MTP Transcript for Jan. 28, 2007

SEN. VITTER: Tim, I, I think Ken—I think Ken’s recent piece makes two very important points. One, the Iraq situation is very bad, but it could get a lot worse. And number two, if it does, it is very difficult to contain that sort of all-out civil war. In that context, I think it’s very important that we look at the president’s plan so we don’t get to that complete all-out civil war.

With regard to what Chuck is talking about, the question is can the Iraqi military and security really contain sectarian violence right now, completely on their own? I don’t think there’s any hope that they can. Maybe he thinks it’s a little easier on the ground than I think. I think it is very, very bad.

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, but six, six months of a surge isn’t going to change that. It’ll be exactly the same once we leave.

MR. RUSSERT: Ken Pollack, are you pessimistic? Do you believe there will be all-out civil war?

MR. POLLACK: I am pessimistic. I will say that while I, I share Senator Vitter’s hope that the president’s plan works, I share many of Senator Schumer’s concerns about it. And I think that what we’ve seen in Iraq is a very severe deterioration of the situation, particularly over the last year, since the bombing of the gold—the Mosque of the Golden Dome in Samarra. What we have seen is a movement of Iraqi public opinion in the direction of civil war, people signing up with different militias. Again, most of that work was historical, looking at other, other civil wars. And what you find often is that there is a psychological dynamic to civil wars. When that takes hold, it becomes very hard to stop the snowball from rolling.

MR. RUSSERT: Michael Gerson, now that you’ve left the Bush White House, are, are you liberated to look back and say we made some huge fundamental misjudgments?

MR. GERSON: I think that’s fair. I think initially they—the assumption was that Iraqi society—the pyramid of Iraqi society would stay together when the top was taken off the pyramid, and it didn’t happen. And I agree with Ken, I think there should be planning going on right now for the worst. I think you should always plan for the worst. I think it’s a different thing than to assume the worst and not give the, the current chance—plan a chance to even to go into effect.

MR. RUSSERT: Does the president accept the fact that significant, major misjudgments were made?

MR. GERSON: I think so. I mean, in the speech a few weeks ago he used the word failures. I think that that was very important. And I think that that’s the reason we have a new leadership at the Pentagon, a new general in charge of it, a new strategy. And it’s hard—it may be right, and it may be wrong, but it’s not more of the same.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Vitter, you live in New Orleans. The president was down a few days after Katrina and gave a speech about what he was going to do. Let’s listen.

SEN. VITTER: Right. Sure.

(Videotape, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 15, 2005)

President GEORGE W. BUSH: And tonight, I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know there is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: The State of the Union message this year, not one mention of Katrina.

SEN. VITTER: Right. That was personally very disappointing to me, no two ways about it. Having said that, the real task is what the president supports in terms of funding and what we need on the Gulf Coast. So far, he’s been keeping that commitment in terms of those concrete dollar and other issues. Now, we have huge continuing needs, and there’ll be more needs, and so that is an ongoing test, if he’s going to keep that commitment. But so far, in terms of real dollars, he’s—and real help, he’s kept it. We wouldn’t have gotten the billions we’ve gotten in Louisiana through Congress without his leadership. His leadership pushed it through Congress. Now, again, that’s an ongoing test, so we’ll see.

MR. RUSSERT: Were you surprised there was no mention of Katrina?

MR. GERSON: A little bit. Those words haunt me a little bit, because I was involved in producing them. And it’s a disappointing thing, the way that not just the administration but the, the Congress and the country have refused to confront the—a great reality here. We have two different Americas in, in—and that hurricane revealed it. And I don’t think that’s been taken as seriously as it needs to.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, “Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time,” Let me read something you wrote and share it with our viewers and with our panel here as well. You say: “In 2004, [Republicans won] with eight words: War in Iraq. Cut taxes. No gay marriage. Those eight words sum up the reasons for George W. Bush’s reelection. ...

“In 2006, Democrats did much better, ... but only because of Bush’s mistakes.

We had our own eight words: No war in Iraq. No corruption. Bad economy.

“But these eight words did not describe our own vision; they were the negative image of the Republican message. ... In 2008, we will need to do more to persuade the Baileys,” a fictional family from Long Island that you created in your mind and in your book, “to again trust the Democratic Party.” You’re suggesting you have a lot of candidates for president, but no platform.

SEN. SCHUMER: If we don’t have a good, strong platform, even though we do have very strong candidates, it’s going to greatly hurt our chances of winning in 2008. That was—that’s my anguish, and that’s why I wrote the book.

MR. RUSSERT: A, a, a press story in the New York Post described it this way, it was this headline, this is the Schumer book, “Schumer A Party Pooper; New Book: Dems ‘Lost Touch’ With Middle Class.”

“In a revealing new book on politics, Senator Charles Schumer comes out with guns blazing—not at President Bush, but at his own Democratic Party.

“Schumer ... rips his party for being in the clutches of special-interest groups for too long and for losing touch with the middle class.

“‘Washington Democrats too often took their cues from interest groups without considering the needs of the average person. ... Group identities around the country were less important, but those claiming to represent group interests in Washington were stronger than ever,’ Schumer wrote.”

Which special-interest groups?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, all of them. Left, right and center. I bring up, in my book, talk when I got to Congress in 1980, for instance, and that was—that was about crime was ripping apart my district. I come to Washington, and I find out that the ACLU is writing crime legislation, has a veto over any piece of crime legislation. Now, they should be at the table. Their views should be considered. But our job, whether we’re Democrat or Republican, is not to just take what the interest groups want and just make it into legislation, it’s to balance their needs against others’. I believe in the environment, but there’s the issue of jobs. I believe in civil liberties, but there’s the issue of security. And what both parties have done, Tim, is forgotten the average middle class voter—yes, I call them the Baileys, but they could be anybody—and instead paid too much attention to interest groups.

The good news for us, Tim, and we talk about this in the book, people have an inclination to support the Democrats. Joe and Eileen Bailey, this middle class couple, they bought into Reagan Republicanism in 1980. They were in great shape. “Get the government off my back. Get it out of the way.” 2006, the world is different. We have terrorism, which we’ve talked about. Our—their kids in their schools have to compete against Chinese, kids in Chinese and Indian schools. We live a lot longer. Not only is that a problem for Medicare and Social Security, but how we live, getting married later, when and whether to have kids, all that leisure time. And for the first time, the Baileys are saying, “You know, I might need some government help.” The party that comes up with a platform that adjusts all these major changes caused by technology to the Baileys’ lives and, and, and helps them, doesn’t supplant them, realizes they’re doing OK, will be the majority party.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Vitter, the Republicans lost Congress in 2006. What does your party have to do to bounce back in ‘08?

SEN. VITTER: Well, we have to do the same thing, present a positive, proactive vision. I agree with Chuck, and it’s a lesson for Republicans, too. I also agree with Chuck that that is a void on the Democratic side with regard to this debate. And I’ll go back to what I said before, it’s every senator’s right to oppose a plan, including the president’s plan, but I think it’s also every senator’s responsibility to be for a plan. The Biden resolution, the Warner resolution are not plans. They’re opposition to a plan. So I think, to be responsible, we all have to put forward ideas with some specificity, and we all have to be for a plan because this country is in Iraq, not President Bush, and we need to move forward in a positive way.

MR. RUSSERT: Ken Pollack, right now there’s anti-war fervor in the country, but if the troops did start coming out and all hell broke loose, a civil war, could the Democrats be in a weaker position in 2008?

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Sunday's Meet the Press guest list Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: