Skip navigation
sponsored by 

MTP Transcript for Nov. 5


< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >
  Meet the Press on your schedule
Watch when & how you want

In addition to the normal Sunday morning broadcast on the NBC television network (click here for local times), you can:

  Click here to watch Sunday's MTP netcast now.  (Available after 1pm ET each Sunday)
Please note that effective this Sunday, Meet the Press will be re-broadcast on MSNBC-TV Sunday night at 6 p.m. ET/3 p.m. PT and again at  2 a.m. ET/11 p.m. PT.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me, let me—I want to get to the—more to the Iraq war, but I want to focus on the uniqueness of some of these candidates. Senator Schumer, here’s an article about the candidate for Senate, Democrat, in Montana. “Jon Tester ... is a genuine, big old farm boy. He opposes gay marriage, supports the death penalty, says Hillary Clinton ‘doesn’t do much for me,’ loves guns, hates illegal immigrants, and is the Democratic candidate for Montana’s contested U.S. Senate seat.” Now, if you’re nationalizing the race, is that candidate on board with the national Democratic platform?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say this. On so many issues, Jon Tester and all of our candidates are on board, and that’s because people in Montana and everywhere else want change. And he’s on board with raising the minimum wage, he’s on board with making middle class families able to pay the costs of college and prescription drugs. He’s on board with greater oversight in terms of this administration, where it’s gone astray in so many different areas.

On certain issues, of course the Democratic Party is a big tent. But yes, on the major issue, “Do you want change?” Montanans want change, people in Pennsylvania want change, people in Tennessee want change, and that is the major issue. And on a core, basic issues—some core, basic issues, the Democratic Party is united.

MR. RUSSERT: On guns?

SEN. SCHUMER: Guns, we’re not united. Jon Tester’s view and my view are worlds apart. And what we’ve learned, Tim, over the years, is this: On certain issues, it’s better when the Democratic Party is a big tent. What we ought to be focusing on are two things: the meat-and-potato issues that affect average voters, where we’re much more in sync with the average person across the country than the Republicans. And second, redirection in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: The tone of the campaign has been quite striking to a lot of people. The Washington Post reported, and Congressman Reynolds, you had confirmed with me that a vast amount of money from the campaign committees was going to be used on “negative advertising.” I want to roll an ad from upstate New York, the 24th district, a Democratic candidate, paid for by your committee. Let’s watch.

(Videotape of National Republican Congressional Committee campaign ad):

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Hi, sexy. You’ve reached the live, one-on-on fantasy line.

AD ANNOUNCER #1: The phone number to an adult fantasy hotline appeared on Michael Arcuri’s New York City hotel room bill while he was there on official business. And the call was charged to Oneida County taxpayers. Arcuri has denied it but the facts are there. Who calls a fantasy hotline and then bills taxpayers? Michael Arcuri.

WOMAN: Bad call.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

AD ANNOUNCER #1: The National Republican Congressional Committee paid for and is responsible for the content of this message.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Now, here are the facts, and they’re not disputed by anybody, from the local Utica, New York, newspaper. “What the record shows: A bill ... shows a call costing $1.25 to the number 800-457-8462. The call was made at 3:26 p.m. Jan. 28 and was billed for one minute. ... Phone records show a call made at 3:37 p.m. using his calling card to the number 518-457-8462”—the same numbers exactly are right. “That number, he said, is for the office of the New York state Department of Criminal Justice Services.” An aide inadvertently dialed the wrong area code. Everyone admits it, and yet you put an ad on suggesting that this guy is calling sex hotlines. Is that fair?

REP. REYNOLDS: Well, first of all, chairman of the committee doesn’t know what the IE’s actually producing when it goes on, we pay for. Second, that ad is now down.

MR. RUSSERT: You said you’re responsible, that’s what the banner says. You can take it down if you wanted to.

REP. REYNOLDS: I paid for it. The committee paid for it, it was pulled down.

MR. RUSSERT: Is it, is it fair? Is it fair?

REP. REYNOLDS: Politics isn’t always fair, Tim, as both the DCCC and the NRCC know full well, the contents of both ads, we review all those.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, exactly. But Congressman Emanuel, before you get in, I want to show you an ad that your committee’s taking in the Minnesota sixth district. Let’s watch.

(Videotape of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee campaign ad):

AD ANNOUNCER #2: Who would vote against a bill that would put repeat sex offenders behind bars for life? Michele Bachmann.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Now, this is how the Minnesota Star-Tribune reported that. “A highly deceptive ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee takes one vote out of context to distort congressional candidate Michele Bachmann’s record on crime. The 30-second ad, which has been airing for about a week, invites voters to infer that Bachmann opposed longer sentences for repeat sex offenders when Bachmann actually voted for tougher sentences.” Why do you do things like that?

REP. EMANUEL: Tim, first of all, you know what? The Annenberg School studied both committees’ ads in nonpartisan groups, and they said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—this is the Annenberg School—said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has focused on votes and records, and they first focused on personality. Nonpartisan picked and selected. The Mike Arcuri ad that they ran never aired because it was clearly false and we stopped it from going on the air. And they knew it when they did it. Those were the votes that are cast. They tried to make something out of...

MR. RUSSERT: But that’s a selective interpretation, and you know it.

REP. REYNOLDS: Absolutely.

REP. EMANUEL: It’s not, it’s not selective, it’s based on a vote record, which is what you’re responsible for. And if you want to go selective on that, I got a lot more—how much more time we got to show commercials all over this country, Tim?

MR. RUSSERT: But let, let, but let me show you, let me show you...

REP. EMANUEL: I mean, you got a lot of time here...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you, 1988...

REP. EMANUEL: OK.

MR. RUSSERT: ...when young Rahm Emanuel is the political director of the Democratic Campaign Committee, “How to Beat a Republican,” Rahm Emanuel.  “Going On the Attack. Now that you have succinctly spelled out your own program”...

REP. EMANUEL: Can we take down—can we take that picture down?

MR. RUSSERT: ...”you can start dredging up dirt on your opponent. ... Even if your early ventures fail to pan out, keep digging. The untainted Republican has not yet been invented.” That’s your political credo?

REP. EMANUEL: No, I mean, I run campaigns and as Tim had—as Tom had said repeatedly, he was going to do negative advertising. I was making sure our campaigns were fully prepared. And I’ll stand by the ads we ran.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned about the tone of this campaign? New Jersey, voters are saying Menendez and Kean, forget about it, both candidates’ commercials are over the top.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, but let me just say, and it reflects what Rahm said.  Menendez’s ads are talking about Tom Kean’s record on Iraq, on stem cell research, on Social Security. Now, he may say, “Well, I’ve changed my view” or “I voted against the stem cell research bills in the Senate, but I’m really”—the state Senate—“but I’m really for stem cell research.” The Menendez ads are, are, are—they’ve been decried by newspapers throughout New Jersey as just being false and personal innuendo. There are exceptions, Tim.  Nobody is Simon Pure in this business. But if you look at the vast majority of Democratic ads vs. Republican ads, ours have indeed gone after the opponents, but on the stands they’ve taken, the issues they’ve voted for, while the large percentage of theirs have gone on personal issues like the one you saw.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the voters are turned off by this negativity?

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

Sponsored links

Resource guide