Of all the Paul Wellstone memories shared on yesterday's Sunday talk shows, perhaps the most touching was the following from Tom Daschle on CBS's "Face the Nation":
I remember campaigning with him. In fact, I remember a time campaigning and -- and I looked down at his shoes and I could see the socks coming through his shoes, and asked him if it wasn't time to buy a new pair . . . But he said that's -- those pair of shoes are something that Sheila had paid and bought for him in a sale at one point and he loved them and he wasn't going to give them up. But that was Paul Wellstone.
And indeed, this anecdote tells you pretty much all you need to know about the late Paul Wellstone, tenacious, loyal, sincere heir to the progressive tradition of the Upper Midwest and, according to Daschle and others, an extraordinarily charming and thoughtful man.
By all accounts, Walter Mondale, a former vice president as well as a former senator from Minnesota, will take up the banner against the telegenic Republican candidate, former St. Paul mayor (and former Democrat) Norm Coleman. Unsurprisingly, Democrats, including Daschle on "Face the Nation" and James Carville on NBC's "Meet the Press," confidently predicted victory for Mondale, based on his record of public service and as a kind of tribute to Wellstone. Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" argued otherwise, claiming that what he described as Mondale's decades-long commitment to a highly progressive income tax, his advocacy of raising the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits and his embrace of partial privatization as a means of setting public pension programs on a sound footing make him vulnerable. (Tapped points out today that the latter two of these three charges are appallingly false.) Judging by the similar politically awkward circumstances that followed the death of Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan in 2000 -- which also occurred at the close of a tightly contested race -- both camps will most likely prove reluctant to engage in a rip-roaring campaign during the 10 remaining days of the election. Because Wellstone enjoyed a small lead before his untimely demise, it seems reasonable to assume that a credible Democrat will eke out a narrow victory -- but only time will tell.
Assuming Mondale is indeed the Democratic nominee, he will join New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg in coming out of retirement to rescue a vulnerable Senate seat -- adding yet another twist to what has already become, by any standard, a fairly bizarre election.
Minnesota aside, the talk shows were dominated by general discussion of the midterm elections (and, of course, the apprehension of sniper suspects John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo).
The debate between the salty James Carville and the reliably unctuous Newt Gingrich on NBC's "Meet the Press" was of particular interest, but not because both offered sober-minded, dispassionate and neutral analyses of the facts at hand. Let's be serious. It was of interest because Gingrich -- despite his obvious disingenuousness -- managed to draw out the tension between Carville's Clintonite vision for the Congressional Democrats and realities on the ground, realities governed in part by the fact that the bulk of competitive races are in areas that favored Bush in 2000 and remain favorably disposed to the president. Take the following observation from Gingrich:
And it's not just a question of this wonderful tax cut. The truth is, Daschle has promised basically he'd raise taxes and every Democratic critique of the Bush tax cut stops him and says to him, "Would you repeal it?"
Carville wisely dodged the issue. Apart from a brave few, the Democrats have been wary of calling for a repeal of the Bush tax cut -- or rather a cancellation of scheduled tax reductions -- for fear of being tarred as Mondale-esque tax-and-spenders. Dick Gephardt, for one, notoriously dismissed the idea as irresponsible; moreover, several of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents voted for the Bush tax cut, thus making a broad-brush coordinated critique a tricky proposition, to say the least. Alas, Tim Russert wouldn't leave the issue alone. Russert goaded Carville with the following quote from Leon Panetta:
Democrats have not unified on a common approach to the economy. They've beaten up on Bush, but they're afraid to take on his tax cut. They complain about the deficit, but they haven't said how they would pay for the new programs they want.
Instead of calling for a repeal, Carville offered his own strategy for the Democrats in 2002:
What the Democrats need to say is, "First, we need a new economic team in here. Harvey Pitt has got to go. This president's economic team is not up to the job." Everybody agrees with that. Even the people on Wall Street agree with that.
The second thing they need to say is, "Let's not worry about tax cuts for the top 1 percent in 2006. Let's deliver a tax cut to every person who works -- you, me, the speaker of the House, the guy behind the camera, the guy mowing lawns in terms of payroll tax relief."
While not directly addressing the issue of repeal, this is where Carville came closest. But does "Let's not worrying about tax cuts for the top 1 percent" mean leaving the tax cuts on the books alone? Or reversing them? It's unclear. Impressively enough, Carville also added the following:
The next thing they need to do is they need to say, "Tariffs on steel and lumber are just going to cause the economy to go worse and it's going to cause prices to go up. We need to expand our opportunities in trade."
Some Democrats would agree -- but not all. Whether Carville's message will have resonance among the handful of swing voters at stake on Election Day is another question.
