Guests: Howard Fineman, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Travis Smiley, John Heilemann, David Frum
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: Republicans running for president are hoping to campaign on a platform of solid business know-how. That‘s going to be pretty hard if House Republicans cause a global economic meltdown.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Come on! It‘s time to grow up and get serious about the problems that face our country. Quit whistling past the graveyard.
O‘DONNELL (voice-over): Is John Boehner the only Republican not playing chicken with economic doomsday over the nation‘s debt? Not anymore.
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: Talking tougher on the debt debate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He also threatened that the GOP may not vote to raise the debt limit.
GUTHRIE: High stakes game of chicken.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wonder, though, if Republicans wanted to come to this.
BILL MAHER, TALK SHOW HOST: Where did all of this debt come from?
Ran up under Bush. Two wars.
O‘DONNELL: Anti-government congressman, Ron Paul, agrees with John Boehner, has no problem with total economic collapse, and still wants to be president of the governments he hates.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If at first you don‘t succeed --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Texas congressman and ardent libertarian.
STEPHEN COLBERT, COMEDIAN: Are you or are you not ready to declare that you will eventually drop out of the 2012 race?
REP. RON PAUL ®, TEXAS: I‘m on my way.
SEN. RAND PAUL ®, KENTUCKY: I think his chances are a lot better than 2008.
O‘DONNELL: Not all Republicans are spending their time trying to destroy the economy. Donald Trump is busy thinking up new ways to lie about the president.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, “HARDBALL” HOST: Beyond birther.
GUTHRIE: He also wants to know how it‘s possible that the president got into two Ivy League schools, whether he regretted referring to African-Americans as the blacks and then he said he did not.
JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: They have to put Donald Trump on every show, spewing the craziness he can think of.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He‘s a bully and a fool.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sixty-three percent, absolutely will not vote for him.
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV HOST: Relax, it‘s a joke. He‘s pretending. It‘s Halloween.
O‘DONNELL: And what‘s up with the other candidates?
GUTHRIE: In other shallow news, Sarah Palin‘s almost son-in-law just won‘t go away. Levi Johnston a tell-all memoir entitled “Deer in the Headlights: My Life and Sarah Palin‘s Crosshairs.”
STEWART: Indecision 2012. Premature ecalculation.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Haley Barbour, out. Mike Pence, out. John Thune, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, out, out, out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One percent of support among Republican primary voters.
STEWART: Polls at this point in the process were completely and totally meaningless.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: The new Gallup Poll out today shows Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman leads the race.
JON ALTER, NEWSWEEK: It is hard to run for president.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Good evening from New York.
President Obama‘s call for a clean vote in Congress on raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit seems even less likely after comments made by House Speaker John Boehner. The same man who once said not raising the debt limit would lead to, quote, “financial disaster not only for us, but for the worldwide economy,” told Politico, “If the president doesn‘t get serious about the need to address our fiscal nightmare, yes, there‘s a chance the debt limit vote could not happen.”
Speaker Boehner and President Obama disagree on the discretionary spending cuts and entitlement reforms necessary to reach a deal on raising the debt limit. But in an interview with ABC News, Speaker Boehner appeared to agree with President Obama on at least one deficit reduction measure that would save taxpayers nearly $1 billion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m sure you saw that the former CEO of Shell Oil came out and said that the companies, they don‘t need these subsidies.
BOEHNER: I don‘t think the big oil companies need to have the oil depletion allowances.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, would you be in favor of seeing some of these subsidies that are going to big oil at times of record profits?
BOEHNER: It‘s certainly something we ought to be looking at.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing away with these subsidies?
BOEHNER: We‘re at a time when the federal government is short on revenues, we need to control spending, but we need to have revenues to keep the government moving. And they ought to be paying their fair share.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Those comments provoked President Obama to send a letter to congressional leaders today, urging immediate action on eliminating $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and using those revenues to invest in clean energy. He also embraced his fellow Republican colleagues‘ support, writing, “I was heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminating these tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Our political system has for too long avoided and ignored this important step and I hope we can come together in a bipartisan manner to get it done.”
Brendan Buck, a Boehner spokesman, quickly dashed the president‘s hope
almost immediately releasing a statement reading, “Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump.” Mr. Buck failed to note that his boss had begun this round of communication by suggesting exactly what the president had suggested.
Joining me now, senior political editor for “The Huffington Post” and MSNBC political analyst, Howard Fineman.
Thanks for joining me tonight, Howard.
HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Howard, there was that brief moment, it seems, of reasonableness from John Boehner, saying, you know, if we need the revenue, those oil companies who are—some of whom are saying, hey, we don‘t need these tax subsidies—that‘s a good place to get the revenue. What happened to John Boehner?
