Skip navigation
sponsored by 

Transcript for June 25


< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >

MR. RUSSERT: Another threat to our nation potentially may be North Korea and its developing of not only nuclear weapons, which they have, but the long-range delivery systems. President Clinton’s former secretary of defense, William Perry, co-authored this article in The Washington Post. “North Korean technicians are reportedly in the final stages of fueling a long-range ballistic missile that some experts estimate can deliver a deadly payload to the United States. ...

“If North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.” Would you support a pre-emptive strike on that missile?

SEN. FEINGOLD: You know, I think it’s good for the North Koreans to hear this, that it’s a possibility, but I don’t think it’s a good idea. I actually agree, believe it or not, with Henry Kissinger on this rather than William Perry, who seemed to feel that this was a—when I saw him interviewed the other day—that this was not a great idea. There are issues about how effective it would be. There are dangers involved. But I do think the North Koreans have to understand that, in the end, all options are on the table. We need to get back to an aggressive approach to bring the North Koreans into active participation in the multilateral talks. There has been far too little attention paid to both North Korea and Iran as we’ve been bogged down in Iraq. It’s not just the question of not paying attention to the al-Qaeda threats, which is number one, but we’ve also suffered in our ability to deal with the North Korean and the Iran—the Iranian threat because of the obsession of this administration with Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about the Supreme Court. Like many Democrats thinking about running for president, you’ve been to New Hampshire several times. Here was an article from November of last year. “Throughout Feingold’s weekend in New Hampshire, one question that dogged Feingold like a nagging cough: Why did you vote for John Roberts? ...

“At a time when other potential 2008 contenders...said they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Roberts, Feingold did, saying Roberts was well-credentialed and the best Democrats could expect from Bush.” Having now watched and read John Roberts’ decisions in terms of the expansion of police power, wetlands in terms of the environment, are you still comfortable with your vote to put him on the Court?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I am at this point. I think it’s still an open question. And, Tim, those comments in New Hampshire were last October. When I went back to New Hampshire in June, not a soul criticized me or said anything to me about that vote. I think we’re all waiting and seeing on this. I’ve been disappointed with some of Chief Justice Roberts’ votes, but I’ll tell you something, I was very excited by what he said about trying to bring a consensus approach to the Court, to try to have narrow decisions that don’t go too far. Some of the real right-wing conservatives weren’t happy with that. So I think he’s talented, I think he’s qualified. I think he’s the best we were going to get from this Bush administration, so I stand by my vote.

MR. RUSSERT: The New Republic in November of last year had an update of the classic David vs. Goliath. Here’s the cover picture. There holding the sword is Senator Hillary Clinton. Holding the slingshot: Russ Feingold, the Hillary-slayer. Would you like to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I have no interest in defeating anyone, including Hillary Clinton. I admire her. I think she’s a talented person who is ready to be president. If I decide to run, I’m going to run because I think I’m the person that can do the job, and I would try to win on my own merits. In fact, Hillary came into the caucus when we saw that picture, and she kidded me that we looked pretty good on that cover, although I’m not sure I did.

MR. RUSSERT: But in all seriousness, could you emerge as the more progressive, the more liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton on issues like the war?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Oh, sure. There are issues where there would be a clear difference. We would have—if I decided to run a spirited debate where I think I would have the majority of the Democrats on my side on that issue. Of course, we agree on many other issues, but Iraq and the war on terrorism would probably be the most important issue, and I’m confident that on that issue I would be able to prevail.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

MR. RUSSERT: How about the issue of censure?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I think that’s also an issue. When people listen to my discussion of this, how I haven’t proposed impeachment, how we have a responsibility not to just let the president aggrandize power beyond all reason, I think that is also an issue that would—clearly resonates well with Democrats and many other Americans. I mean, the poll that you mentioned, and others, show surprisingly to many people’s minds that there is a very substantial belief in America that a president has to be held accountable, and I’ve been the first person to call for that.

MR. RUSSERT: When will you decide whether you’re running?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I’m going to look at this, Tim, after the elections in 2006. I need to look at what happens in the congressional races, how are the ideas I’ve been presenting been resonating with the American people, and decide whether this is something that makes sense or whether it’s better for me to remain in the United States Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: Your colleague Joe Lieberman in Connecticut in a tough primary battle. If Senator Lieberman asks you to come to Connecticut to campaign for him, will you?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I have a lot of admiration for Joe. He’s a fine guy. He helped me a great deal in campaign finance reform. I think Ned Lamont’s positions on the issues are much closer to mine on the critical issues. I think that this is going to be something decided by the people of Connecticut. I’m not going to go up there, but I’ll tell you this, Tim. I will support the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.

MR. RUSSERT: So if Lamont beats Lieberman, you’re for Lamont.

SEN. FEINGOLD: That’s correct.

MR. RUSSERT: And you will not campaign for Lieberman if they ask you?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I’m not getting involved in the primary. If Joe Lieberman wins the primary, I campaign for him. If Ned Lamont wins the primary, I campaign for him. I’ll be supporting the Democrat.

MR. RUSSERT: Russ Feingold, we thank you for joining us here on MEET THE PRESS.

Coming next, two key Democrats stake out different positions on Iraq: Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. And Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, Joe Lieberman, locked in a tough Democratic primary for his Senate seat in Connecticut. Topics for our roundtable next, right here on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: Our roundtable—David Broder, Rob Brownstein, David Gregory, Anne Kornblut—after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Welcome, everyone.

Let’s start with a debate in Iraq in the Senate. Here’s how NBC’s First Read described it: “Thirteen Democrats voted for the Kerry-Feingold amendment. Among those voting for it: two Democrats running for president (Kerry and Feingold); one in a competitive Senate race (Menendez in New Jersey); and one facing a tough Democratic primary (Akaka in Hawaii).

“The Levin-Reed amendment,” which was for a phased-out withdrawal, “was rejected 60-39. All Senate Democrats running for president voted for it (Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold, and Kerry). All Senate Republicans potentially running for president voted against it (Allen, Brownback, Frist, Hagel, and McCain).”

What does this tell us about this issue of Iraq, David, in this campaign year and the next presidential race?

MR. DAVID BRODER: Well, in this campaign year, it’s probably as clear-cut a difference between the parties as we’re likely to find. For 2008 it depends entirely on where the war is at that point. If we’re very fortunate, it may not be an issue at all.

MR. RUSSERT: Ron Brownstein, let me show you a poll that—of the American people: A 2006 candidate who favors pulling all troops out of Iraq within the next 12 months: more likely to vote for, 54; less likely to vote for, 32.

MR. RON BROWNSTEIN: Yeah.

CONTINUED
< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >

Sponsored links

Resource guide