On Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 9, 2007

Guests: Phil Gingrey, Chris Van Hollen, Eugene Robinson, Tony Blankley, Howard Fineman talk with Hardball with guest host David Gregory.
Transcript for Hardball, Monday, April 9, 2007:

GREGORY: Good evening. I’m David Gregory, in tonight for Chris. And welcome to HARDBALL.

Late today, breaking news, NBC News President Steve Capus has announced that Don Imus will be suspended from MSNBC for two weeks for his comments about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. In a statement, News President Capus said the following: “Don Imus has expressed profound regret and embarrassment and has made a commitment to listen to all of those who have raised legitimate expressions of outrage. In addition, his dedication—in his words—to change the discourse on his program moving forward, has confirmed for us that this action is appropriate.”

(I) should clarify that, of course, Imus’s program, which originates out of WFAN in New York, is simulcast on MSNBC. And again, the decision by Steve Capus, the president of the News division here at NBC News, is that he will be suspended for two weeks.

We want to talk about this today, including Imus’s appearance on the Reverend Al Sharpton’s radio program, his apologies and where it all goes from here.

We’re joined by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, from the Washington Post, who will be writing about this in tomorrow morning’s edition, as well as MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle.

And Mike, I think I speak for both of us, we are both, as the audience may know, frequent guests on the Imus program. You have known him and been on the program even longer than I have. And this is a difficult time, not just because of the hurt that he has inflicted and what he said, as he tries to deal with it, but for all of us who are on the program and certainly don’t want to be associated with this kind of thing that he’s done, as all of this plays out.

So, first, your reaction to this as we go forward.

BARNICLE: David, you’re right, it is a difficult thing to endure, it’s a difficult thing to hear for any of us, no matter whether you’re on the program or not. I’ve known Don a long time. I can tell you, as he has indicated several times today and last week, he is a good man, he is not a racist. I mean, it sounds pitiful to have to say something like that, but he’s a good man.

I would hope that if there is anything positive to come out of this, it might be that we continue, or have a discussion about race in this country, something that we sometimes willfully ignore in the media. Gene Robinson is sitting there with you. I think both Gene and myself—I can’t speak for Gene, obviously—will in a couple of minutes—but in the print media, writing newspaper columns, you see it much more often evidenced than you do in the electronic media, the fact that there is a double standard when it comes to dealing with race in this country.

A young white woman can get killed in the inner city and it’s on page one, young black men get killed—fifteen, sixteen years of age—on a Thursday night or a Friday night, go find it in the news. The status of public schools in this country, many of them largely black, urban, poor, of no—they don’t have a constituency of clout, their parents cannot call superintendents of schools to complain. We ought to discuss race in this country. We’ve neglected it for too long.

GREGORY: Let me bring in Gene Robinson, here. First of all, again, the decision by NBC News is to suspend, simulcast of the IMUS IN THE MORNING on MSNBC, starting April 16.

First, your reaction to that.

ROBINSON: Since we’re into full disclosure here, I don’t know Don Imus and I’ve never been on his program. So I’m completely detached here.

It is what you do, if you’re not going to fire somebody, you suspend them for a grave violation. So in that sense, I think it’s an appropriate step. I do not think it ends the controversy, I do not think it will be satisfactory to people who have been calling for him to be fired, to be banished from the airwaves, or whatever.

GREGORY: What is not in dispute—whether you know him or not—no matter where you come from, this was racist, abhorrent language no matter where it is said, on the radio or otherwise. It is magnified that this is a program that is listened to by millions of people. What is the appropriate response here, in your judgment?

ROBINSON: You know, I don’t know. I think every—individuals and companies will make the response that they deem appropriate. People who might have listened to Don Imus may not listen to him anymore. And they’ll to have make that decision. Some people who might have gone on his program in the past will not go on it now, perhaps. Or perhaps they will go on the show.

But I think—I believe in free speech. I don’t believe in censoring people’s speech. But speech does have consequences. And while I’ve heard

I know a lot of people who know Don Imus and think a lot of him, what he said—the ‘nappy headed hos,’ let’s kind of just get it out there—

GREGORY: He was talking about the Rutgers basketball team and said those words and they had tattoos. These are some mean looking girls, he said.

ROBINSON: ‘Mean looking girls,’ and then the producer went on to ‘jiggaboos’ and the whole thing. That came from someplace. He may be even know where it came from. It may have been someplace buried, that is inaccessible to him. But it came out and that is something he will have to deal with, going forward.

GREGORY: Mike Barnicle, I want to ask you a question about whether you think Imus gets it on this one.

But before I do that, let me just bring the audience into some other thing that happened today. Imus apologized on the program this morning.

We might have some tape of that. We’ll be looking for that. And maybe we have a couple of clips, as well, from him speaking on Al Sharpton’s program this afternoon, where he spent about an hour, took some calls and there were some other guests who were on the program as well.

And again, the message throughout, Imus apologized, said he does understand the depth of the hurt, wants to make it right. What he wants to do is meet, he has said, with the women on the Rutgers basketball team, wants to meet with them, wants to apologize to them, meet with their families as well. He’s been in contact with the athletic department at Rutgers, Governor Corzine has met with the basketball team as well and talked about the champions that they are and what remarkable young women that they are as well.

So all of that is going on. We don’t know where it’s going to play and where it’s going to go.

Mike Barnicle, one of the things that Sharpton said, who has called for him to be fired, is that he wants to see how Rutgers and these teammates respond to him as well. So with all of that background, do you think that Imus gets it?

GREGORY: Oh, David, he absolutely gets it. He, more than any of us, more than you, more than Gene, more than myself, more than a lot of people realizes that word are weapons, that the hurt that these words inflicted are deep, lasting, historical in some sense. The historical pain is resurrected here. He certainly understands that. He also knows that something the two of you just alluded to, this is not over, that we live in a nation, given the power of the Internet and bloggers, that we are a nation of 300 million newspaper columnists today and everyone will weigh in on this, from coast to coast. And at some point, some blogger in Pocatello, Idaho, carries somewhat equal weight to, like, George Will.

That’s the country and the culture we’re a part of. He gets all of that.

GREGORY: We’re also joined by Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, who was on the program today, meaning the Imus program, and is also a frequent guest.

Howard, your thoughts tonight as you see the response from NBC News, and just the way the day has unfolded today?

FINEMAN: I think it has been pretty remarkable, David. I think it shows you the power of this issue, and it shows you that Imus was so far over the line that it has caused a shudder throughout the establishment media and throughout the country, especially in the African American community.

To answer your earlier question about whether Imus gets it, I think he does get it. But he said what he said, and there will be consequences for what he said. And NBC made it clear tonight what those consequences are. And I think NBC is hoping, as I do, when I spoke with Imus this morning on the radio, that he uses this as what I call the teachable moment, that he learn from this. And as I think he said at one point this morning when I was talking to him, he said, I need to grow up, at least a little. And that’s a humorous way of saying the obvious truth here, that he does. He’s 66 years old. People learn.

I think the form of humor that he was using is not only risky but has probably outlived its usefulness. I think times have changed, things have changed. But in any era, at any time, to say what he said about those women was, as I think Steve Capus of NBC News said tonight, just reprehensible and outrageous and completely unacceptable in any framework.

So these are the consequences of it. I think NBC is right. And I think, if I understand what Steve Capus says correctly, here, Imus is on notice that he has got to change the tenor, the tone and the content of the show. He has got to think up a new schtick if he is going to continue doing what he’s doing and having us participate. That’s just the way it is.

GREGORY: Let me do a couple things here—I’m going to ask our producers to get a clip from Imus from his apology this morning. But while we’re waiting for that, I want to play a portion of his interview on the Reverend Al Sharpton’s radio program today.

(VIDEO CLIP IS PLAYED)

GREGORY: I also want to play—we’ve got the Reverend Jesse Jackson on the phone, and let’s speak to him first, and then I want to play a little bit of the tape from Imus, from his morning program this morning.

First, let me speak to Reverend Jackson.

Thank you for being with us. First, your reaction to the statement and the action that NBC News and MSNBC have taken, with regard to Don Imus.

JACKSON: Well, two weeks does not correspond to the depth of the infraction, but a pattern of racial infractions and bigotted statements.

This is a kind of cooling-off period. Not only did they refer to these young ladies as hard-core hos and nappy-headed hos, and then a conversation comparing them to the Toronto Raptors men, or even the Memphis Grizzlies, the Bears—that was a very in-depth conversation, but not too different from when Venus and Serena Williams were in Playboy, saying that they should have been in National Geographic, kind of animalizing them. Or when Hillary Clinton spoke in Selma, about three weeks ago, to blacks, and next she’ll be wearing corn rows, with gold teeth and giving Crip or gang signs.

So here’s a rather in-depth pattern of bigotry that puts a tremendous burden on NBC and CBS as to what will be the character of the expectations of the on-air talent.

GREGORY: Reverend, do you think that NBC and others—NBC in this case

-- effectively lets Imus get away with it, as some have said, because he’s part of the establishment? And again, I appear on his program—you know that—there’s many people at NBC who do, and I certainly know that our audience understands that as well.

JACKSON: Well, yes, number one, his show is no longer a shock jock show.

It is a very political show. He said, even today, he would not let Clinton be a guest on his show. When he has people like you on his show, and people like Tim Russert and Harold Ford and Joe Lieberman, it is a political show with a point of view.

The other side of it, there is not one black or Latino host of a show on MSNBC. So there is no sense of balance, no sense of diversity in the programming options. So we cannot settle just for the two-week cooling-off period. We must now look at MSNBC’s hosts and writers and producers and the breadth of its news coverage.

GREGORY: You say that there isn’t any diversity at MSNBC. I don’t know that’s quite a fair charge. There certainly—in other words, there is not somebody who has a program like his—

JACKSON: Is there a show on MSNBC hosted by a black?

GREGORY: Alison Stewart is one of our hosts during the day, yes.

JACKSON: Name one. There’s Scarborough and there is you and there is Chris and there is not a single show on any network, I might add. MSNBC, CNN—all day, all night, all white. It is not fair. We deserve more access to broaden and diversify, more points of view.

So beyond the Imus pattern of rather bigoted statements, there’s the issue of fair access. That’s for all people.

GREGORY: All right. I just want to point out that Alison Stewart is an African American anchor at MSNBC TV. I don’t want that to be overlooked by you or anybody else. But nevertheless, I think you’re trying to make a different point about the overall diversity at MSNBC.

JACKSON: I am. She hosts a show. A show host has writers, producers, guests, content. We had Arsenio Hall on night time comedy show 15 years ago. We had Max Robinson, the anchor for NBC News 25 years ago. That doesn’t exist today. So it really is a cry out, really, for participation and for diversity which represents America, a very diverse population.

GREGORY: Let me ask you this, Reverend: is there an opportunity for somebody like Don Imus, who has the sort of huge platform, as you know and you’ve talked about, who has thrown himself behind causes like his ranch in New Mexico for kids with cancer, like autism, like the fallen heroes fund for Iraqi war vets. Is there an opportunity for him to change the structure of his show, to work this problem, to try to heal this wound by using that platform in a way that you could support?

JACKSON: Well, yes. The question is how long does it take and how many chances does one need for rehabilitation? I mean, for all the good work he does. this bigotry appears to be the fly in his ointment. He makes his money kind of peddling fear and bigotry. And then he does some good things with the money he makes.