FINEMAN: Well, first of all, he said what he said on ABC because he wasn‘t standing, you know, in the rostrum in the House being stared at by 85 members of the Tea Party. He was, you know, out there in the country thinking on his own and answering a reasonable question in what was probably a pretty reasonable way. That‘s the first thing that happened.
O‘DONNELL: Yes.
FINEMAN: Then the roof fell in on him when everybody in the Republican Party realized that he‘d extended an olive branch to President Obama on a very touchy political topic, and the Republicans deathly afraid that they‘d get drawn into defending big oil nevertheless pulled Boehner back from the brink and they issued the statement that you read just a few minutes ago.
O‘DONNELL: I‘ve got to tell you, Howard. I thought Boehner‘s initial comment was actually brilliant politically. It would just be a genius move for Republicans to go into the tax code—
FINEMAN: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: -- go after corporate tax subsidies in the tax code. If
they did that
FINEMAN: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: -- the Democrats would just be lost in terms of power.
FINEMAN: Game over. I agree.
O‘DONNELL: But, of course, he got pulled back.
FINEMAN: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: You know, last night, I had Grover Norquist on the show, in this spot, specifically to highlight exactly what Republicans are up against when they go into this sort of thing. And we actually talked about a tax subsidy, the ethanol tax subsidy that Grover Norquist thinks is terrible, I think is terrible. But he explained why he would not allow Republicans to just repeal it.
Let‘s listen to what Grover Norquist said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GROVER NORQUIST, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: We should get rid of all annoying tax credits and reduce rates.
O‘DONNELL: Well, I completely agree with you on your description of the ethanol tax credit. But the idea that, you know, getting rid of it isn‘t good enough, you have to get—if you get rid of it, then you have to lower taxes.
NORQUIST: Well, I don‘t want to raise taxes to pay for Obama‘s big government.
O‘DONNELL: I get it.
NORQUIST: You want to raise taxes to pay for Obama‘s big government.
O‘DONNELL: I absolutely.
NORQUIST: We have a disagreement.
O‘DONNELL: That‘s right.
NORQUIST: So, don‘t pretend it‘s about ethanol, it‘s about your wanting to pay for Obama‘s big government.
O‘DONNELL: No, no, no, it is—no, it‘s about two things on my end. It is about ethanol. I think I agree with you completely, your description‘s accurate. It is a stupid idea, get rid of it.
NORQUIST: Let‘s get rid of it.
O‘DONNELL: But I‘m happy to say get rid of it, period, and let the Treasury collect the additional revenue. That‘s where we separate.
NORQUIST: Why? They just spend it on too much government.
O‘DONNELL: Spend it on health care for people who need it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: There it is, Howard. That‘s what they‘re up against. They‘ve all signed a pledge that Grover Norquist has put in front of them not to not just not raise any income tax rates on corporations or individuals, but not allow any of the egregious loopholes to be eliminated. Not even do that because that is considered a tax increase.
FINEMAN: Well, Lawrence, you‘re hung up on arithmetic and balancing the budget and those kinds of things and being responsible fiscally. I‘ve covered Grover for 20 years, he‘s not about arithmetic. He‘s about ideology and he‘s about a fundamental distrust of and antagonism towards the idea of the federal government spending money on anything other than, you know, defense and delivering the mail and maybe not even delivering the mail.
So, that‘s what this is about here. And by the way, I remember when Grover Norquist was considered a fringe character out on the hustings in New Hampshire, 20 years ago with his pledge and so on. He is now a central -- his no-tax-increase pledge is a central to the idea of whatever the Republican Party is today as anything else and the Tea Party has taken it another step. And that‘s why they distrust John Boehner.
And I can tell you the Tea Party types having seen John Boehner in his reasonable mode out there in that interview with ABC are going to be increasingly suspicious about him, which may, in fact, make Boehner more difficult to deal with on the debt ceiling vote than might have been the case a week or two ago when, as I understand it, Speaker Boehner pretty much assured White House—top White House officials that he wasn‘t going to, you know, go to the brink on the debt ceiling. I think that promise that Boehner supposedly made to the White House might not be in good standing now.
O‘DONNELL: Howard, I said last week that Grover Norquist is the most powerful person on American taxation in the country.
FINEMAN: That‘s not an exaggeration. Yes.
O‘DONNELL: He‘s proven once again he has more power on this—in this subject area of taxation than the Republican speaker of the House.
FINEMAN: True.
O‘DONNELL: Howard Fineman of “The Huffington Post” and MSNBC—thanks for joining us tonight.
FINEMAN: Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Here to discuss Wall Street‘s reaction to congressional Republicans‘ brinkmanship on the debt limit vote is “New York Times” columnist and DealBook editor, Andrew Ross Sorkin.
Andrew, thanks for joining us.
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: Thanks for having me.
