couple of different things. One given that you don't think negative politics is is a reason why voter turnout is so low in the United States I'd like to know what you think the real causes of low voter turnout are and then also what do you think about if somebody came forward with a dramatically different. Campaigning Well I guess point making is that I think one of the reasons why they have to use so

much attack of of each other is because the differences are so narrow that they have to somehow you know make it seem like there's a bigger difference between them. And if somebody came forward with say just give some examples they're probably a lot better ones but I for instance say that you know I proposed over any increase of a dollar a year and a minimal wage for the next five years and then also directly tying. Congressional salaries to a multiple of the minimum wage so that the members of Congress would have a direct connection or are you no reason real visceral reason to care about the people at the bottom of the economic ladder and possibly putting forth a constitutional amendment that would remove the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that corporations are virtual citizens and then that gives them so much power over people and you know that sort of thing where you are really putting forth something that would definitely set you apart and then just you

know taking a positive attitude about it and then of course you would get attacked and you'd have to respond to those attacks but you wouldn't be you you know needling these in a small differences. You know the small difference argument it's particularly made a great deal by Ralph Nader throughout the campaign and I think the last two months should show us that in fact this wasn't a campaign and in fact very rarely is a campaign about small differences. When you look at the reversal of overseas abortion when you look at when you look at Norton and when you look at the tax cut. These are pretty much time to think. I think that this is really about small differences on the end phenomena and we speak taking a different approach because

fundamental reform in the system the Bradley was doing a point that he seemed sanctimonious and successful because he was talking about significant differences and he was also not afraid of engaging in them. I'm no political scientist so I can't speak for my reading expert slightly but I think looking at here reading looking at the phenomena people registered because the.

Senate and I think Nader reflects that in this particular. Dividing a room people feel comfortable with the way things are running. They don't what's particularly necessary for them to get out of the polls. Well you know while I would agree that there are differences between the you know the two major parties they're not structural differences I mean in terms of real structural change and I think one of the reasons like somebody like Nader has a problem and then there's a great many presented but I mean there's not the

infrastructure there to support you know that kind of candidacy. There's not the money there to get the message out and the coverage is very marginal. I think it's a very complex problem problem. Thank you very much. Thanks for the CO wanted to have you talk a little bit more about John McCain. You know I think that people the perception. Of the the press is that a reporter say of their agendas and that might lead them to embrace particular candidates where I think it's more the case that what reporters like is they like a good story. And John McCain certainly was what happened to John McCain. Well you know right I think that the point is there's always this talk of bias in the media or ideological bias particularly a liberal bias in the media I think the worst of them generally put that to rest. The truth is if you're a

politician who is liked by the reporters covering it get better coverage and that's exactly what's going on with McCain he was treating us as people actually sitting down with us at the time and speaking with us. The states were tepid applause. They were fighting us with Krispy Kreme donuts and rice or beer. I think that had a lot to do with McCain phenomenon. He was something like 3 percent in the polls in New Hampshire and actually won the primary there. Alternately he could not overcome. Has money advantage. He was able to make it merely because of the free media considerably because of full coverage. Alternately it's very hard for any of them. I think that's what the next caller is in Munster Indiana in the before. Hello.

Hi I wanted to ask about the. I'm going to pick up on something that you were just talking about the reporting if the reporter likes the candidate. I noticed did I think that there were some diri bad reporting going on by C.S. Connelly of The Washington Post and a few others did practically three weeks before the campaign called Gore a liar and brought up left and now in other things like that. Well you know. I mean I get a question like that quite a bit and the difficulty we have in store is sort of getting it from a writer to proffer an affront to reverberate and everybody suspects that we have some sort of other motive. I think in general the average for the present and a bit earlier this is a much more likable actor

who was able to relate to the basis of people like him. Human instinct is no great conspiracy. I also thought it was unfair the way people linger on about it but the truth is the man responsible for that because each time it would happen is you start off with a new exaggeration about to travel to small things every time a small thing. Everybody had the flu. It's one switch right before there is an easy way for it to avoid the stop doing an accident couldn't stop doing it. Race questions I think even among his supporters. Well I just thought though that it was it was very unfair and I think that it was almost like a self fulfilling prophecy were you know I mean if you keep bringing up very very small things and I think that that trip

that courtship It was very minor. Did he have all of his exaggerations were mine or whatever his dog was paying more money for the script. Whether you know how much work he did on the far right his exact role in inspiring a love story was none of these were brand issues but they continue to flee. Very good at exploiting this raise questions about life. Why does he feel the need to provide the site intelligence everywhere. But but Bush would have been right in in in taking that on but I don't think that the press was. I think that the press they could have. They made it into a big story. I think the reporters did and I think especially CC cannily did I mean some of the things that they reported were flat wrong. I mean they were they were wrong. And they might have printed corrections but you know I just don't know. I just thought the