We must, in fact, take the prosperity out of bigotry and make it more expensive, so others who are in this lineage (ph) will not ever again use degradation as a way of appealing to people. We must use dignity, not degradation, to appeal to people.

GREGORY: Eugene Robinson, who is also with us here, you’ve heard some of what Imus has discussed today in his apologies, his appearance on the Sharpton program. Do you agree with Reverend Jackson, that he is bigoted and that he doesn’t really understand the attack on the dignity of these young women that he has committed?

ROBINSON: Well, you know, I think he understands, but this is not a first offense. Reverend Jackson is right. There have been previous statements and incidents. And look, lets face it—Don Imus, you know, was one of the original shock jocks. And this is his schtick. By being outrageous, by being politically incorrect, he became a big star.

He went way over the line and over the cliff this time, and you know, is facing the consequences, which I think are, you know, are justified in this case, and are not over.

GREGORY: Reverend Jackson, I just want to be very clear on your point of view on this. You believe that he should be fired?

JACKSON: Absolutely. And I think that there must be some punishment that corresponds to the infraction. And we must have it extended (ph) that all of us can live with. Now the burdens is upon NBC, how it handles this, and upon CBS radio, how it handles this. It says something about the character and the expectations of the networks that are his foundation. He is not just playing shock jock now. He is, in fact, represent a political point of view that has influence, and there is no corresponding balance in programming and hosts on that show. And that offends me as much as his right to say what he said, even though I disagree with what he did say.

GREGORY: You’re saying there is no balance on his program.

JACKSON: On MSNBC’s programming. There is Chris Matthews and there is Scarborough and there is name it—there is no African American host that can operate with a point of view and have guests that represents a broader point of view. That’s important, too.

GREGORY: All right. Reverend Jackson, I know you have a flight to catch.

I do appreciate you taking a few moments to share your views with us.

We are going to continue here on MSNBC with Eugene Robinson and Mike Barnicle. We’ll get the latest from our WNBC reporter outside the Rutgers Athletic Center, where I mentioned there are some meetings going on tonight with the athletic department and with the young women, the national champions from Rutgers University, the women’s basketball team, who of course were the victim of these remarks, after all. And we’ll have the very latest on that and continue our conversation.

Again, MSNBC suspending Don Imus, the simulcast of his morning program on MSNBC, effective April 16th.

You’re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC. Don’t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We’re back on HARDBALL, covering the news today by NBC News that it has suspended the simulcast of IMUS IN THE MORNING here on MSNBC, effective April 16th, for two weeks. The reaction to his racist comments last week referring to the Rutgers lady basketball team.

We’re joined now by Michael Gardiulo, of WNBC, who has been outside Rutgers, where there has been a meeting taking place with Governor Corzine and members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

Michael, what can you tell us about what Governor Corzine has said? And we know that Imus wants to meet with the team. Any news on that?

GARDIULO: He does. As a matter of fact, David, we were able to see some members of the team leaving what they call the RAC, here, the Rutgers Athletic Center. They had no comment today. They said they may be making some comments tomorrow. So no word as to whether they’re accepting his apology or will plan to meet with him. Governor Corzine, left with a statement for members of news organizations. And in the statement, he said—this is quoting the governor, here—“I strongly I condemn his words”—Don Imus’s words—“There is absolutely no excuse for his conduct and he is right to apologize.” The governor goes on to say, “Only the Rutgers women’s basketball team, however, can decide whether or not to accept his apology.”

So the governor is saying, really, it is up to members of the team—member of the team saying that they may let us know, in the coming hours, whether or not they are willing to accept his apology.

GREGORY: All right, Michael. Thank you very much.

Eugene Robinson also with us, from the Washington Post.

This was a key part of his conversation with Reverend Sharpton today.

And Reverend Sharpton, who has called for him to be fired, also wants to see whether the team will accept his apology, and whether that is a starting point for Imus to do something on the program to keep his job and to be able to have some kind of conversation to heal this wound.

ROBINSON: Yes. As everyone said, that is a decision that is up to the team. I can tell you if it was me, I would see this as a step in Imus’s, perhaps, in his own self-healing, but certainly in his public rehabilitation. And I would not be inclined to participate in it. I would say no.

GREGORY: Because you think it’s not worth it, because you think it’s not going to happen? You think there’s posturing on his part? What?

ROBINSON: Well, my attitude would be, well, he has already said what he feels about me. And you know, to the extent that my appearing with him or my meeting with him would help kind of paper it over, I would not be inclined to participate. But again, the members of the team will have to make their decision.

GREGORY: I’m asking our producers as well—Nightly News tonight aired a piece about this, including a sound bite from Clarence Page, who some years back, actually made Imus, on the air, pledge that he would never use any racist language again. And he had a reaction to this today, which we will try to show you in just a moment.

For now, however, I want to turn to Armstrong Williams, who is a radio talk show host and syndicated columnist who joins us now.

Armstrong, thank you. Give us your reaction to the decision by our company here, NBC News and MSNBC, to suspend Imus for two weeks, the simulcast of his show here on MSNBC, effective April 16.

WILLIAMS: Obviously, David—thank you for having me—NBC did not see a need to suspend or fire Imus until there was a public outcry, and they realized they could not bring this under control. So they felt they did the best thing, was to suspend him. I think what he said is outrageous.

I remember when they said, a couple years ago, referring to Venus and Serena Williams as apes, I remember what they said about Gwen Ifill and others. But you know, he also uses the same derogatory remarks and says things about Jews and others. This is his shtick. He also talks about his bosses, the people who write his pay checks, and he has gotten away with it.

I believe in freedom of speech, and I think it is outrageous. I’m offended, but I don’t think a person should be fired or suspended. I think the marketplace should decide; if people don’t want to listen to Imus anymore, there’s 24 hour programming, people can always turn to somewhere else. I just believe in the ultimate in freedom of speech and for people to express themselves.

And my outrage would be, that I would never want to listen to him again.

Of course, you guys are his bosses, you have the right to make that decision. But I never would advocate firing someone or suspending someone because they were exercising their freedom.

GREGORY: Do you think there is an opportunity here, Armstrong, for Imus to take on this issue of his hurtful words, to make it a part of his radio program—what I mean, by making the healing a part of his radio program, and throwing himself, whether it is the issue of race relations or racist speech, in the way that he has thrown himself behind his camp for kids with cancer or autism or the treatment of Iraqi veterans and so forth?

WILLIAMS: You know, I tell you what, look, I think sometimes, you have to take the whole of a person. I will never forget during Hurricane Katrina, Don Imus was one of the few people in the country with a national audience to talk about the fact that a lot of these people were neglected because they were black and it was unfair, it was an outrage.

He repeatedly said this on the airwaves. So many people’s hearts were warmed by his comments about Hurricane Katrina. So as we condemn him and criticize him about his racist and bigotted and divisive remarks, let’s also remember the good that he has done when those people were affected by Hurricane Katrina.

I believe that Imus is sincere. I think, for the first time in his career, he has realized that he has, at age 65, to change his rhetoric on the air waves because words can be very painful. They can hurt people in ways that he could never imagine. But I also believe, from the things that he’s said in the past, if you look at his entire history, that he’s deserving of forgiveness, he’s deserving of another chance. And I sincerely believe that he can use the airwaves to uplift people and find more socially redeeming value in this issue on race, and say, I’ve been reformed, I’ve made mistakes, I’ve been punished by the public. And there is nothing like being punished by the public. And I think he can learn and do a lot of good on this issue.

GREGORY: Eugene, I know firsthand that Imus is a good man. I know the good work he does. I have a relationship with him. I’ve been on his program now for six years. But Reverend Sharpton said, this is not a debate about whether as he good man. It is a debate about the words that he used, the way he expressed himself, the hurt that he cause, and what the consequence of that should be.

Should you evaluate Don Imus as the whole guy? Can we make a judgment about whether he is a racist in this case?

ROBINSON: We can’t look into somebody else’s soul. We don’t know. I know you know him. But where did that come from? Where did that eruption come from? It came from someplace. It was in there. And we don’t know where it came from. He may not know exactly where it came from.

But just, one thing that Armstrong said, I believe in freedom of speech, too. But MSNBC’s product is words. And its medium is words and pictures.

And so there is a corporate responsibility here to react to something that was really, really beyond the pale. And I think CBS radio has a similar responsibility to react in some way, and we’ll see what they do.

GREGORY: Final comment, Armstrong, before a break.

WILLIAMS: I think it is always best for the marketplace to decide on issues like this. We don’t need to start citing precedents, in terms of censoring people, no matter what they say. This is a country that we separate ourselves from everybody else by the freedom of speech.

I think Don Imus deserves another chance. I’m offended, I found it just to be incredible, what he said. But I also believe that he can learn from this. He can grow from it. And I remind people about his remarks, about Hurricane Katrina. He was one of the few people out there saying, this is a racist situation. America is better than this. Where is America? Where are the people while these people are suffering? I can’t forget that also.

GREGORY: We’ll leave it there.

Mike Barnicle, on the phone, Eugene Robinson, and Armstrong Williams, thank you to all of you for appearing.

We’re going to take a break here. More HARDBALL right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRZEZINSKI: I’m Mika Brzezinski with breaking news.

NBC News announced tonight, radio host Don Imus is being suspended. His national radio program won’t be simulcast on MSNBC for two weeks—hat begins next Monday—because of comments he made about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. NBC News called his remarks racist and abhorrent and said Imus has promised to change the discourse on his program. Imus has apologized repeatedly for his comments, and expressed his embarrassment.

(NEWSBREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

As we enter the fifth year of the American occupation of Baghdad in Iraq, Congress is still debating how to bring our troops home.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat of Maryland, is the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and sits on the Ways and Means Committee as well. And Congressman Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, who is a member of the member of the Armed Services Committee.

Welcome to you both.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Good to be with you, David.

REP. PHIL GINGREY ®, GEORGIA: Thank you, David.

GREGORY: This is another somber milestone in the war in Iraq. And I want to start off your debate with a simple question.

And, Congressman Van Hollen, I will pose it to you first.

Is the war in Iraq salvageable?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think it is potentially salvageable, but only if we learn the mistakes of the past four years and begin to hold the Bush administration accountable.

And, as you know, salvageable is a quite—is an issue that has many interpretations.

GREGORY: So, how you hold them accountable?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think by doing something like the Congress has done.

Both the House and the Senate, they have slightly different version, but what we have said is, for the first time in four years, we are going to give the president the money he has asked for, but, this time, we are going to ask him to hold the Iraqi government accountable for meeting the benchmarks that the administration and the Iraqi government themselves have said are absolutely necessary if you are going to achieve any kind of political reconciliation in Iraq.

That is a starting point. When you have failure for four years, and you ignore failure, you are going to get more failure. We think it is time to hold the administration and the Iraqi government accountable for the progress that they themselves have said is necessary, if we‘re going to achieve some kind of stability in Iraq.

GREGORY: Congressman Gingrey, respond to that. And you weigh in on whether the war is salvageable.

GINGREY: Well, look, David, it‘s not just the money with strings attached. It‘s the money with a rope tied around General Petraeus‘ hands and his hands handcuffed behind his back. This is no way to conduct a war.