O‘DONNELL: So, who‘s right? The John Boehner who said that not raising the debt limit could create a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy? Or the John Boehner who is now saying, ah, maybe we won‘t do it?
SORKIN: The first John b Boehner. I don‘t think Wall Street is freaked out just yet, but I will tell you that this rhetoric, I think is starting to ratchet it up. And there is a sense that if we don‘t get some type of resolution on this, I would actually say by early June, not July 8th, which is the day, the brinkmanship day, that there‘s going to be a nervousness that you‘re going to be able to se day in and day out in the stock market.
O‘DONNELL: Expressed in the market?
SORKIN: Expressed in the market. There is a serious fear that the real cost of the government—that all of a sudden that if—these folks are truly irrational in Washington. And that we are going to have a moment of reckoning. And that Boehner‘s talking about really letting this go.
I think the implications of that are so serious—JPMorgan out with a report just this week, the cost of that in terms of just the interest payments on treasuries, $75 billion with a “B.” So, you can see where this goes, and it just gets worse. 2008, our financial crisis becomes almost an aside of what this could create.
If we went down this road, by the way, I can‘t imagine we actually get there, though.
O‘DONNELL: Well, I‘m starting to imagine we can. I mean, previously, it‘s inconceivable that the American government would do this. But these Tea Party Republicans seem unreachable. Does Wall Street—I know Wall Street has good contact and good communication. In fact, extremely good communication with establishment Republicans, like Boehner. Do they have communication with the wild Tea Party members of the Republican party in the Senate and the House who could derail?
SORKIN: I don‘t think they do. I think they‘re trying to. I think there are whisper campaigns. Everybody‘s trying to get in everybody‘s ear.
I think the prevailing the view at this moment is that Boehner, at least in the press is playing to his base, is playing to the Tea Party folks so that he can say—just like he said on the budget—look, I took him to the brink, I went all the way as far as I can, and at the last minute, turns around and makes a deal. But if we don‘t get there in June, then I think people are going to say, maybe this guy‘s playing a different game.
O‘DONNELL: But you‘re saying for real terms, in terms of the market, in terms of our economy, the brink is maybe a month before the actual expiration of the debt ceiling?
SORKIN: Yes, because all of the measures that start—people actually have to start making contingency plans.
O‘DONNELL: Yes.
SORKIN: The government has to make contingency plans. You might start seeing the cost of treasuries go up, you might start seeing foreign investors who are buying 50 percent of our treasuries say, you know what? I don‘t want to do this.
When you look at what happened. When we put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship, the foreigners said, what‘s going on here? You told us this was a safety story, it‘s no longer safe and we are not even back close to pre-conservatorship levels there.
So, this gets bad and it gets back quick.
O‘DONNELL: Well, we have Tea Party members who are strongly anti-government. And it seems to me you say to them, you know, this is what this destroys. And this destroys the federal government‘s ability to do the following things. They kind of, well, hey, doesn‘t sound so bad to me.
SORKIN: And I think that they don‘t think—in truth, that‘s what they think. They think that, you know, $75 billion in costs, that‘s nothing compared to what they think they can ultimately save by taking this story to the brink, by pushing some of these other measures around taxes and budgets and everything else.
I think the cost is enormous—so much bigger than they could possibly imagine.
O‘DONNELL: It may be. But only Wall Street can talk sense to these guys. We‘ll see.
Andrew Ross Sorkin of “The New York Times”—thank you very much for joining me tonight.
SORKIN: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Still to come, Donald Trump makes another appeal to Obama haters by wondering how President Obama managed to get into Harvard.
And the field of losers actually running for president expands as Ron Paul starts up his exploratory committee in Iowa.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Glenn Beck tells his radio audience he‘s uncovered a plot that‘s worse than 9/11. What could be worse than 9/11? Perhaps the exercise of free speech. Glenn Beck gets tonight‘s “Rewrite.”
And Donald Trump says he has friends, rich friends, whose kids can‘t get into Harvard. So, how could Barack Obama ever have gotten into Harvard?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CALLER: Donald Trump, who I think is just horrible candidate for the Republicans is catching on with so many Republicans, it‘s because he talks like he‘s got some balls. And I‘m begging, I‘m begging for somebody in the Republican Party to step forward that‘s got some balls.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: That was a caller to Rush Limbaugh‘s radio show summing up what may be the essence of the results in a new “USA Today”/Gallup poll. The opinion that Donald Trump is a horrible candidate for Republicans is actually held by 31 percent of Republicans who think Trump would be a poor or terrible president, 46 percent of Republicans say they definitely won‘t vote for him if he were to run, 50 percent of all voters say Trump would be a poor or terrible president. And 63 percent of all voters say they definitely won‘t vote for him if he were to run.
The hopelessness and absurdity of a run for president by NBC‘s biggest embarrassment in the history of NBC could not be more obvious, but he continues to make the rounds on every show on television except this one.