reporting on gravelly was really bad. Right you know I can't agree with you on the particulars I agree with you in general that the coverage of Bush was more favorable than for for the reasons that I stipulated but it's important to know that there are people who were just as dissatisfied with the coverage of Bush because we were too tough on him about the drunk driving or about dark record or whatever it was. So we're pretty much going to get it no matter what happens. Which is sort of difficult position the one thing that all the politicians can agree on is that the press misses everything. Yeah OK I think you know thanks for that go you know what. The things that you do you write about in the book of your experiences during the time that you were working for The New Republic. The fact that it was that it was the perception in Republican circles at least that The New Republic was a pro-Gore publication and so when you would ask

to have some time with Mr. with Governor Bush on the campaign trail as soon as they heard that you were from the New Republic it was thanks very much for coming will see it. And that was it. How was it was there beyond your experience do you think were there big differences in the way that each campaign dealt with the media particularly in terms of candidate access. But there I mean that was that was sort of the history with. The Bush family to the republic really tell stories about the city. In general I don't think they respond differently to the ideological difference that if you work for one of the networks you're going to get a lot better. You're a lot more explicitly work for a large newspaper look at good access and it's just

based on the number of people you can reach in the way which they can use you to get their message out there. So we're a little bit past the midpoint Here let me just introduce Again our guest We're talking with Dana Milbank he's a White House correspondent for The Washington Post before that was senior editor at The New Republic and has spent a lot of time from 1998 on following candidates on the presidential trail. He's put together a book a collection of his various stories that he wrote. It's titled Smash Mouth. Two years in the gutter we. Al Gore and George W. Bush it's published by Basic Books is out now if you want to look at it and questions are welcome. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Also toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5. Here's a caller in Champaign County line number one. Hi there. Couple of things I'd start but I'd start with just a little thing from Harper's indexes that they apparently did a Lexus Nexus search and they found like three hundred seventy

three hundred sixty articles or so if that included George W. Bush and or a inevitability in them. So maybe they were saying he's not being able to maintain his aura of inevitability or something but it was an interesting little girl and excite him. Well I want to go on was I agree with the fair earlier caller that regards regarding corporate and globalization and neo liberal issues. There wasn't that much choice there on examen premise that he could have run on Clinton's record. It has an upper class bias in it that you know if you really examine the demographics of what's happened over the last 30 years you know it's gotten better marginally in the last eight years or so. Ten years maybe far lower middle class people but but but that hasn't even caught up with the loss of the 20 years before that so as far as the evidence from the campaign trail is Gore's best rallies and

most enthusiasm was generated I think by going back to that old Democrat stance and rally rallying you know working class people. The Madison rally reminds me but then I guess you will say that's a particular location. But this this idea that everything is is so wonderful and in America I mean it's a real upper class bias and it seems that it's being sold back to the people that shouldn't believe it which is the people that are on the lower end of the range. And not to say that it won't get worse if if this tax thing goes through but I don't know what kind of comments you have on a map but the sun examined premise that you know the Clinton record was great to run on because of the economics of it is if you break out the demographics it's not so good for the people in the granite there and the people that vote the most. But that's that is a problem. I mean I can make a mark. Political argument

really interesting. The argument that the fact that the economy and the stock market and these are voting record. That's the problem in terms of when you're plotting strategy you're not campaigning for the people not the larger problem but you can't run into an inferior campaign towards a right to pursue things that way. Only in Florida they actually did have a great get out the vote and that's why some of the precincts were overtaxed and probably why chads piled up in that sort of thing because they weren't used to that kind of turnout and I think there are strategies to keep down the vote where you know that still needs to be examined. What kind of strategies like who did suggest for

a roadblock here and this and that you know that may sound conspiratorial I think it's really a structural argument. I think the easy to say economy between political and moral arguments is this one that resonates with people out there and I'll just have to hang thing up and listen to the rest of it. Well. Face the truth. You know. It was acknowledgement that things have been going poorly 30 years and in the last eight years I don't think suggesting that are responsible for example of the 22 years before that and the fact that I think

I mean you know I don't think I can make you think things were going back to to the period of when we had more candidates rather than fewer. It seems a little bit to me that for you as a journalist covering this once we lost to the candidates who were maybe more colorful but were long shots kind of the fun went out of the whole thing. It was do you think that that was some that was true in losing. The candidates that seem not to be afraid to have a personality that then it wasn't quite so interesting. In a

campaign. Twenty seven people the president elect and a significant. You got to wonder though with you with some of these folks say I'd like to take Orrin Hatch for example did or didn't you really think that Orrin Hatch really thought that he had some sort of a chance. Ants are becoming the Republican nominee. He wants. You know

I think that I think pretty quickly what what about get what motivates you think people like Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes or Steve Forbes for example. Is that a lot of that about ego. I think I do he is always reading I think think.