And what the House and the Senate have done is atrocious, to say that, no matter what, March of ‘08 in the Senate bill, that we got to come home—in the House bill, August of ‘08 -- no matter what, no matter whether we have got the bad guys on the run, that we have to pull our troops out.

That makes no sense. We need to give this new way forward a chance, victory a chance. And I think that‘s the bottom line.

And I think, frankly, I don‘t know what we‘re doing back home here in the District right now. Chris could drive to Washington in 45 minutes from his district. I could be on a plane from Atlanta in two hours. And the whole House could be in Washington tomorrow to let Ms. Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi, go ahead and appoint a conference committee, send this bill to the president, let him veto it, as he darn well will and must.

GREGORY: All right.

Let me ask you this, though, Congressman...

GINGREY: And, then, as Senator Levin said, let‘s go ahead and be responsible about this.

GREGORY: All right.

But, Congressman Gingrey, what Senator Levin wants is also more leverage on the Maliki government.

Tell me why—justify your position. Why doesn‘t it make sense for Commander Petraeus to say to the Iraqi leadership: “Look, I‘m getting a lot of pressure here from a Democratic Congress in Washington to hold you accountable, to get together with Sunnis, to get together with Kurds and to make this idea of a national government work. If you can‘t do this, if you can‘t shut down the militias, if you can‘t end the sectarian violence, America is going to pull out here. Get your act together”?

GINGREY: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Why doesn‘t that make sense at any level to you?

GINGREY: Well, David, that does make sense. And, actually, if you look at the new way forward...

GREGORY: But that‘s—well, that‘s what—that‘s what the intent of these bills is.

GINGREY: This is—this is just—this is not just a surge of troops.

Now, let me make this point.

The Dems want to say that this is just surging troops forward. It‘s bringing Iraqis into the fight. It‘s making sure that the Iraq government and Maliki puts up $10 billion for infrastructure repair. It‘s making sure they have provincial elections with a date—a date certain.

So, this is all part—these are benchmarks. And they‘re in this new way forward. I don‘t think we need to further tie the president‘s hands or General Petraeus‘ hands.

GREGORY: Congressman Van Hollen?

VAN HOLLEN: Look, this is just more happy talk. And the president‘s had his way with Congress for four years. And now he‘s got a Congress that is beginning to hold him accountable.

You had the president go aboard the Abraham Lincoln back in 2003 with the “Mission Accomplished” banner. You had Vice President Cheney say, in 2005, that the insurgency was in its—quote—“final throes.” You had the president‘s so-called plan for victory in November 2005.

The administration has lost credibility. The only way to regain credibility and provide some accountability is for us to say to the Iraqi government, “You have said that you need to do certain things in order to achieve political stability and reconciliation.”

We didn‘t pick these accountability benchmarks out of a hat. These are the issues that the Iraqis themselves, as well as the Bush administration, have said are absolutely necessary.

GREGORY: But are you...

VAN HOLLEN: And...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: But, Congressman, are you prepared—by that date certain of next March, if Iraq is no better, if Baghdad is no more secure, you‘re prepared to pull American forces out? And then, what about the consequences of that?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, under the House bill, you are talking about August, 2008. And at that point, you would still have American forces there to continue the training of Iraqi forces. After all, the president has said the strategy from the beginning is as they stand up, we stand down. And it would leave forces in Iraq for anti-terrorism activities, to go after al-Qaeda type threats. Those are the sort of missions that the Baker/Hamilton report said would be important to continue.

But we do think that if you continue to ignore the failure of the Iraqis to meet the objectives, which we and they have said are necessary, you are simply rewarding failure, and looking the away, and that‘s been a failed policy.

GREGORY Take about 15 seconds for the final word.

GINGREY: Well, they want to bring that same old rhetoric, talking about what the president said, mission accomplished, and all of that, that we‘ve got them on the run. The point is we have a new secretary of defense. We have General Petraeus, who was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. And we have a new plan, and it makes no sense not to give victory a chance. We owe that to the American troops, to those who have given their lives, to their families and their loved ones.

Let‘s give victory a chance. And then, in August of 2008, if it is not working, then, indeed, this president and the Republican majority from the last Congress, we do have a plan B. But we are not going to give it to the enemy.

GREGORY: And Congressman Gingrey, if by this fall there‘s no measurable progress, do you think that the president has to change course?

GINGREY: I think adjustments, absolutely, have to be made, depending on what‘s going on on the ground.

GREGORY All right, I‘m going to leave it there. Thank you to Congressman Chris Van Hollen and Congressman Phil Gingrey for your views.

Up next, with as many as 20 states moving their primaries up to February 5th of next, which presidential candidates benefit most from a mega-primary so early in the campaign? This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. The early bird gets the worm. States are now competing hard with one another to have the earliest presidential primary. It is a scramble for power that could very well shake up the entire presidential nominating season as we know it. HARDBALL‘s Jeremy Bronson has some background.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):

JEREMY BRONSON, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In an effort to boost their clout in picking the next president, as many as 20 states could move their primaries up to February 5th, essentially creating a mega-primary, with over half the country voting in a single day. In the past, primaries were spaced out through the summer. Candidates raced from state to state, winning one contest at a time.

Traditionally, early states, like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, attract the most campaign attention. Doing well there gets you major media attention, not to mention the deluge of campaign dough. But plenty of primaries occur after a candidate has already locked up the nomination. And voters in those states are tired of being an afterthought.

New York and New Jersey just passed bills to move their primaries up to February 5th. And last month, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger brought that same muscle to California.

GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ®, CALIFORNIA: Up until now what has happened is that all those candidates came out here to do fund raising, collected millions and millions of dollars, and they left. And they could care less about what our important issues are in this state. Now they are concentrating on the issues.

BRONSON: The big question is: Which candidates stand to gain the most? Would New York‘s move from March to February 5th help New Yorkers Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani? Would an Illinois move boost Barack Obama? Kansas, Sam Brownback; North Carolina, John Edwards; New Mexico, Bill Richardson; Arizona, John McCain; and Utah, Mitt Romney.

The fight to be first is already changing the way candidates are campaigning. With the biggest media markets, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, holding early primaries, candidates need major, expensive advertising blitzes. They also need to build bigger campaign organizations in more states, and that means they need more cash.

It also means that doing well in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire could be more important than ever. If a candidate places poorly in those states, there may not be enough time to bounce back before the mega-primary right around the corner. So is all of this good for democracy?

JENNY BACKUS, DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT: I think that a longer primary season makes candidates better candidates. For example, 2004, John Kerry would have been a much stronger candidate in the general election had he had a couple more weeks of fighting with Edwards.

ED ROGERS, REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: We are going to have much more intensity. And I think that brings more people into the process, so probably a good thing.

BRONSON (on camera): The front loaded primary schedule also means that a candidates have time to introduce themselves door to door, living room to living room. And that could give an advantage to the better known candidates.

Jeremy Bronson, MSNBC, Washington.

GREGORY: Jeremy Bronson, thank you. Let us bring in Eugene Robinson of the “Washington Post” and Tony Blankley of the “Washington Times.” Welcome to you both.

Tony, let‘s pick up on this point. You‘re talking about this mega super Tuesday. It does place more importance on the early states. Is this just a matter of money though? In other words, you are going to need a lot of money, not only for the early states, but to spend your way out of a poor showing there?

TONY BLANKLEY, “THE WASHINGTON TIMES”: Well, it is never just a matter of money. I mean, money is necessary, but a lot of money does not guarantee that you can sell your product to the voters. I don‘t know how you play this game without having a whole lot of money, but having raised that money—There‘s also no chance for momentum to build and more money to be raised off of the increased momentum, because it is all so compacted that you can‘t sort march through over several weeks, and do well in one, get momentum, raise money, do well in the next one.

It‘s all compacted in. And, in and odd way, if somebody doesn‘t break out—if you have three—say on the Democratic side—three relatively strong candidates, in Edwards, Obama and Hillary, I mean, we always talk about it, but it is conceivable that with all those votes going in and being divided up evenly, you might get past that and not be decided yet.

GREGORY: Right, and Eugene, voters are not going to be have a real chance to digest everything. It is incumbent upon voters to start paying attention now and start forming their opinions.

EUGENE ROBINSON, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: Yes, so, you know, we think of this as a tremendously early starting primary campaign process, but, in fact, it is time to start paying attention, because by the time we get to February 5th that could be the whole ball game. People need to start knowing what they think about Obama, knowing what they think about Hillary, knowing what they think about Edwards. And it definitely favors the candidates that have proven they can raise the money to compete in those big states.

BLANKLEY: I don‘t know what raising a lot of money means in this context. You have got to run a three-month media campaign in California. That alone could cost 40 million dollars. New York another 30 million. I mean, as much money as they are raising, you may not be able to run a full media campaign in these states that have five, six, seven, eight large media markets and the huge costs.

So, I don‘t know if we‘ve ever been here before.

GREGORY: Let me turn to a political question about Iraq, and something that‘s interesting, that we‘ve been talking about now for several days. We know about the impact of the Iraq war on Senator McCain, principally. And yet, if you look at all of the polling, despite the funk that Republicans are in, a Republican, in a head-to-head battle, in a lot of the polling, is still beating a top Democrat. Eugene, what does that say?

ROBINSON: I have no idea. I have no idea. I don‘t understand it, because everyone agrees the war is the big issue.

GREGORY: Is a matter that Democrats have not yet sold the deal with the American public about being able to take over the reigns of foreign policy or management of the war?

ROBINSON: It could be. It could be that voters are waiting to hear a Democrat, the Democrat, enunciate, to use President Bush‘s phrase, the way forward, and preferably, by the country‘s likes, the way out of Iraq. I think that voters probably have not heard that yet. I mean, the timetables, benchmarks, whatever you call them, there is a little vagueness there.

GREGORY: Tony, how do you explain this?

BLANKLEY: Well, I don‘t know, but I‘ll give it a shot. With McCain and Giuliani, who are the two Republican who can match or beat any Democrat in a nationally head to head, they have real resistance within the Republican ranks because they are to the left of the Republican party, and probably dead center in the broader American electorate.

The Democratic leaders are on the left side, not Hillary so much, although historically she seems to the left. So they are actually better positioned to win a general election, and arguably poorer position to win the Republican primary.

GREGORY: All right. We are going to take a break here. We are going to come back with Eugene Robinson and Tony Blankley, talk some politics, as well as some other issues of the day. You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We are back with Eugene Robinson of the “Washington Post,” and Tony Blankley of the “Washington Times” to talk some more politics and also to take up this other hot issue of Don Imus as well.

Tony, let me start with you on the issue, on the Republican side, of Mitt Romney. There is a question about authenticity in this race, obviously, and a lot of questions about Romney‘s evolution as a conservative. And so he got in some trouble here recently talking about being a lifelong hunter, when, in fact, he had been just a couple of times in his life. including in Georgia, which was actually a fund-raising event for Republicans. A problem for him?

BLANKLEY: Can Mitt Romney mitigate his appearance in authenticity? Look, inauthenticity is not a monopoly of either party. Most candidates are relatively inauthentic. The ones who can fake authenticity get elected president. Yes, he has a problem because he has been all over the map over time, claiming things. So has Giuliani. So has Gore and Edwards on energy consumption, given their lifestyles.