Last night, Anderson Cooper did a fine job in the role of prosecutor, and Donald Trump turned in his customary performance in the role of lying witness.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We‘ve interviewed the former director of the Hawaii Department of Health, a Republican, one of two state officials who‘s actually seen the original birth certificate that you‘re talking about in the Department of Health vault. She says she hasn‘t been contacted by your people. I mean, isn‘t that somebody they should talk to if they‘re there?
DONALD TRUMP, REAL ESTATE MAGNATE (via telephone): Well, I‘ve been
told very recently, Anderson, that the birth certificate is missing. I‘ve
been told that it‘s not there and it doesn‘t exist. And if that‘s the case
--
COOPER: Who told you that?
TRUMP: -- that‘s a big problem. I just heard that two days ago from somebody.
COOPER: From your investigators?
TRUMP: I don‘t want to say who. But I‘ve been told that the birth certificate is not there, it‘s missing.
And I feel badly about that because I‘d love him to produce the birth certificate so that you can fight one-on-one. I mean, if you look at what he‘s doing, this president, with fuel prices and everything else, you can do a great fight one-on-one. You don‘t this issue.
But I‘ve been told that the birth certificate is either missing or not there.
COOPER: Can you name even one person who your investigators have talked to? Just one.
TRUMP: I don‘t want to do that. It‘s not appropriate right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Of course, Trump is lying about every bit of this. I told you from the start Trump was lying about hiring investigators to go to Hawaii and investigate the president‘s birth certificate.
Anderson Cooper was being very generous in going along with Trump‘s lie that he actually has investigators in Hawaii on the case. Trump knows he has been cornered in his lies on the investigators looking into the birth certificate, and he‘s now trying another angle of lying. The Bulgarian in chief who has publicly de extraordinary stupidity about anything involving the American government now wonders how Barack Obama—
Barack Obama of all people—got into Columbia and Harvard Law School.
He says, quote, “I‘m thinking about it. I‘m certainly looking into it.”
He‘s lying about that, of course. He‘s not looking into anything about Barack Obama‘s academic record or how he got into college and law school. He is obviously seething with jealously that Barack Obama attended prestigious universities. It mystifies Trump how a kid going to high school in Hawaii, without the support of his father who was absent throughout his life, could possibly get into an Ivy League university when Trump knows how hard it was for him to get into the University of Pennsylvania even though he was born to a very, very rich father who could provide him with all the educational tutoring he might have needed to get into the University of Pennsylvania.
One could only wonder if Trump‘s jealous might come from him having applied to the Obama universities, Columbia and Harvard, and receiving rejection letters from them.
Don‘t worry, Donald. I‘m not going to investigate how many colleges you got rejected from.
Joining me now, Tavis Smiley, host of the PBS “Tavis Smiley Show,” and author of “Fail Up: 20 Lessons on Building Success from Failure.”
Tavis, Donald Trump has built some successes from failure. He started of with the success of being born to his father who was a big real estate developer in New York City, greased the skins for him into that same industry. But here he is, it seems to me looking for and finding every code word, every piece of language you possibly could to try to appeal to haters of Barack Obama who simply don‘t believe that there‘s any legitimate way for a kid like Barack Obama in this country to get to Columbia, to get to Harvard, to get to the presidency of the United States.
TAVIS SMILEY, “TAVIS SMILEY” SHOW ON PBS: The irony of it is, Lawrence—and I‘m delighted to be here—the irony is that whether you‘re Barack Obama or Donald Trump, no one who is successful in any field of human endeavor, if they are being honest, would deny that they‘ve learned more from their failures than their successes. You can‘t have success without failure. We‘ll come back to that in a moment.
But let me say a word about Donald Trump since you raised it so beautifully. I said over a year ago that this was going to be—this presidential race, Lawrence—was going to be the ugliest, the nastiest, the most divisive and the most racist—the most racist in the history of this republic. I did not know that that race to the bottom would begin so quickly.
One can disagree with the Tea Party—
O‘DONNELL: Why did you see this coming?
SMILEY: I saw it coming because it‘s pretty, clear given how the Tea Party has acted, given that Donald Trump is now playing to the worst in the Tea Party, that this would be possible.
I don‘t want to demonize or cast aspersion on the Tea Party broadly; I believe there‘s a certain angst the people in that entity feel. And I share that angst about government. I don‘t believe that it‘s the solution to reduce government. Government does have a role to play. We‘ve got to figure out and debate what that role is.
But there have been some antics that they‘ve engaged in that made it clear to me—showing up to rallies with guns and the Secret Service, you know, working overtime to protect this president; more threats against his life than any president in the history of the nation these presidents combine.
So, the evidence is pretty clear, that they would do anything and say anything in order to make sure that he does not get reelected. This is not a campaign commercial for Barack Obama. It is to say that we live in a nation where we‘ve got to get back to some sense of civility.