Think think. Money money you can spend. Wake the floor in front of the people will say that the media somehow embraced Bush or very early on says said things like that it was inevitable that

he would be the candidate. But it also is the case that quite early on he demonstrated a lot of support among Republicans across the country and a lot of people early on were willing to give him money on Dolly because they thought that he had a good shot of being elected. Specifically though what do you think what it was about George W. Bush that that people were attracted to use is so early and were willing to endure seen publicly and men write checks. Well I think I think money is really something he created extremely successfully. They released so much money so they speak to the press. The reports of the bank account. And guess what I covered. It's climbing in the

polls. It's all become self-fulfilling. That was misspelled. P. So the plane was. Our guest is Dana Milbank White House correspondent for The Washington Post before that he was senior editor at The New Republic. He's the author of a book that brings together his writing about the presidential campaign of 2000 the title of his book a smash mouth and it's published by Basic Books and questions are welcome. The number here in the champagne Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. We have a caller here but 10 minutes left questions from other folks are certainly welcome. We'll go here to lie number four in Taylorville. Hello. Remember your I noted your mention about bow

vs.. Well I know it's absurd and it's slightly higher but it might be a little nice and we might have Pollitt pollywog that was slightly less immature downright adolescent. If we had perhaps 20 percent of the electorate might more seriously they might take human beings a mite more seriously they might be less susceptible to this focus group. Determining how to capture her box I pranked totally Knology hated it. We keep talking about a fact that big money and it's true that both parties are our own power alley. Now digest have a slightly better hold on the Republicans because the Republicans are well. Republicans. We don't have to go and then depth definition.

I recall a vote tears a remark to God on the side of the biggest army and that's that's a sly way of saying possibly there isn't any God while there's there surely. Up our alley. And years and years ago ugh. Couple of generations at least. Eric Ambler. Spy novel of the print up of the epitaph for aspiring remarks that essentially both parties are working for the same people well that was true then. I think it's even truer now. Well Mr. Milbank you didn't like comment on anything the caller said. I'm again comparing the two. I agree that it would be in for the typically.

There isn't a lot of if we can we can still find a way. I think the origin of running is in the marketplace. If any of the ideas in the marketplace that. Might have been writing about. And there's been an awful lot of time to ponder. And that's the difficult thing in the

world. I'm interested in hearing from you maybe a little bit about what covering the Bush this Bush White House is like. It certainly seems as if they are trying to apply some of the the techniques that were developed during the Reagan administration for keeping the reporters in line. They said that they were it was going to be a leak proof White House they've got there. I don't know if the issue of the day or the issue of the week or right or whatever it is you know what's what's it like now being a White House correspondent in this White House. It's changing quickly. You know it's not was this Reagan Clinton did the same thing and I think most White House can say look it's going to be different this time. We're going to get out the word we want to get out nothing else. We're going to you know cut off leaks that sort of thing. It's not going to it never happens. Of course not going to happen this time either. It's just you know takes a period of time. Still everybody gets to know everybody and settle into the way of doing

business there. It's not to the Bush way has the advantage to shut off the press because the neighbors the ability to manipulate the press to reward and punish people for the way they're writing so it's inevitable that that will change. In fact I think it has begun to change after the first couple of weeks already so it's not a topic peculiar to them. More than any to any other White House they were far more disciplined as a campaign but their campaigning is in a way the simpler thing because it's. It's about arguing. But you don't have to. You don't have to negotiate with the other side. You don't have to I mean personally in a power sharing arrangement now with the Congress and they cannot if they think they will not have a monopoly over over ideas or over a message that they had before. Well I suppose that one of the things that one tries to do in a political campaign is have as much control over

external events as you possibly can. And in course that's not really possible but now I guess now that being the president being in the White House that you have even less concern over external events then you do less control so you know who knows what's going to happen from one day to the extracurriculars since the Senate is evenly split. And could very easily in the near future become controlled by the Democrats. So the fact is the Republicans need 60 votes to pass many of these things. Nearly half 50 so it's if you eat is NOT have a monopoly on power and therefore does not have a monopoly on information and therefore will not be able to function the way you folks drink it. What do do people still talk about or how are people talking these days about Al Gore's political future. My personal view is that the political future for him but you know I'm not very good

to tell at this point. Right all right do you know that many of his closest aides have no interest in working for him again. They still are. There are a lot of inspiring candidates out there and he's demonstrated that he's not an inspiring man but not very good at campaigning probably would be very good at governing. So he's doing his teaching. Still ripping through it. Not in the future. It would be a story to be told there were people at some time not very long ago someone coined the term the permanent campaign to describe the fact that now in politics it seems it just never stops. Certainly the need to raise money never stops. So they are indeed people in Washington already looking ahead to the next presidential contest particularly on the Democratic side there's a lot of talk about

who who would be likely candidates and who you might need to get people excited for sure and often buy from your is often the top of the list for immediate is the elections in two years for the Senate and the Democrats have a strong chance to take over both of those chambers. But the primary campaigning not just in the money chase from the right. It's more a statement of the White House functions and you can see now there are certain weeks devoted to the tax cuts to the faith based initiative to the Senate floor for some work campaign. The idea is you get your message out there you steer public opinion in your favor and you'll be you'll have the advantage when they debate up on Capitol Hill. So that's very much for me. It's very much a campaign might well there will have to stop because we've come to the end of the time

we want to say Mr. Milbank thanks very much for talking with us. Our guest Dana Milbank he's White House correspondent for The Washington Post if you'd like to read his book again The title is Smash Mouth. Two years in the gutter with Al Gore and George W. Bush. Notes from the 2000 campaign trails published by Basic Books.