It‘s a very tricky business to be able to live out your authentic personality as a presidential candidate, because you are pulled from so many different ways to respond to the different pieces of the American electorate, and very few politicians succeed at it. So far, I don‘t see many who are.

GREGORY: You saw John Kerry get caught in this a little bit back in 2004, as well. Does this start to fit a narrative, a pattern for Mitt Romney?

ROBINSON: I think Romney is writing his own narrative. I mean, he seems to be going out of his way to create this problem for himself. Why did he have to say he was a life-long hunter? Why didn‘t he, kind of, dial that down a little bit?

BLANKLEY: He just joined the NRA last year.

ROBINSON: Exactly, and he‘s been a couple of times, and he hunts, you know, small varmints, or whatever. So I think that‘s a real problem.

GREGORY: All right, let‘s talk about Don Imus and his comments on the air about the Rutgers Women‘s basketball team. He appeared on Al Sharpton‘s radio program apologizing today and is trying to meet with members of the team. Eugene, you are going to write about this, and say what?

ROBINSON: Well, you know, I—philosophically, I think people should—

I believe in free speech. People should be allowed to say what they want

to say. I think it was a terribly racists thing to say. And people will

have to make their decisions about whether to go on Imus‘ show, whether

to listen to Imus‘ show, whether to continue to broadcast Imus‘ show.

I mean, these are all decisions that people will make, as Imus tries to get back in the game.

GREGORY: The question is about sanctions though. Should he lose his job or should he do something else? What is the something else, if you think he should not be fired?

ROBINSON: Well, you know, I don‘t know what the something else is. He has lost me. And I suspect he lost a lot of people. To gain them back, you don‘t do that immediately. You do it over time. I‘ll tell you one thing, if I had a daughter on that team, and, you know, she was being approached by Imus‘ people for a meeting of some sort, I would say, you know, don‘t you dare go meet with them, and he has already said what he thinks of you.

BLANKLEY: I like the Imus show. I always have. I listen to it. This is what he does. He is outrageous regarding every ethnic group. I don‘t see how he can self-censor his show, and still have the show that get millions of listener and hundreds of thousands of viewers. So if he becomes a straight-forward, sincere lovely fellow, I think his audience leaves him.

GREGORY: All right, we‘re going to leave it there. My thanks to Eugene Robinson and Tony Blankley. Join us again tomorrow for more HARDBALL. Our guests include former CENTCOM Commander Anthony Zinni. Right now, time for “TUCKER.”

Foreign Policy: "Iraq Study Group Has Set U.S. Policy On Iraq"

Everyone in Washington seemed to agree that the Iraq Study Group’s ideas for fixing Iraq were duds. So, four months after many pundits and politicians accused Baker and Hamilton of failing to think big, why are the White House and Capitol Hill rushing to implement the very recommendations of the ISG that they once dismissed?

Quiet victory: Without anyone noticing, James Baker and his Iraq Study Group have set U.S. policy on Iraq. Foreign Policy reports, "Mission Accomplished":
When the bipartisan Iraq Study Group released its report containing 79 fixes for the mess in Iraq last December, official Washington welcomed it the way one might greet an IRS audit—with very little enthusiasm. “[I] find some of its recommendations misguided or poorly worded,” concluded veteran Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross. Lawrence Kaplan, former executive editor of The National Interest, pronounced the report “half-baked.” On Capitol Hill, the ISG took blows from the right and left. The subtitle of the commission’s report proclaimed “a new approach.” But the leading antiwar Democrat, Rep. John Murtha, snuffed that the commission’s approach was “not different from the current policy,” while the most prominent congressional Republican war supporter, Sen. John McCain, called it “a recipe that will lead to … our defeat in Iraq.” President George W. Bush thought so much of the commission that he decided to form his own competing one.

Much of the disappointment could be forgiven. Everyone was awaiting a miracle solution, and ISG co-chairs James Baker and Lee Hamilton did little to dampen the media hype. But bits of the commission’s final report, including its prognosis that the situation in Iraq was “grave and deteriorating,” were painfully obvious. Public opinion polls showed that some two thirds of Americans already knew that to be true. Other parts, such as the commission’s suggestion that the Iraqi government be forced to meet benchmarks, lacked teeth. Why would these elder statespersons suggest only that the United States could withdraw if the benchmarks were not met? This is to say nothing of the fact that some ISG recommendations even appeared to be obviously recycled. Baker and Hamilton’s suggestion, for instance, that the Iraq conflict was “inextricably linked” to the Israel-Palestine crisis was pointed out by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft way back in 2002. And so the ISG was thanked for its 79 recommendations for fixing Iraq—and then it was simply ignored.

Or was it?

In the four months since the ISG’s report landed on desks in Washington with a resounding thud, both the White House and Congress have quietly implemented many of the very recommendations they once coldly dismissed. Just look at the ISG’s first 12 recommendations, which broadly call for heightened diplomacy, globally and within the region. In January, the Bush administration pooh-poohed Baker-Hamilton’s most hyped suggestion—a sit down with Iran and Syria—in favor of a plan to secure Baghdad with more U.S. troops instead. Since then, however, the administration has pursued talks, including a regional conference on Iraq planned for as early as this month that is to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts from Syria and Iran. The change in Bush’s thinking has apparently been so profound that not even Iran’s decision to capture 15 British sailors and marines has knocked the State Department off this diplomatic course. The ISG also recommended renewing efforts to help broker a broader Israeli-Arab peace, dedicating five of its 79 recommendations to the subject. Here too, the Bush administration is heeding the ISG’s advice. Secretary Rice has already made three trips to Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2007, and has said that she and Bush have had “endless conversations” on how to formulate a peace agreement.

Throw a dart at the ISG report, and you’re liable to hit a recommendation that the White House is implementing. The ISG called for additional economic and military support for Afghanistan—and the Bush administration has announced an increase in both. It’s sending more U.S. troops and financial aid in order to combat a resurgent Taliban. The ISG called for reforming Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior—and the Bush administration now agrees. The president’s plan for Iraq, released on January 10, is requiring reform within the ministry. The ISG called for bringing foreign investment into Iraq’s oil sector—and the Bush administration has hopped on board. Bush’s January plan calls on Iraq to pass an oil law, currently pending in the Iraqi legislature, to bring foreign investment into Iraq’s oil operations. This list goes on and on. More foreign aid for Iraq? Bush asked for it after the ISG recommended it. A revenue-sharing plan for Iraq’s oil? Same story.

The White House, of course, hasn’t embraced all of the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s recommended fixes. For instance, it has steadfastly opposed deadlines for troop withdrawals. Fortunately for the Baker-Hamilton Commission, Congress is picking up the slack. Following the ISG’s suggestion that the United States begin to draw down its troops in Iraq by early 2008 (recommendations 40 through 45 in the final report), U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama introduced a bill setting March 31, 2008, as the date for withdrawing troops. Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, led the charge on calling for a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by March 2008, except for troops in those functions recommended by Baker-Hamilton. Countless other measures in Congress have borrowed heavily from the ISG’s approach, and not just on troop withdrawal, but on reconstruction, and, most notably, on the plan for setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government, put forward by House Democrats.

All of this is not to say that leaders in Washington have gone back to Baker and Hamilton’s report only to realize its omnipotence. They haven’t. The ISG’s work was neither brilliant nor particularly prescient. But the pundits and politicians who condemned it minutes after it was released were too quick to judge. The report wasn’t worthless. In fact, its mundane set of recommendations convinced foreign-policy minds in Congress and the White House that they could do better. So folks went back to the drawing board. And what they discovered is what Baker and Hamilton had tried to tell them in the first place: There are very few good options for fixing Iraq.

And that may be the most important conclusion of all.

Boys Contaminate W.Virginia Town With Mercury

"It was shiny and made interesting patterns when you drop it," said Dr. Kerry Gateley, director of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department. "From a 10-year-old's standpoint, that is fascinating stuff."

The AP reports:

In Clendenin, W.Va., a group of boys playing with mercury swiped from a dental office created an environmental headache for one small town after tracking it into their school, homes and church and up the steps of the public library.

Five of the 25 students who handled the poisonous substance showed high levels of exposure, but none suffered serious health risk, health officials said Wednesday.
"It was shiny and made interesting patterns when you drop it," said Dr. Kerry Gateley, director of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department. "From a 10-year-old's standpoint, that is fascinating stuff."

The fourth- and fifth-graders took about 4 pounds of mercury, used in some dental fillings, from the vacant and apparently unlocked office early last week, authorities said.

They played with the toxic substance for several days, with one student reportedly trading a pair of sneakers for some, before school officials learned about it Friday, said Clendenin Elementary School Principal Karen Scheer.

Health officials spent the weekend removing contaminated items from the steps of a public library, two classrooms at the school and a gazebo at a public park in the town of 1,400, Gateley said.

About 200 people were expected to be screened for exposure, Gateley said.
Short-term exposure to mercury vapors is not considered dangerous. Long-term exposure can affect the brain and nervous system causing behavioral problems, such as irritability, followed by tremors.

Mayor Bob Ore said the boys walked through an open door at the dentist's office, which had been put up for sale after the doctor suffered a stroke 18 months earlier.
"Boys will be boys," Ore said.

He wasn't sure if any charges would be pursued.

Is Hillary Secret Rev. Al Ally?

In New York Magazine:

Does Al Sharpton have an agreement with the Clintons to help them handle their Barack Obama problem? Obama’s camp thinks so. “It’s no state secret that he’s with Hillary, and that’s fine,” says a source close to Obama. Often critical of the centrist Clinton White House, Sharpton was far from Lincoln Bedroom material—and the Clintons weren’t regulars at Sharpton’s House of Justice in Harlem either. Now, according to a Sharpton source, the Clintons have enacted “a full-court press” peppered with “personal touches” to win Al over. (Bill called Sharpton to offer condolences after James Brown’s death, the source says; Obama only wrote a note.) Sharpton insists he’s not with anyone yet and is eager to hear from the star-studded lineup of candidates (Obama, Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich) slated to speak at his National Action Network Convention this month. Sharpton’s on-again-off-again mentor, Jesse Jackson, who has all but officially endorsed Obama, resolved a “scheduling conflict” and will make it, too. “I’ll be there,” Jackson says, pooh-poohing the Sharpton-Clinton alliance as “a cheap analysis.”

Fred Thompson, Capitol Hill Lobbyist

Politico.com reports:
Republicans pining for a Fred Thompson presidential bid contend the "Law & Order" star would make a strong candidate because of his experience as a senator, federal prosecutor and Watergate investigation counsel, as well as his conservative credentials and fame as a television and movie actor.

But supporters rarely focus on another hat he wore before and after his eight years in the Senate: lobbyist.

The role could be an issue if he seeks to move from his current flirtation with running, which has generated escalating poll numbers and buzz, to actually running, which would subject him to a heightened level of scrutiny.

Over about two decades of lobbying (during which he also acted and practiced law), Thompson made nearly $1.3 million and represented clients including a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims, Canadian-owned cable companies, and deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, according to government documents and media accounts from his first run for the Senate in 1994.

During that special election to fill the Tennessee seat vacated by Al Gore's ascendance to the vice presidency, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Thompson's opponent, had blasted him as "a Gucci-wearing, Lincoln-driving, Perrier-drinking, Grey Poupon-spreading millionaire Washington special interest lobbyist."