I thought after Arizona that there may be a moment here, Lawrence, where we could talk really about having civil discourse in this country.
But Donald Trump is playing to the worst fears, the worst anxieties, that
worst race-baiting that I‘ve ever seen in a campaign. When he suggested
that Obama is the worst—would go down as the worst president in history
you know how many bad presidents we‘ve had? And this guys is two years in, he‘s regarded as the worst president? It‘s a bunch of nonsense.
But one last thing beyond Donald Trump—I‘m disappointed, Mr. Trump. I think, frankly and respectfully, this is beneath him. I had Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of the city, on my program on PBS last night. He has said, let this go. It‘s a non-winning issue.
Michelle Bachmann for God‘s sake has said it‘s a losing issue, let it go.
But it‘s not just Donald Trump. I love the way that you‘ve addressed this issue. I respect Anderson Cooper for the way he went after it last night, trying to get to the truth. But the media is being pimped by Donald Trump. We‘re being pimped.
To your point about NBC, respectfully, he‘s laughing all the way to the bank.
O‘DONNELL: Right.
SMILEY: And I don‘t just have the guck to try to play my intellect that way.
O‘DONNELL: Well, you know, I struggle with this issue of—do we talk about him or do we try to put—I mean, there are people who don‘t want us to talk about him on this show. I understand that.
On the other hand, he keeps spewing these race-based lies about Barack Obama. And I feel the reason I keep coming back to it is I feel those things have to be answered and put down. It‘s a dilemma.
Look, I think May 16th, when NBC announces the guy‘s going to continue to make his living on their network and they‘re going to continue to employ him, which I think is outrageous for them to do. When they do that, this will be over. But up to that time, he is going to continue to spew this hatred.
SMILEY: I think you‘re right about. And I think, I even suggested there‘s not worth in value in checking it. I believe in the admonition of my Jewish friends, never again.
O‘DONNELL: Yes.
SMILEY: So, you can‘t let these things go unchecked. It ain‘t for me
it doesn‘t interest me every night. I think that when you talk about it, the more attention you give it. But I respect people like you who want to take the issue on.
The bottom line is, the media can‘t get—I don‘t see you being pimped by him. But too many have made a big deal about this. And the guy didn‘t even announce he‘s going to run.
If spewing this kind of hate gets you this much attention in America, something‘s wrong with our democracy. The future of our very democracy is at stake if we‘re going to allow people who haven‘t even declared they‘re going to run to spew this kind of hate. Shame on Donald Trump.
O‘DONNELL: Travis Smiley, the book is “Fail Up.”
Tavis, thank you very much for joining me tonight. This is a subject that‘s been vexing me about how to progress through it as it‘s come. I take it day-by-day. I don‘t if we‘ll do it tomorrow or what we might we do by tomorrow. But I really appreciate your perspective on it.
SMILEY: Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Coming up, what a difference a year makes in power. Palin out and Bachmann in, on “Times‘” list of the most influential people in America. And Ron Paul didn‘t make the list, but it won‘t stop him from running for president again. The Republican field as it stands with John Heilemann, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN COLBERT, “THE COLBERT REPORT”: Please welcome Congressman Ron Paul.
All right, sir. Let‘s get right to the heat of the meat. Are you, or are you not ready to declare that you will eventually drop out of the 2012 race?
REP. RON PAUL ®, TEXAS: I‘m on my way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: In tonight‘s spotlight, the 2012 Republican field is taking shape. Perennial loser Ron Paul went to Iowa today to announce the official beginning of his third presidential campaign. His Texas constituents need not worry that he will be distracted from his full-time job as their congressman.
Ron Paul recently said, quote, “I‘m not a good legislator,” end quote. So his presidential campaign will not in any way prevent him from continuing to be a bad legislator. Ron Paul‘s happy announcement of a hopeless campaign comes 24 hours after Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour announced he would not run after realizing his campaign would be as hopeless as Ron Paul‘s.
Instead of admitting the utter hopelessness of the Haley Barbour for president campaign, he issued this phony statement: “a candidate for president today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort to the virtual exclusion of all else. His or her supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate. I cannot offer that with certainty.”
Joining me now John Heilemann, the national affairs editor at “New York Magazine” and the co-author of “Game Change,” soon to be an HBO motion picture. John, thanks for joining me tonight.
JOHN HEILEMANN, “NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Good evening, sir.
O‘DONNELL: No surprise, Haley Barbour can do the math, better than most candidates. He‘s realistic. He used to be a party chairman. He looks at the numbers, says this is hopeless.
HEILEMANN: Correct. Well, not just the numbers. Look, you‘ve got—he realized that some of the mistakes—I think they realized some of the mistakes he made on race would d be a problem for him going forward. I think being from Mississippi is a problem, not just because of the state‘s historic racial problems, but also because it‘s poverty and it‘s other difficulties.
