Hudson takes first look at 2002 politics

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- Elsewhere in America the New Year is a time for resolutions. But in Washington it brings another tradition: speculation. The Hudson Institute recently got the ball rolling with 2002's first think tank symposium on the upcoming political year.

"What a difference a year makes," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank and moderator of the proceedings last Thursday.

At the event, conservative journalists Michael Barone and William Kristol, along with Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, offered their insights on the effect that the dizzying popularity of president George W. Bush -- who lost the popular vote to Democratic candidate Al Gore but won the office in perhaps the closest presidential race in American history -- will have on the political gamesmanship in the upcoming year, and the on both parties' prospects in November's elections.

Not surprisingly, their remarks centered around the terrorist attacks.

"On Sept. 11, the red states and the blue states became red, white and blue American," said Barone, referring to the color-code used in electoral maps to indicate which presidential candidate carried a state. But the panelists were divided on whether the resurgent patriotism will translate into an advantage for either political party.

The war on terrorism "really provides no advantage" for Republicans or Democrats, said Mellman.

"The few feints in that direction ... have been rebuffed by the media and public," Kristol said. "Neither party is in any sort of dominant position."

Barone, however, believes the president's popularity gives him an advantage. So does the war on terrorism. "Democrats can't explicitly beat up on George W. Bush," because of the war , he said. "When Bush weighs in on non-war issues, he has the ability to trump," Democrats like Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (D, S.D.), Barone said.

Barone points to the farm bill and stimulus package that fell apart in the Senate in December amid partisan wrangling. More often than not, political analysts assigned blame to Daschle rather than Bush.

But this doesn't mean the administration has carte blanche to legislate, warned Barone. Though Bush has the capacity to win the major issues, he said, Dashchle's power to set the Senate schedule gives him an advantage on "small and medium issues."

Mellman, whose clients include Daschle and House minority leader Richard Gephardt, believes the big issues are still very much in play.

"Old issues continue to remain on the agenda today," he said. Based on polling he has conducted, Mellman says the public's "top concerns" continue to be healthcare-related issues, such as patients' rights and the cost of prescription drugs, and education. While Sept. 11 has added terrorism and the economy to the political landscape, he said, "it didn't take anything off the agenda."

Mellman believes the economy in particular is an albatross for Bush and Republicans, who will need to defend their tax cuts as dwindling coffers force cuts in popular programs that he says will be "grist for the mill" of Democrats.

Barone disagrees, saying that the economy is "not necessarily the trump card issue a lot of Democrats think it is." He noted most voters did not live through the Great Depression, and that consequently, the public is not as sensitive to recessions as it once was.

Kristol said Bush could also face challenges to his foreign policy. "I really think it's a mistake to predict that over the next 10 months the [politics of] war will have the same character," he said.

Should the war on terrorism turn to Iraq, for example, or should the U.S. suffer more terrorist attacks, Kristol believes questions could arise concerning Bush's handling of it.

"The fact that currently there's not a partisan division on the war does not mean there couldn't be one," he says. "I think it's unwise to assume the current unity holds."

The analysts were divided on the biggest question: whether Bush's soaring approval ratings, should they last, will translate into votes for Republican candidates. The numbers have been "highly impressive," said Barone, "but it doesn't automatically lead to votes for Republican candidates."

He cited the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who enjoyed approval ratings of 70 to 80 percent in 1942 and 1943, but who was re-elected to a fourth term in 1944 by a margin of just 8 percent--a virtual mirroring of the election results of four years previous.

"While he's clearly very popular now, there's no evidence it will have a significant impact" in November, said Mellman. "The country is evenly divided when it comes to partisanship." Control of both chambers hangs in the balance, he says, noting that a relatively few seats will make the difference and will have "massive consequences."

But Kristol pointed out that recent off-year elections suggest the election landscape could be volatile. In 1994, for example, the GOP astounded analysts when they seized both chambers of Congress. Likewise, in 1998, Democrats made gains in the sixth year of their party's presidency-- a political rarity. He also said redistricting will play a role in setting the political climate, recalling that 1974, 1982, and 1994, the first off-year elections after a census, were also volatile.

Ultimately, all the panelists said that there's no telling what might happen.

What a difference a year makes.