But Republican Thompson crushed Cooper, 61 to 39 percent. That, however, was in a watershed Republican year, and it was before the Jack Abramoff scandal tarred lobbyists in the public's mind as corrupt, self-dealing influence peddlers.

Lobbying accounted for only a fraction of Thompson's income, said his spokesman, Mark Corallo. The former senator is not lobbying now and has no plans to do so, Corallo said, "but he's not going to foreclose any options."

Nor will Thompson hide from his past if he runs, the spokesman said.

"There's nothing wrong with lobbying. It's an honorable profession," Corallo said. "Let's face it: If you're a politician, you're being lobbied on a daily basis. So it's just not an issue."

But it will become one if Thompson declares his candidacy, aides for two Republican presidential candidates predicted.

"These would be logical lines of attack," one said, though both said their campaigns have yet to build opposition research files on Thompson’s lobbying.

But whatever they might dig up "won't stick, said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), national co-chairman of the Draft Fred Thompson 2008 committee.

"In politics, everything is fair game," Wamp said. "But I don't think anybody sees Fred Thompson as a lobbyist. They see him as a senator, and I think they will view him as a president." Thompson plans to huddle with lawmakers on Capitol Hill this month to gauge support, Wamp said, adding that a number have signed on to help Thompson should he decide to run.

Wamp was not familiar with the specifics of some of Thompson's lobbying work. But he called the lobbying a "limited" part of a résumé that includes asking the Watergate congressional investigation hearing question that exposed President Richard M. Nixon's secret recording system, helping uncover a payoff scheme that landed a Tennessee governor in prison and playing a host of television and movie roles, including his ongoing portrayal of the quick-witted, drawling Manhattan District Attorney Arthur Branch on the popular NBC cops-and-courts television drama "Law & Order."

Thompson's commanding presence, background and conservatism bring to mind another actor-turned-pol, Wamp said. "The whole thing is very Reagan-esque. The whole story."

Thompson cruised to a full Senate term in 1996 but decided not to run again in 2002. A year after stepping down, he registered to lobby for British reinsurance company Equitas Ltd.

The company paid him $760,000 to guard its interests against several bills seeking to protect businesses from asbestos lawsuits, according to records Thompson filed with the Senate.

The legislation died, and Thompson this year filed papers ending his relationship with Equitas, the only client on whose behalf Thompson registered to lobby after leaving the Senate.

"We were very satisfied with his representation," Equitas spokesman Jon Nash said in an e-mail. The company, which spent $5.3 million on a team of lobbyists from eight firms from 2004 to 2006, wanted Thompson, Nash explained, because "we needed help in lobbying Republicans in the Senate, and in addition, as a former senator from Tennessee, he had a good relationship with the then-majority leader, Sen. Frist," also a Tennessee Republican.

The provisions that concerned Equitas were removed from the last version of the legislation, according to a lobbyist with a Republican background who worked on the issue, and said Thompson had the ability to become a successful K Streeter.

"He gets into the weeds of an issue," the lobbyist said, adding that lawmakers' doors opened easily for Thompson, though not necessarily because he was a former colleague. "He's well-received on the Hill in no small part because of his Hollywood status. People like to mingle with him."

Thompson appears to have earned less money lobbying before serving in the Senate. But it's difficult to trace lobbying work done before 1995; before then, Congress did not require lobbyists to report how much clients paid them, and records are not easily searchable by lobbyists' names.

Thompson did file papers with the Justice Department to represent Haitian President Aristide in October 1991, two weeks after Aristide was overthrown. The filing lists Thompson as a member of the Washington-based law firm Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn and says he intended to lobby Congress, the State Department and the White House "in order to obtain the restoration of the democratically elected government of the Republic of Haiti."

Corallo had a different take, asserting Thompson "didn't file papers to represent President Aristide. He filed papers to discuss the Haitian embargo." And Corallo said Thompson was not paid for his Haiti work, which consisted of a single telephone call to then-White House Chief of Staff John Sununu.

"That's the only thing he ever did on that. So that's that," Corallo said, adding that Thompson is no longer associated with Arent Fox or any other law or lobbying firm.

From 1975 to 1993, Thompson was paid $507,000 lobbying for six clients, according to a 1994 article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

The newspaper reported that Thompson's campaign provided information showing Thompson received payments from Westinghouse, two Canadian-owned cable companies, the Tennessee Savings and Loan League, a Teamster's pension fund and a Baltimore-based coalition of businesses seeking federal grants.

Corallo said Thompson's camp assumes the Commercial Appeal report is accurate. But he declined to provide The Politico with information on lobbying payments to Thompson.

"It being so far back, that's an awful undue pressure, burden for the senator to have to go dragging back through records," Corallo said.

During the 1994 campaign, Cooper said Thompson lobbied for legislation that caused the collapse of the savings and loan industry and against a bill that would have limited foreign involvement in the U.S. cable industry.

Thompson's camp shrugged off those criticisms, according to press reports at the time, which quoted his aides as saying he had worked on earlier savings and loans legislation that was rolled into the controversial 1982 legislation and had pushed for more competition in cable.

If Thompson declares for president, his opponents would be ill-advised to rehash Cooper's 1994 strategy, Corallo said.

"I really can't see any of the candidates wasting their time attacking him for doing things that were perfectly legal, honorable, ethical and public," Corallo said. "It's just not a big deal."

On Meet The Press - April 1, 2007

Transcript for April 1, 2007:
MR. RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Tough words on Capitol Hill over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

(Videotape):

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): The Republicans are the ones who don’t want to have the hearings.

MR. RUSSERT: The attorney general’s former chief of staff says Alberto Gonzales did not tell the truth.

(Videotape):

MR. KYLE SAMPSON: I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate.

MR. RUSSERT: What now? With us, from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chairman, Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont, and a key Republican member, Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Then, the president and House Democrats square off on Iraq.

(Videotape):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Calm down with the threats. There’s a new Congress in town.

MR. RUSSERT: And are 23 million Americans about to have their federal taxes go up? With us, the chairman of the House, Ways and Means Committee and author of “I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since: From the Streets of Harlem to the Halls of Congress,” Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York.
But first, what now for the attorney general of the United States? The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating as to why eight sitting U.S. attorneys were replaced by the Bush administration. Joining us, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Pat Leahy, and a key Republican on that same committee, Orrin Hatch.

Gentlemen, welcome both. Let me show you what we know so far in the public record. This was the attorney general talking to the press and the nation on March 13th.

(Videotape, March 13, 2007):

ATTY. GEN. ALBERTO GONZALES: That is, in essence, what I knew about the process. Was not involved in, in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That’s basically what I knew as the attorney general.

I never saw documents. We never had discussion about where things stood.

MR. RUSSERT: And then we saw his chief of staff, the attorney general’s chief of staff two weeks later, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and here was his testimony.

(Videotape):

MR. KYLE SAMPSON: I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate. And...

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Is what? Is accurate?

MR. SAMPSON: I don’t think it’s accurate. I think he’s recently clarified it, but I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on November 27th.

SEN. SPECTER: So he was involved in discussions contrary to the statement he made at his news conference on March 13th?

MR. SAMPSON: I believe—yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Leahy, a very serious question, do you believe the chief law enforcement official in this country, the attorney general, has lied?

SEN. LEAHY: I believe he has not been accurate. I believe—I believe he has not been truthful. In fact, when some of these statements came out, first in the press, which indicated he had not been accurate, he came up to me at a meeting at the U.S. Supreme Court and said, “I, I want to come up and clarify this, have another meeting.” I told him I didn’t want any more of these private meetings where we’re told either half truths or untruths. I said, “Our next meeting will be in public under oath.” Quite frankly, Tim, I’m fed up about it. I really am. Just tell the truth. You know, in the long run, telling the truth is the best thing to do.

MR. RUSSERT: The attorney general is scheduled to appear before your committee on April 17th.

SEN. LEAHY: That’s right.

MR. RUSSERT: Should you wait that long? If the attorney general called you and said, “Could I please come in next week?” would you accommodate him?

SEN. LEAHY: No. In fact, we got a call yesterday afternoon saying, “Could we come earlier.” You know, we had offered a much earlier date to the attorney general, and they flatly turned it down. We offered a number of dates. They flatly turned them down, and they picked the date of April 17th. As a result, we went ahead and did our—planned our other hearings. Of course, the Sampson hearing, we’re doing. We’re, in effect, interrogating a number of people leading up to it. The 17th is now the time. Everybody has set their schedule according to that. It’s the date that the attorney general originally picked. It’s the date the hearing will take place.

MR. RUSSERT: When did he want to come in?

SEN. LEAHY: He, he said he wanted to come in April 17th. We, we had already...

MR. RUSSERT: When he wanted to move it up, how quickly? Next week?

SEN. LEAHY: Well, sometime—no, no, week after next. But we’ll, we’ll keep on that schedule. Senators have planned for that schedule. We have been doing our investigations leading up to that. It’s the date that he originally picked. We’ve accommodated him on that date. He, he declined the dates that we suggested. He picked this date; we’re accommodating him on it. It will not change. The hearing will be April 17th.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hatch, let me show you another comment from Kyle Sampson, the attorney general’s chief of staff, at that hearing on Thursday. Let’s watch.

(Videotape, Thursday):

MR. SAMPSON: I remember learning from the attorney general that Mr. Rove had complained to the attorney general about U.S. attorneys in three districts...

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR: And did you think...

MR. SAMPSON: ...and the substance of the complaint was that they weren’t aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases.

MR. RUSSERT: So now we have the chief of staff saying attorney general talked to Karl Rove about the performance of U.S. attorneys. Do you believe that the attorney general has misled the nation?

SEN. HATCH: I don’t believe he has. My experience with General Gonzales is that (coughs) excuse me—is that he is a very honest man. Now, I think when he was talking about that he hadn’t seen documents, he was talking about the e-mails. With regard to the general matter here, if Kyle Sampson said, in response to my questions, that he had generally apprised the attorney general of these matters, and after The Washington Post article came out, I called the attorney general and I said, “Well, what about this?” And he said, “Well,” he said, “I generally,” he said, “had some knowledge about this,” he said, “but I didn’t get into the details and the specifics.” And he—and he blamed himself for not doing so. I, I don’t think anybody who knows him would accuse him of being a liar. Now, you know, are there contradictions here? Of course. But I believe that that’s—it’s explained by Kyle Sampson saying that he generally explained it to him, and by his comment to me that, “Yes, I had some general knowledge of it, but I was not involved very much in the specifics.”

MR. RUSSERT: You know, it is interesting, however, that one of your colleagues has, in fact, used those exact words, “liar,” to describe the attorney general. Here’s an e-mail from Kyle Sampson which—from November, which lays out a very precise path to get someone in a U.S. attorney position without going through the Senate confirmation process. And that, in fact, got to the Democratic senator from Arkansas, Mark Pryor, who took to the Senate floor and used these exact words. Let’s listen.

(Videotape, March 15, 2007):

SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): The truth is, I was lied to. Because I was told that the attorney general—and he not only said it to me, he said it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he said it to the world, the attorney general wanted a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney in every slot. That is absolutely not true in Arkansas based on this e-mail from the Justice Department.