And the third thing is—and I‘ll tell you people at the White House would say this was the killer for him. You cannot be a lobbyist in America right now and expect to win a general election. It is a just time when everybody is so anti-Washington. He‘s the ultimate insider. I think he was smart enough to realize that that would keep him from ever getting into the White House.
O‘DONNELL: They had polling information saying would you vote for a former lobbyist? It was like 50 percent said no. Now, Mitch Daniels jumped on this. He released a statement immediately saying—praising Barbour and saying he would‘ve endorsed Haley Barbour if Haley Barbour had run. Clearly a play for Haley Barbour‘s support, if there is any out there, in the case of Daniels jumping in.
HEILEMANN: Well, to be fair, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour, unlike so many people in politics who say they are friends but really are just like they‘ve run into each other in the hallway at some point—those two guys actually are friends.
And the thinking among a lot of Republicans is that both of them would probably would not run. And now with Barbour out of the way, Daniels has a clearer path to running and certainly a clearer path to try and become a plausible establishment alternative to Mitt Romney, which a lot of people in the Republican party are looking for.
O‘DONNELL: Let‘s take a look at the polls. We have an NBC/”Wall Street Journal” poll that shows you where Haley Barbour was, just about flat lining. There‘s the poll with all the candidates; 21 is the top line for—for Mitt Romney. All the way down to Barbour‘s one percent, Pawlenty at six.
You take out all the people who aren‘t going to run, like Palin, some of the other fake candidacies, Trump. Take those out of there and everybody doubles. Romney doubles up to 40 percent. Gingrich doubles up to 20 percent. Pawlenty doubles up to 12 percent.
So there is real movement there. But even—even Romney at 40 does not exclude a burst from someone else. Hillary Clinton was at 40 when Barack Obama was 20 points below.
HEILEMANN: Sure, and Romney is benefiting from the fact that right now among the credible candidates, like the non-nut candidates, he has the most recognition in the Republican party. So part of the problem for guys like Barbour and Daniels, we know who they are. But even Republican hardcore primary voters don‘t actually know who Mitch Daniels is.
Wait a little while, get him into some debates, get some ads going on in the key states, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, you‘ll suddenly see those guys start to move a lot, conceivably, if they turn out to be good candidates.
O‘DONNELL: This is why I‘m keeping my bet on Pawlenty. Because you‘ve got Romney up there at 40 percent with the realistic candidates in the mix. It leaves a lot of room for movement. And if he‘s not completely squashing a guy like Pawlenty, who has as far as I can see has no serious problem, the way Romney does with health care, the way Romney does with being a former liberal, the way—flipping on abortion and all these things. He‘s got serious problems that only get highlighted as the campaign goes on.
HEILEMANN: I think it‘s—all that analysis is right. And it‘s one of the reasons that Tim Pawlenty is not a totally incredible candidate. And I think it‘s—even with the Tea Party, it‘s likely that the most plausible establishment candidate who gets in will be the Republican nominee.
And there is just so many misgivings with Romney now among Republican regulars that there‘s space—it might be John Huntsman could into that race and make a difference. Daniels could make a difference. There‘s a lot of things that are going to shift as we start to see, again, who the non-populous, non-Tea Party candidates are, the ones who actually have a chance to win.
O‘DONNELL: John Heilemann, national affairs editor at “New York Magazine” and co-author of “Game Change,” thanks for your insight tonight, John.
On his radio show yesterday, Glenn Beck warned of a protest in the works that would be, quote, “worse than 9/11.” That‘s tonight‘s Rewrite.
And later, “Time Magazine‘s” list of the most influential people. Michelle Bachmann and Paul Ryan make the list for the first time. And Sarah Palin is left off. What does that say about the power shift in the Republican party? That‘s coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s Rewrite. Fox News outgoing chief conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck took to his radio show yesterday to issue a dire warning to the country, and demanded to know why the FBI hasn‘t sprung into action from his repeated warnings of a threat, and I quote, “worse than 9/11.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Where is the Justice Department? Where is the Homeland Security on the Black Panthers? Where‘s Homeland Security on the socialist group that are planning a revolution?
We have them on tape. FBI, would somebody please contact us from the FBI? We‘ve contacted, but we don‘t get a return call from Washington. Are there any—is there anybody left that will take these things on?
Is there any department in this country where you can actually call them? Where are the FBI agents? But when you have the leadership of the Department of Justice not pursuing things, you end up with things like 9/11. And I think this is going to be worse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: What you are about to hear is Glenn Beck‘s notion of what is worse than 9/11. It doesn‘t involve Osama bin Laden. The mastermind is someone Beck thinks is worse than Osama bin Laden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Steven Lerner—when we found this out about Steven Lerner, the union organizer, where he said, hey, coming in May, we‘re going to have people collapse the system, blah, blah, blah. We stood around in my office and I said, who do we call?