When the attorney general lies to a United States senator, I think it’s time for that attorney general to go.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hatch, that’s one of your colleagues saying he was lied to.

SEN. HATCH: Well, I don’t think he was. I mean, in the case—in that particular case, they—you know, it’s no secret the White House wanted Griffin put in there, a person with prosecutorial experience who the attorney—who the U.S. attorney who was going to be removed said was his right-hand man and one of the best prosecutors he had. The fact of the matter is they wanted to appoint him as an interim U.S. attorney. And by the way, that is—that is done all the time. Interims are appointed while they wait to get a, a permanent vote by the Senate, and, frankly, the question here is whether an interim is appointed by the courts or by the, the Justice Department itself. And frankly, you know, I don’t think—I don’t think anybody should’ve said that the attorney general lied to them. On...

MR. RUSSERT: (To Senator Leahy) You’re nodding.

SEN. HATCH: On that issue. Certainly not on that issue.

MR. RUSSERT: (To Senator Leahy) You’re shaking your head, Senator.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, you almost—you’re almost thinking, the answer—I love Orrin Hatch, an old buddy—but it’s almost like he’s aware of the fact that today’s April 1st. This is not what happened at all. It is not the case of putting someone in with the idea of them having a confirmation. They were very cleverly using an obscure piece of the Patriot Act that was snuck in by the administration, the last Patriot Act. They were using that to suddenly replace all these U.S. attorneys, planning never to go to the Senate for confirmation. It was very clear from the Sampson testimony, very clear from the e-mails we’ve received that’s exactly what they wanted to do. In fact, it is remarkable that, when that came to light, when the United States Senate, by a vote of 94-to-2, we repealed that, even though the White House was opposed to us repealing it, and the House representatives by about a 4-to-1 margin did. How many times, Tim, have you seen, in this city, that kind of bipartisan rejection of an administration’s policy? I think most people are so offended by what has happened, most people feel that the attorney general has not been truthful, and again, that is why I really—I don’t want any more of these closed door meetings, closed door briefings. I want it under oath, before the public. Let both Republican and Democratic senators ask the questions, let the truth come out.

MR. RUSSERT: But if the...

SEN. HATCH: (Unintelligible).

MR. RUSSERT: One second, Senator Hatch.

SEN. HATCH: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: But if the president says, “I’m sorry, Senator Leahy, this is executive privilege. I need honest, unfettered advice from my staff. Karl Rove was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He’s not going before your committee. You can do whatever you want, he’s not going,” what do you do?

SEN. LEAHY: Well, first, the president hasn’t claimed executive privilege yet, and, according to the testimony, the president was not involved directly in these things, so it wasn’t a question of advice going to the president. It was more of a, a question of orders coming from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers to the attorney general, who seems to act as though he’s still a member of the White House staff instead of being of the attorney general of the United States. Entirely different thing. I, I think the most important thing, especially in light of the fact that in two years we’re going to have a new president, new attorney general, let’s establish exactly what went wrong here. We know a lot of things went wrong. With the idea that at least with the next president, whoever the next president might be, won’t make these mistakes again.

MR. RUSSERT: But what if Mr. Rove refuses to come before your committee?

SEN. LEAHY: Well, let’s see if that happens.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe he will?

SEN. LEAHY: Let’s see if that happens.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have indications he might?

SEN. LEAHY: No, I don’t. No, in fact, they’ve given us a take it or leave it. They said we’ll—the White House said we’ll only allow a discussion behind closed doors with no transcript and a limited agenda and not under oath. Everybody knows that’s a nonstarter. There’ve been so many misstatements back and forth by people within the administration, I want it in public under oath. I want both Republicans and Democrats to be able to ask questions.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hatch, here’s part of the problem. There was a letter written by the acting assistant attorney general to Senator Schumer, and it said this about the situation in Arkansas: “The Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying for Mr. [Tim] Griffin’s appointment.” That’s the U.S. attorney in Arkansas. “The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.” And then e-mail emerged from Kyle Sampson, which said this, in December: “[I] know that getting [Tim Griffin] appointed was important to Harriet” Miers, “Karl” Rove, “etc.”

And so it was then asked why, if Karl Rove was involved, would the Justice Department send a letter to Congress saying he wasn’t involved? And they said, “Well, the White House counsel’s office gave us that information that Mr. Rove wasn’t involved.” Ask the White House why that happened, and here was the answer from the deputy press secretary: “The [February] letter [saying that Rove had no role in the appointment of Tim Griffin] was received here by an associate counsel named Chris Portion. He was new to the White House counsel’s office. He made suggested edits of the letter. He had very limited knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr. Griffin as U.S. attorney and the prior conversation with his supervisors, who he had only worked for” “I think about a month or two. And he cautioned the Justice Department to make sure the facts were accurate.”

So the White House saying now that the White House counsel who vetted this wasn’t really experienced enough to do that, and, oh, by the way, he said the Justice Department should have taken other precautions. However, when you look at the e-mails, lo and behold, you find this, that same White House associate counsel writing an e-mail to Kyle Sampson back in December about what? The appointment of Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney in Arkansas. “Seems to me” Senator “Pryor and” Senator “Lincoln are taking steps to back the” Department of Justice, the White House “into a corner on Tim Griffin and commit to not commit on him as a nominee. Tim can call himself ‘U.S. Attorney’ rather than ‘interim’ or ‘acting’ and our talkers should avoid referring to him as ‘interim.’ What are your thoughts?” This is a White House counsel familiar with the nomination sending information that was false to the Justice Department, who then sent false information to Congress. Why wouldn’t you want to bring the White House staff before you and find out what happened and why?

SEN. HATCH: Well, first of all, let’s understand something. This was not well-handled. I think anybody with brains would, would admit that, and they are admitting that. And the Justice Department is admitting it, and the White House pretty well has admitted it. Now, the Justice Department has offered to bring in their people under oath. I presume that General Gonzales will be under oath. These are the people who handled it. These are the people who understand it. With regard to the White House, you’re talking about the top advisers to the president. The president has indicated that he’s going to invoke executive privilege. But they have offered to send Rove, and, in fact, they made an offer to send more. The general counsel Fred Fielding made an offer to send even more people than we had asked for on the Judiciary Committee, but they said, “Look, we’ll send them up there, you can get the facts from them. Yes, we want it to be not under oath with a limited number of people, but this is the way to get to the facts.” And, of course, the Democrats on the Judiciary, Judiciary Committee are not satisfied with that. So if they...

SEN. LEAHY: A lot of Republicans aren’t...

SEN. HATCH: ...if they—they’re going to—now, wait a minute.

SEN. LEAHY: A lot of Republicans aren’t satisfied either.

SEN. HATCH: Let me finish. Let me finish, Pat.

SEN. LEAHY: A lot of Republicans aren’t satisfied with it.

SEN. HATCH: Pat, let me finish. I didn’t interrupt you.

SEN. LEAHY: (Unintelligible)...tell the truth.

SEN. HATCH: Pat, I didn’t interrupt you. Now, let me just tell you something. There is not one shred of evidence here that any of these appointments were made to, to use Senator Specter’s words, to, to, to interfere with an ongoing investigation or case. Not one shred of evidence. This is a tempest in a teapot and, and, and the president—everybody admits that the president—these people served at the pleasure of the president. What happened here is, the president’s goals and purposes were to go after immigration smuggling cases, gun cases, so they get tough on the misuse of guns, on pornography cases. And some of these people were not doing that. Now, where they got in problems is they, they said there were performance problems. What they meant, it seemed to me by the so-called word in performance, was that these people were not following up on these cases.

Take Carol Lam, for instance. Carol Lam was raised on your program, Tim, by Schumer. Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically? Of course they do. That’s what these positions are. But politically they’ve appointed people who have been approved by the Justice Department—the Judiciary Committee, in most cases, who have served well, are strong people and, and, frankly, these, these seven were really mishandled.

Griffin, nobody doubts that he’s a good prosecutor. I think the problem is that they’ve tried to make a big tempest out of a tea—tempest in a coffee cup here over some mistakes that were made at the Justice Department when the administration, I think, is cooperating and they’re unwilling to take, take any of the information from the people at the White House in the way that Fred Fielding said he would do it. I was surprised Fielding went that far with people that high in the White House.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Leahy, let me ask about a comment that Senator Hatch made. Do you have any shred of evidence that any case was interfered with with, with—by the dismissal of these eight U.S. attorneys?

SEN. LEAHY: Well, this is one of the things we’re trying, trying to find out. We know that Carol Lam, who Orrin angrily dismisses, and I’m sorry he has to get so angry so early in the morning, but the—she, of course, had prosecuted a Republican congressman and was investigating other Republicans when, when she was dismissed. That, that we do know for a fact. We also, when they...

MR. RUSSERT: But do you have any evidence that this is an ongoing case is...

SEN. HATCH: You have not a shred, not a shred of evidence.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, this is—this is why we are having the interviews we’re having the next two weeks before the attorney general comes up. But we do know, when they talk about the cooperation, one of the key people we asked to come up, you talk about cooperation, employed by the Department of Justice. The attorney general assured us that they would come even without subpoenas. As soon as we asked her to come up, she took the Fifth Amendment. She said, “I won’t testify. I take the Fifth.” And what was the basis of the Fifth? “Because I might get prosecuted later if I lied before the committee.”

MR. RUSSERT: But she’s also said the Democrats are—had already made their opinions known publicly...

SEN. HATCH: That’s exactly right, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: ...and she didn’t—she didn’t feel she’d get a fair hearing.

SEN. HATCH: That’s exactly right.

SEN. LEAHY: No, no. She had—there’s going to be an almost equal number of Republican senators and Democratic senators asking questions. She’s talking about possibly being prosecuted if she had to lie when she came before the committee. Everybody’s expected to tell the truth when they come before the committee.

Now...

MR. RUSSERT: The president does—excuse me.

SEN. LEAHY: ...I—I’ve prosecuted enough criminal cases...

MR. RUSSERT: But senator, the president does have a right to replace these U.S. attorneys if he chooses.

SEN. LEAHY: Absolutely.

MR. HATCH: You’re doggone right.

SEN. LEAHY: Absolutely. I, I hear by the Amen chorus in the background, but the—he has a right to. But what he does not have a right to do is do it in a selective way using an obscure part of the Patriot Act that was never intended that purpose, do it in a way to avoid having Senate confirmation, and do it in a way when it is sent—as, as they said in their own e-mails, “to get loyal Bushies in there who will send those signals to the other.” Now you can’t have—I mean, it’s very similar to the tobacco case where they interfered there. They’re about to get $130 billion verdict, which would’ve gone—which would’ve been—gone to the U.S. Treasury, and then they’re told, “Wait a minute, you can’t do that, these are friends of ours. Lower that 130 to 10.”

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hatch, you know, two times—wait a minute, Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch...

SEN. HATCH: Let me answer that. That was just crazy.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hatch, this is important, though.

SEN. HATCH: Yeah?

MR. RUSSERT: Back in 2005, there was a U.S. attorney in Utah by the name of Paul Warner, and this administration wanted to remove him. One of the people that was promoting himself for that job was Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to the attorney general, and Orrin Hatch stepped up and said, “You can’t do that.” And he called the people at the White House and Justice Department a bunch of snuffies for trying to do that. And you stopped them from doing it because you didn’t feel it was appropriate. Now, why was...

SEN. HATCH: No, no, that...

MR. RUSSERT: Now, why was—if it was inappropriate to do it in your home state, why wasn’t it inappropriate to do it in these eight other jurisdictions?

SEN. HATCH: Well, it would have been appropriate. If they had wanted to do it, there wasn’t much I could do about it. But Warner, in this case, they wanted to remove him because he had been appointed by President Clinton. What they didn’t realize is that President Clinton had worked with me to get Paul Warner in, and Paul Warner rose to be one of the greatest U.S. attorneys in the country, was recognized all over the country. And I just didn’t want to see somebody who, who did not have prosecutorial experience do that.

But I got to go back to what Pat was saying. He keeps bringing up the Griffin situation, which is the only, the only time that that Patriot Act provision was used, and, and, and Kyle Sampson said he regretted it. If they—if the administration was really misusing that section, they would have appointed a whole raft of other interim U.S. attorneys. They did not do that. So that’s just a pure run-up of the wrong road, like all of this. Let me tell you, are we going to spend our time where there’s not a shred of evidence that impropriety has gone on here in interfering with an ongoing investigation or an ongoing case, are we going to spend our time on this political exercise? Is this what the Senate’s going to do, with all of the problems that we have, where they can’t show any evidence that there’s been any impropriety here other than a bunch of mistakes that the, the Justice Department readily admits, the White House readily admits, but I think can be easily straightened out in—if we all work together and, and did it.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hatch, it’s not just Democrats. Arlen Specter, Republican ranking member on the committee...

SEN. HATCH: Oh, I’m upset, too, but that doesn’t...

MR. RUSSERT: But, but let me finish.

SEN. HATCH: Yeah?

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Specter said the Justice Department is “in a state of disrepair, perhaps even dysfunctional.”

SEN. HATCH: I don’t agree with that.

MR. RUSSERT: All right, then let me go on.

SEN. HATCH: I don’t agree.

MR. RUSSERT: The National Review, respected conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley, this was their editorial on Wednesday.

SEN. HATCH: I understand.

MR. RUSSERT: “Time to Go. We have never seen evidence that [Attorney General Gonzales] has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence.

“His claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department. ...

“What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. ... He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start.”

SEN. HATCH: Well...

MR. RUSSERT: Whether or not you agree or disagree that Mr. Gonzales has not told the truth in this situation, the National Review is saying he no longer has the ability to lead the Justice Department. Would you be willing to see him step aside now?

SEN. HATCH: Well, they’re, they’re, they’re allowed to have their own opinion. I work with him virtually every day. I’ve done it when I was chairman, I’ve done it since, and I have to say he’s appeared before the committee, he’s been a very bright guy, he’s done a very good job. They’ve done a tremendous job against crime all over this country. This is one of the problems. I think most of the U.S. attorneys have—almost all of them have done an exceptional job.

You know, I don’t think you can have these high positions without having somebody nitpicking at you all the time and without finding fault. And, yes, this has been badly handled. But it was badly handled by people who, by, I would say, not by Justice—by Judge Gonzales, but by others in, in the Justice Department. Now, people say, “Well, he should have been on top of everything.” There are 130,000 workers in the Justice Department, mostly lawyers. I’ve got to tell you, these are top flight people doing a terrific job, and I’ve—I—I’ve seen, in every administration since—from Carter on, and even before then, but while I’ve been in the Senate, I’ve seen things you could criticize at the Justice Department. All I can say is this, Alberto Gonzales, you know, he’s the first Hispanic-American ever put in this high position. He is an honest man. My experience with him has been extensive. I have never seen him prevaricate, I have never seen him do anything that was wrong. In this particular case, he misstated, there’s no question about it. He was inaccurate, I don’t think there’s any question about it. I think he’ll be the first to tell you that. But you can interpret things various ways, and I would wait until he testifies. He’ll have to answer some of these questions. And let’s give the man a fair—at least some fairness, a fair chance to be able to explain why this happened under his watch and he was not totally prepared to, to handle all the problems that came up. I think...

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

SEN. HATCH: ...if we’re fair, we’ll give the man a chance. But boy, I’ll tell you, I think there ought to at least be some evidence that something was really wrong here, and, and to imply that there was criminal activity. And in the Monica Goodling case, let’s be honest about it...

MR. RUSSERT: OK.

SEN. HATCH: ...her attorney—it was one of the most gutsy letter I—letters I’ve ever seen.

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

SEN. HATCH: He said the atmosphere is so poisoned on the Judiciary Committee, with no real justification, that he’s not going to put her through it because you never know how they would misconstrue what she had to say.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hatch, let me ask you a simple question, however. If, in fact, the president decides that Mr. Gonzales should step down, what...

SEN. HATCH: Oh, well, that’s the president’s decision.

MR. RUSSERT: Right. And the president came to you and asked you to be the next attorney general, would you do that?

SEN. HATCH: Well, he’s not going to come to me. But the fact is that...

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, but if he—if he did, saying you’re easily confirmable by the Senate as a member of that club, a Republican governor in Utah could replace your successor. “Orrin Hatch, we need you to do this.” Would you do it?

SEN. HATCH: Well, I’ve irritated the chairman of the committee just this morning. It’d be really tough for me to get confirmed, I’m sure. But the fact is, of course, anybody would serve this country. I would serve this country any way I could. But, but they’re not going to pick me. But the point is, you know, it’s up to the president.

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

SEN. HATCH: And I personally believe that this man ought to be given an opportunity to continue because he’s done a good job otherwise. Yes, this is a flap that looks bad, but I don’t see any criminal activity at all. I do see how you can misconstrue what he said.

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

SEN. HATCH: And frankly, in order to make that stick, he would have had to have willfully and intentionally lied. This man isn’t capable of doing that. He’s a good man, and yes, it’s been a flap that has been embarrassing to him, to the administration, and to Republicans in general.

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

SEN. HATCH: But if you look at what’s been done by the U.S. attorneys around this country...

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

SEN. HATCH: ...and by the Justice Department, it’s been a pretty doggone good job over the last six years.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Leahy, do you believe that Alberto Gonzales will resign?

SEN. LEAHY: I don’t know. You know, it’s going to be up to—this is up to the president. If the president feels that Mr. Gonzales sets the highest standard that he wants to show for his administration, then he stays on. If the president feels that this is what he wants as the state of law enforcement is, he’ll stay on. Now, now Senator Hatch says he’s always found him to be truthful. Unfortunately, he was not truthful before the United States Senate, and that is why he’s coming back. Previous administrations have looked for ways to cooperate with the Congress. This administration goes out of its way to find ways not to cooperate, and I think that’s why the stonewalling has come up. When, when you have a key member who takes the Fifth Amendment—Fifth Amendment, not even claiming they did something criminal in the past, but because they might lie when they are there. Now, I’ve prosecuted a lot of—a lot of criminals, I know that they have the right to the Fifth Amendment. I’ll protect that, and obviously if she says, “I’ll take the Fifth.” But I’ve never heard somebody say, “I’ll take the Fifth today for something I might do tomorrow.”

MR. RUSSERT: Would Senator Hatch be an acceptable replacement to Mr. Gonzales?

SEN. LEAHY: Well, I, I—the rumor on, on the Hill this week was he was actively running for it, but, you know, I’m going to have to leave...

SEN. HATCH: Oh, come on, Pat.

SEN. LEAHY: I’m going to have to leave that—I’m going to have to leave that to him. And he shouldn’t—he shouldn’t be upset if he thinks he annoyed me today. I mean, he does that every day, but, but we always get along well. In fact, I got a lovely letter from him—handwritten letter for my birthday.

Thank you very much for that, Orrin, that was very nice of you.

SEN. HATCH: You bet.

MR. RUSSERT: But do you think he’s confirmable?

SEN. LEAHY: I think that—let’s take it one step—let’s take it one step at a time. I, I tell you one thing, I’m not eager to have any confirmation hearing for any new attorney general until we finish this investigation. And the reason for that...

MR. RUSSERT: Whoa, whoa, whoa. So if Mr. Rove did not come and testify before your committee under oath, and Mr. Gonzales stepped aside, you would not replace the attorney general position...

SEN. LEAHY: That’s not what I said. I said I want to be able to get enough from this investigation so that if there is a new attorney general, we can ask questions, say, “Can you tell us under oath not to do this?” You know, when they talk about—and also, Senator Hatch talked about, “Well, there’s only this one case down in Arkansas,’ that’s—that unfortunately falls into an amazing overstatement. The fact is that they used the Patriot Act, something that we’ve now repealed, to replace all of these U.S. attorneys.

SEN. HATCH: No, no, no.

SEN. LEAHY: We have about 20 vacancies for U.S. attorneys around the country. I’m waiting to see them send them up. They have not sent any of these people up for confirmation. The one in Arkansas was a former research assistant at the Republican National Committee. He was a protege of Karl Rove, and there’s heavy pressure from Karl Rove to place him in there, replacing one of the best U.S. attorneys in the country.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Pat, Pat Leahy, Orrin Hatch, thank you for a very interesting and lively discussion.

Coming next, the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee talks taxes, the Iraq war, and his new book, “And I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since.” The Democratic congressman from Harlem, Charles B. Rangel is next, right here only on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel on Iraq, taxes, and his new book, “And I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since” after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: Chairman Rangel, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS. Want to talk about your book in a second, but let me start with the war. The House voted for funding for the war with a date certain, March of ‘08, to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops. But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork, money for cricket infestation, tours of the Capitol, security at the National Convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?

REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY): Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn’t go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there. But the real question was, were we doing something to stop this immoral war and what could we do instead of doing nothing except do what the president asks us to do? I think the most important thing and the worst thing that’s ever happened to this country in recent history is getting involved in the Middle East, and I didn’t care what was in that bill if there was anything to slow down, to, to say what the American people said in the last election, “Get out of Iraq!”

MR. RUSSERT: If you want to stop the war, why not just simply cut all the funding off?

REP. RANGEL: Because you don’t have the vote to do it. There’s some people who believe that if you cut all the funding off, you leave our soldiers and, and, and military people exposed, and that they’d have no money and then we’d go back to the scene we had in Vietnam where we’re fleeing by helicopter. And so it’s all compromised. That’s what legislation’s all about, and you have to make the best moral and conscious decision.

MR. RUSSERT: In your book, “And I haven’t Had a Bad Day Since”—we’ll come back and talk about where that title came from—but you write this. “The indifference of the architects of our foreign policy to the sacrifice of our youth outrages me so. The president and his men have neither the personal experience for identification nor a relationship with the communities that send young men to war. I ask people who support the war if they would continue to back it if their kids were eligible for a draft. They all say no.” You want a draft.

REP. RANGEL: I want people to recognize that when a nation goes to war, there should be shared sacrifice. Instead, we give trillions of dollars to the richest and make an appeal to those people who have no future in business as we recruit in the areas of the highest unemployment. That is morally wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be in favor of a mandatory national service?