Who do we call? We can‘t call the DOJ, at least not in advance. We don‘t want to tip them off. Don‘t trust them. Do we call the banks? Don‘t trust them.
Who do you call? The American people. We have got to be self-reliant. We have got to be able to stick together. We have to be able to be around like-minded people, quite honestly, and strengthen our families, strengthen ourselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Yes, Beck is warning that you have to strengthen yourself against former union leader Steven Lerner because Steven Learner is planning something worse than 9/11. And luckily Beck has tape—audiotape of Steven Lerner‘s plan. The tape was obtained by Glenn Beck‘s political news site, “The Blaze.”
It was secretly recorded during the Left Forum in New York City on March 19th. Here‘s some of what Steven Lerner said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN LERNER, FORMER UNION ORGANIZER: And so the question would be, what was happening if we organized home owners en masse to do a mortgage strike? Just say if we get—if we get 500,000 to agree, we agree we won‘t pay our mortgages, it would literally cause a new financial crisis.
I think we need to have a very simple strategy. How do we bring down the stock market? How do we bring down their bonuses? How do we interfere with their ability to be reach?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: When Steven Lerner discovered that Beck was on to his plan, rather than flee the country to escape the inevitable FBI arrest, he published his entire plan in an article in “The Nation.” In it, he repeats what he said at the seminar. “Homeowners and students can stop paying unfair debts. Citizens can demand that our governments stop doing business with bandit banks.”
Steven Lerner is calling for a rent strike of sorts, this time involving mortgages in the hopes of causing problems at the banks that hold those mortgages, and in a best-case scenario forcing the incompetent executives who run those banks to pay themselves smaller bonuses for their incompetence.
There‘s nothing criminal about what Steven Lerner is proposing. Beck, of course, doesn‘t know that, but the FBI does. That‘s why the FBI doesn‘t return Beck‘s calls.
There‘s also nothing homicidal in what Steven Lerner is proposing. And Beck, drowning in the stew of his own madness, doesn‘t seem to realize that for something to be worse than 9/11, it has to kill 3,000 people. It has to involve the horrible murders of 3,000 people, or presumably more than 3,000 people to really be worse than 9/11.
And so Glenn Beck sits comfortably in his radio studio in New York City, the place hit hardest on 9/11, the city scape that is permanently scarred by 9/11, and he tells his listeners that a fanciful dream of a mortgage strike that no one would know about if Beck hadn‘t publicized it is actually a potent threat, a threat with the power to do more damage than 9/11.
Steven Lerner‘s mortgage strike idea is not going to happen even with the attention that Glenn Beck and I have now brought to it. But if Glenn Beck really believes that Steven Lerner is now a threat worse than Osama bin Laden, if he really believes that something worse is coming than 9/11, I beg him to go to his nearest New York City fire station and tell the firefighters there, all of whom lost someone dear to them on 9/11, that something worse is coming.
Tell those firefighters all about former union leader Steven Lerner and how he will do more damage to them than 9/11 did. Or go to any New York City police station and tell them the same thing. There is nothing I could ever say that would make Glenn Beck see what is so vile about his exploitation of the tragedy of 9/11 as a rhetorical device in one of his conspiracy yarns.
But New York police officers and firefighters can be very persuasive. They could make Beck see instantly what is for them his sacrilegious invoking of their tragedy.
But Beck will never do that. He will never talk to them. Instead, he will surely continue to invoke 9/11 or the Holocaust, as he has in the past, to make any insane point of his choosing.
And only in the demented world of Beck will a former union organizer like Steven Lerner continue to be more threatening than Osama bin Laden.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Tonight, some of the world‘s most influential people, as determined by “Time Magazine,” are attending the Time 100 gala. This year the list includes artists, researchers, and revolutionaries who show that the power of people is stronger than the people in power, as Google executives and Egyptian revolution leader Wyal Gohim (ph) puts it.
The list also includes the powerful. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton make their sixth appearances on the list. Vice President Biden makes his first. Four Republicans are also making their debut. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, House Speaker John Boehner, Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Each entry is accompanied by flattering words from an admirer. Rush Limbaugh wrote of Bachmann, “if she were a liberal, she‘d be celebrated from the mountain tops, but she‘s conservative, so because she is smart, talented, and accomplished and a natural leader, not to mention attractive, the left brands her as a flame-throwing lightweight. They underestimate her at their own risk.”
“Time” publishes such nonsense without embarrassment because it is desperately trying to stay afloat in a sea of sinking print publication. If a few thousand Bachmann fanatics buy the magazine, than Rush‘s lie about her being smart will be worth printing. “Time‘s” readers will have to look elsewhere to find Michele Bachmann‘s not-smart statements about how the founding fathers worked, quote, “tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”
Joining me now is the founder of FrumForum.com, David From. David, you may be the 101st most influential person, but you didn‘t make this phony list. These lists are always phony. They put on Lady Gaga and different people, in the hopes that the fans of the different people on the list will buy the magazine. And in this case, they seem to be spreading it out politically.
DAVID FRUM, FRUMFORUM.COM: They promised if anybody twisted a tendon, I‘d be promoted.
O‘DONNELL: OK. What do you make of this shift? Palin off the list? There does seem to be—on the political list there, there does seem to be something real happening.
FRUM: The list is actually—on the Republican side is actually pretty smart. Those are important people. And they do carry a lot of weight. Michele Bachmann, let‘s not forget—in 2010, her personal fund raising out raised John Boehner‘s personal fund raising. He raised a lot more for other committees.
But that commands attention. Paul Ryan obviously is shaping this whole political dialogue, setting up for 2012 with his very bold budget plan.
Chris Christie, a lot of people look to him as maybe a pinch hitter for the presidential race. I think they‘ve chosen well.
O‘DONNELL: Is Michele Bachmann actually leading anyone, as Rush says that she is?
FRUM: She‘s a voice for an important faction of the Republican party. And there‘s going to be an intensifying debate between the faction represented by her, that Donald Trump is trying to muscle his way into. And that is a very angry base that‘s been squeezed very hard by negative economic facts. And then the leadership cadre of the Republican party that if—for now, at least, is parked with Mitt Romney, and is giving him money, and is counting on him through the weight of the traditional organization of the party to muscle his way through to the nomination.
O‘DONNELL: What happens to Michele Bachmann if she does one for president? And what happens to her if she doesn‘t run for president, in terms of holding on to what is now apparently the—or formally the Sarah Palin slot as most influential female Republican?
FRUM: Well, she may not make the “Time” party next year, but she has
look, she‘s a harder working version of Sarah Palin. She have to give her that.
O‘DONNELL: She shows up for work, yes. She hasn‘t quit. She‘s serving out her full term.
FRUM: But she speaks to something. There is a level of economic distress in this country that I think both political parties have not paid sufficient attention to. What, after all, is the president‘s response to the economic crisis? Well, we did our stimulus and that doesn‘t seem to have worked. And now I‘m just watching my clock and hoping that something happens.
I think we should understand all of these strange characters who show up in here like this as people speaking to deep economic anxiety. The American public is still the same level-headed, generous, tolerant public it always was. But it is stressed in a way it has not been stressed maybe since World War II.
O‘DONNELL: Now two people making the list from what is the Republican side, the Koch brothers. Big financiers of behind the scenes movements in conservative politics. Is it—do you feel—is it your sense they are uncomfortable with this public emergence that‘s occurred for them?
FRUM: Well, as well as never having met the Time 100, I haven‘t met them. Let me just say this about the Koch Brothers. It‘s an important thing, especially for the audience for a program like this to understand. Their power is an artifact of successive attempts to reform the campaign finance laws.
The reason people like them and like George Soros and other huge funders have so much power is because the money flow has been turned off to the existing parties through the instrumentalities of things like McCain/Feingold. And everything that has been done to so-called reform American politics, which is to cut the flow of money to the parties, empowers these wealthy individuals. And if you want to disempower them, you can‘t get the money out of politics, but you can make it flow through the machinery.
O‘DONNELL: What the campaign finance law does is it controls in very limited doses how much money people can deliver directly to candidates, just thousands of dollars. And then controls in very limited doses how much you can deliver to actual parties, Democrat/Republican. Then there‘s these unlimited amounts that they can give to these other entities that are supposed to be unrelated and not coordinated with the campaign.
FRUM: The First Amendment says anybody who wants to say something about politics can say something about politics. So if you have 17 billion dollars and would like to buy 17 billion dollars worth of political advertising, you can. If you have 17 billion dollars—
O‘DONNELL: They wouldn‘t be --‘even if you did allow larger amounts of money to go directly to candidates or directly to parties, why wouldn‘t they still be doing this with the outside groups?
FRUM: Because they didn‘t do it before. Before the money was turned off, they didn‘t do it. And because everybody recognizes it‘s a much less efficient way to influence the process. If you could write a check for a million dollars to a party, that would make more sense.
O‘DONNELL: And that‘s going to have to be the last word. David Frum, founder of FrumForum.com, thank you for joining me tonight.
You can have THE LAST WORD online at our blog, TheLastWord.MSNBC.com. You can follow my Tweets @Lawrence. And now it‘s time for me to rush off to the “Time” gala, the Time 100 gala tonight. “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” is up next.
END
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE, LEAVE THE LINK