REP. RANGEL: Yes! That’s my bill. It’s just that included in that, of course, is a lottery as it relates to the military. But I’m telling you that a mandatory national service first would give us an opportunity to give these kids an education. Why we don’t do it at a time where education is a part of our national security I don’t know. Another thing is patriotism. When you serve and you put that flag on your shoulder, whatever the emblem is, it makes you a better American. It makes you feel that you have a vested interest in the country. Lastly, and most important, is that we need young kids in our schools and our hospitals, at our seaports and our airports, and it gives them a sense that they’re protecting America. We all would feel more secure just seeing them there.

MR. RUSSERT: What happens if the president says, “I’m vetoing this bill because it has a date fixed for withdrawal,” and Congress says, “Well, Mr. President,” then what? You won’t give them the money for the troops?

REP. RANGEL: Oh no. Ultimately, politically, we have to give him money. But we will constantly remind him that no president in these great United States can continue a war that the people do not support. It’s not going to happen. And so as long as he send back bills, we’ve got to send him back bills.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask about the alternative minimum tax, and here’s an article from The Washington Post that describes it. “The Democratic leaders vowed to make the alternative minimum tax a centerpiece of [the] budget debate, saying the levy threatens to unfairly increase tax bills for millions of middle-class families by the end of the decade.”

“The complex and expensive tax was designed to prevent the super rich from using deductions, credits,” “other shelters to avoid paying the” IRS. “But because of rising incomes, the tax” “expected to expand to more than 30 million taxpayers in 2010”—three years—“from 3.8” “mostly well-off households in” last year.

“In simple terms, the” alternative minimum tax “is sort of a flat tax with two brackets, 26 and 28 percent, and few” “deductions.

“By 2010, ‘the tax will become the de facto tax system for filers in the $200,000 to $500,000 income bracket range, 94 percent of whom will face the tax.’” “Half of tax filers making” between $75,000 and $100,000 “will have to pay the tax.”

“Getting rid of the tax altogether would” even be “more expensive. More than” a trillion dollars “over the next decade. Budget experts doubt that Democrats can do it without reneging on their promise to reduce the budget deficit or winning an agreement from Republicans to raise taxes elsewhere.” If you want to eliminate that tax—and you said you did—you admitted that you have to either raise taxes or cut programs. Will that fly?

REP. RANGEL: You got 30 million people that’s affected. If you put them right in the tax code and say that you’re eliminating that burden of $1 trillion over 10 years, you can find the money within the tax code. That’s not increasing taxes, unless you’re talking about getting rid of fat, getting rid of credits that shouldn’t be there, getting rid of loopholes. There’s supposed to be some $345 billion as a gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. That could be a part of it.

But I think the catchy political part is that there are a million people that have enjoyed some $2 trillion in tax cuts. It would seem to me if you admit that 30 million people are paying taxes that they should not be paying and one million are getting $1 trillion in taxes that they didn’t request, that you could rearrange the rates and come out without a tax increase and more equity in the system.

MR. RUSSERT: So roll back the tax cuts...

REP. RANGEL: Don’t say “roll back.” Let’s say readjust the rates. After all, we’re talking about one tax code, and if you have 30 million people receiving a dramatic decrease in taxes, someone has to pay for it.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to presidential politics. You encouraged Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, to run from president. Why?

REP. RANGEL: Because he was a young, attractive minority candidate that had so much wind under his wings that I told him if he didn’t run, he’d spend the rest of his life regretting it. I don’t think that he will be there for the final rounds, but he’s a young candidate, and he’s got a bright future in the Senate, and he gets another chance at it in eight years.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re supporting Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Why?

REP. RANGEL: Well, first of all, she’s an exciting, qualified candidate with eight years experience in the White House, she’s my junior senator from New York, and she’s our favorite daughter. And, and quite frankly, I don’t think anyone comes near to her qualifications to be a great president.

MR. RUSSERT: You don’t think Senator Obama is as qualified as Hillary Clinton?

REP. RANGEL: You don’t mean qualified, of course not. But he’s exciting, and he’s catching on in terms of popularity. But in terms of qualification and background, I don’t think anyone says that he has it now. But it doesn’t mean that bright people can’t acquire the talents that’re necessary. But at this point in time, I think it’s fair to say he’s eloquent, he’s bright, and not as qualified as Hillary Clinton.

MR. RUSSERT: In your book, you talk about Hillary Clinton and how you encouraged her to run for the Senate. But after you went through that process, you realized perhaps she was a bit more receptive than you had originally thought. Let’s read what you wrote in your book. “What I knew was that Hillary Clinton for Senate from New York wasn’t about my madness, it was about her method. Whenever I think of it, I always remember that I went steady with my wife for seven years before we tied the knot, and to this day she has” convinced me “it was all my idea. So it was with Hillary; I knew when I drove up that she was ready to be asked to the prom. I knew my job would” would “be to go out and get people to say which side they were on and bring the information back, the way a dutiful prom date fetches glasses of punch.”

REP. RANGEL: I would be extremely naive to believe that a chat with the first lady in Chicago would cause her to say “Wow, Congressman Rangel, you think I can be a United States senator?” No, she—it—there’s no question that being the senior congressional delegation leader in New York, that having me on board would make it a realistic venture. And it turned out to be that way, and she’s done remarkably well.

MR. RUSSERT: And when she decided to run for the Senate, did you have any doubt that she would then run for the presidency?

REP. RANGEL: Of course I did. It never—I never connected the dots that she would be running for the president.

MR. RUSSERT: Really?

REP. RANGEL: No, no, not at the time. Listen, I’m good, but it’s one step at a time, Tim. I mean, I never looked at her and said, “This is going to be our Democratic president one day,” no.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think she connected the dots?

REP. RANGEL: I think it would be hard living with Bill Clinton and not connect the dots.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go to your book, “And I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since,” and go back to November 30th, 1950. Tell us where you were and what happened, and the promise, the pledge you made to the Almighty.

REP. RANGEL: We got to Korea. We were the first United States forces there to repel the North Koreans after they had, in June of 1950, forced the North Koreans all the way down to the end of the peninsula. We went up and, with MacArthur landing, we pushed the North Korean to the border of North Korea and China. And then one of the coolest things happened, and that is our intelligence, for what it was, did not tell us that our complete 8th Army was surrounded by the People’s Volunteer Army. They actually crossed the river and surrounded us. My outfit had close to 90 percent casualties. For three days they blew the bugles. It was sub-degree, under freezing weather. I saw officers actually leaving by helicopter. We were scared as hell. We didn’t know what was going to go on.

MR. RUSSERT: You were in the 2nd Infantry, a black division.

REP. RANGEL: No, it was a white division. I was in a black outfit—you know, they talk about integration...

MR. RUSSERT: A black outfit was in the division.

REP. RANGEL: Exactly.

MR. RUSSERT: With white officers.

REP. RANGEL: Exactly. And some of the white officers had left us, had abandoned us, really. And so the Chinese would have the loudspeakers and say, “What are you negroes doing there? You can’t even go to the pools in sunny Florida. This is a civil war, you shouldn’t be here.” And we were all scared. Well, finally they hit, and I was thrown off of a ammunition tractor into the air. All I saw was a ball of orange fire. And I ended up in a ditch. And I could hear the bugles blowing, I could see my comrades being led away with their hands over their head. At one point I wanted to play dead, but I thought that the loudness of my heart could be heard by those that was around me, that I was so scared. But anyway, I had been an altar boy, and I knew prayers in Latin as well as in English. And I knew I was going to die, but I just gave it one shot, and I said, “Jesus, if you ever get me out of this, if you could just consider sparing me, you’re not going to have any problems with Charlie Rangel ever, ever, ever, ever, ever.” And I think so many people have had bad experiences that, once they get out of it, they forget it. Something clicked, Tim, that I’ve never forgotten it, and I haven’t had a bad day since. No matter what has happened, something automatically says, or I imagine that Jesus says, “Is that you, Rangel, complaining?” I say, “No, it must be Tim or someone around me, but I’m OK.” And I’ve always been OK.

Some people have said, “How can you say that? You lost your brother, you lost your mother, and that wasn’t a bad day?” I said, “It’s really strange because first I curse the darkness, and then I say how many people have enjoyed having a beautiful mother for 94 years?” And my mother, her mother died in childbirth, so she never had a mother. And with my brother, he was my father, my best friend, my campaign man, it’s—he was everything to me. And we used to joke about, first, people who didn’t have brothers, but worse than that, people who had brothers and never—but never stayed in touch with them. We talked every day except when he was in the military in World War II and I was in Korea. Other than that, every day we talked.

MR. RUSSERT: High school dropout, Charlie Rangel joins the Army, went to Korea, returned home Sergeant Rangel, injured, decorated, and yet faced indignity back home. How does a black American in the ‘50s who goes and fights a war and comes home and doesn’t have the full civil rights that our country stands for, how do you deal with that?

REP. RANGEL: With great difficulty, because the Army pumps you up—those sergeant stripes, those medals, the self-esteem you have for yourself. And when you get out here, they didn’t—they didn’t miss you, they didn’t know where you were, they didn’t know where Korea was. And I had so much ego that I was giving general education development tests, high school tests to people, I forgot completely that I had not graduated from high school. But when I got out, I learned fast.

MR. RUSSERT: You were on Sixth and 36th Street with a push cart.

REP. RANGEL: That’s where I’d started before I went in the Army.

MR. RUSSERT: And that fell over on a rainy day, and you said, “This is not right.”

REP. RANGEL: The cops cussed me out. Staff Sergeant Rangel, was being cussed out. I just marched to the V.A. and said, “You got to do better than this.”

MR. RUSSERT: “I deserve better than this.”

REP. RANGEL: That’s right.

MR. RUSSERT: And you finished school, and you went to St. John’s University and then on to St. John’s Law School.

REP. RANGEL: No, at NYU.

MR. RUSSERT: NYU. And then to New York State Assembly and the Congress.

And now you’re chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

REP. RANGEL: And I haven’t had a bad day since.

MR. RUSSERT: And when you have that gavel in your hand, you deal with tax policy and budget policy and vote on the war, is there something back in your mind that takes you back to those days in Harlem that said, “You know what? I have a bigger responsibility here to the people in my neighborhood and my community?”

REP. RANGEL: No, but the people in the community feel such a sense of pride, and they wondered how I would be accepted since all my life down there’s been civil rights and education and, and health care. But I am convinced now that what had been bad before is even worse now, and it’s a threat to our national security. So there’s no issue that comes before me that I don’t see the strength of our country being the most important thing. If it’s taxes, we got to have an equitable tax system where everyone believes that it’s fair. If it’s trade, the traders and the multinationals have to recognize that jobs in the United States are just as important to profits for their shareholders. If it’s Social Security, we go to sleep at night knowing it’s not going to be wiped out. And if it’s Medicare, what could be more important than saying, “Our old folks are entitled to decent health care.” So it’s community, but, to me, these issues have now become national issues, including affordable housing. But the war, the war, the war, the war, the war is sapping the strength and confidence away from government, and this is, to me, is my reason for being.

MR. RUSSERT: Charles Rangel, we thank you very much for joining us again.

The book, “I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since.” Thank you.

REP. RANGEL: Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: And we’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: For more information on today’s guests and topics, check out the MEET THE PRESS Web site. You can download both audio and video of the entire program to your computer or MP3 player. The MEET THE PRESS netcast and video podcast all at mtp.msnbc.com.

That’s all for today, we’ll be back next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.