‘Meet the Press’ transcript for July 1, 2007

MR. RUSSERT:  Chuck Todd, let me show a poll from Iowa, however.

MR. TODD:  Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT:  Before we get to Florida, all roads start in Iowa.  The withdrawal of U.S.  military from Iraq in the next six months—these are Republicans, Republicans in Iowa; 56 percent say yes, 38 percent say no, which translates into this, in—amongst Iowa Republicans, Romney, 23; Thompson, 17; Giuliani, 14; McCain, 10.  When the issue’s Iraq and not the war on terror...

MR. TODD:  Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT:  ...it doesn’t seem to be a, a advantage for Rudy Giuliani.

MR. TODD:  It’s not, because Romney, of all the candidates, has left himself the most wiggle room on, on Iraq.  He is the most critical of the, of the four candidates right now.  You know, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani seem to be the, the two that almost—and, of course, Senator McCain, the three that are very close to the president’s position on Iraq.  But Romney’s left himself more wiggle room and, you know, Iowa, you know, this is—Iowa, Wisconsin, this whole part of the country, this is, you know, Republican—these are isolationist Republicans.  The Iowa caucusgoer’s an isolationist type of voter, and I think that, that that’s going to make Romney—give Romney that opening, if he starts—if he comes up with a plan to get out of Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT:  So if you have Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, can Rudy Giuliani afford to wait until February in order to chalk up some victories?

MR. TODD:  Not at all.  He’s got to win something.  I mean, look, the, the good news for Giuliani, he’s not the front-runner in Iowa.  Romney is.  Romney has to win Iowa.  Romney has to win New Hampshire.  Romney has to, you know, and he’s got—you know, Romney’s testing ground is South Carolina.  They’ve got to see can a Mormon win in the evangelical South.  That’s a question that they’ve got to figure out.  Giuliani only has to win one of those three, but he’s got to win one before he gets to Florida and then February.

MS. WOODRUFF:  And...

MR. RUSSERT:  What’s your take on the Republicans?

MS. WOODRUFF:  And not competing in Iowa, not competing in the straw poll, I—my—I come back to Giuliani, Tim, and, and, and yes, he’s doing well in the national polls.  Yes, he’s got the endorsement of Pat Robertson, and he answered your interview, David, the way he did.  But when, when people as prominent as Richard Land, the head of the—one of the, one of the parts of the Southern Baptist Convention, you have Reverend Dobson, James Dobson, saying they wouldn’t support Rudy Giuliani under any circumstances, it makes you wonder where he’s going to be when...

MR. BRODY:  Well...

MS. WOODRUFF:  ...you get into these Republican contests.

MR. RUSSERT:  And yet Pat Robertson embraced him.

MR. BRODY:  Well, and what, what you have here, exactly, is the conservative grassroots—there’s an underlying layer here and you have conservative grassroots activists who are ready to take him down.  And they want to take him down.  And then you translate that into some prominent national evangelical leaders, who will go unnamed at this point, but eventually will come out against Giuliani, mobilize the forces, and then we’ll have to see how he stands up to that.

MR. RUSSERT:  In the primaries.

MR. BRODY:  Oh, absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT:  If Rudy Giuliani was the Republican nominee, would there be a third party conservative Republican candidate?

MR. BRODY:  Hard to say.  Hard to say.  I mean, you know, it’s, it’s going to have—it’s very much an ebb and flow situation, and I don’t think that anybody knows at this point.  I don’t, I don’t think political pundits that—who would answer that question would be able to determine.  I don’t know.

MR. RUSSERT:  Tavis Smiley, how do you see the issues in ‘08 evolving amongst African-Americans as they look at this race?

MR. SMILEY:  I think the, the good news about this conversation we had earlier this week is that we had a chance, with all due respect to all the previous forums, to raise some different issues.  I’ve always seen my role as a media person who happens to be of color to ask questions other folks won’t ask, to raise issues other folks won’t raise, and to profile people who otherwise wouldn’t get a chance to be profiled.  Hence my bringing in three other journalists of color to join me in asking questions.  So my mission this week, unapologetically, was to expand the conversation out to include a discussion of issues—health, crime, education.  Four times by my count, the candidates themselves, live in the debate, said, “I’m glad, for the first time, we’re getting a chance to talk about this particular issue.” I think, to the extent that their issues are discussed, to the issues—to the extent that they are outreached to, they’re going to be very involved.  In the last election, the black turnout last election went up 25 percent, went up significantly in the African-American community.  And so we’re going to see—I mean, 25 percent turnout.  So we’re going to see a huge turnout this time, to the extent that Barack Obama sticks around for a while, which obviously, with the money he has, he’ll be around for while.  I think if you respond to their issues, they’re tuned in.  It’s going to be a great race I think.

MR. RUSSERT:  In a general election, black support still overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate?

MR. SMILEY:  Oh, without question.  At the moment, absolutely.  Although, as you know, September 27^th, I should mention, we’re doing a Republican forum, I’m interested to see what the Republicans have to say about these issues that matter to black and brown America.

MR. RUSSERT:  Chuck Todd and Judy Woodruff and David and Tavis, Congress, as we mentioned, not having a good time in terms of the ratings of the American people, and yet, this story on the Associated Press caught my attention on Wednesday night.  “Despite record-low approval ratings, House” makers—“lawmakers voted to accept an approximately $4,400 pay raise that will increase their salaries” “almost $170,000.” I distinctly remember, Chuck Todd, the ads running in November of ‘06.  Here’s one of them right here.

(Videotape, political ad)

AD ANNOUNCER:  If he gets back to Congress, who will Brian Bilbray represent? Last time he was in Congress, Bilbray voted to give himself a pay raise.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  What are the Democrats doing?

MR. TODD:  You know, it’s funny.  There’s a real split in the House—this is among House Democrats.  I talked to one House Democrat, I would say, with the new guard who is just completely frustrated with the old guard.  You know, you have a bunch of committee chairmen who were elected in the ‘60s and ‘70s who ended up getting back into power, and guess what, they want the—all the goodies back.  They want everything that they got to do in the ‘70s and ‘80s when they saw their—you know, the guys they looked up to.  And, and the new guard doesn’t want this.  I think we’re getting to the point if Congress’ job rating gets lower in the next six months—not better—it gets lower, you’re going to see, I think, this internal spat between the new guard House Democrats and the old guard, old bulls—John Dingle, David Obey, those guys—and you’re going to see it blow up.  And it, and it may be that the Democratic Party needs that to happen.

MS. WOODRUFF:  Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT:  And in the ‘08 election, it’s going to be a change election, and if the Democratic candidate, Republican candidate don’t, doesn’t provide change, you could see an independent candidate.

MS. WOODRUFF:  No question.  And that’s, that’s pointed out by what we’ve been talking about—not only about the Hispanic vote, but you’re also seeing, Tim, this division among Democrats in the Senate on immigration.  The new Democrats were the ones who didn’t want to go along with the leadership.  So, so, in one sense, you could say all bets are off down the road for this party.

MR. TODD:  To be continued.  Tavis Smiley, David Brody, Chuck Todd, Judy Woodruff, thank you all.

Coming next, portions of the CIA Family Jewels are released this week.  In 1975, then CIA director William Colby talked about the spying scandal and agency wrongdoings of the past right here on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  And we are back.  On Tuesday the CIA released documents outlining some of their dirty spy secrets of a past era known as the Family Jewels.  The documents were drawn up and compiled in 1973 by CIA officers themselves.  The result?  A domestic spying scandal that prompted reform and three separate investigations in the mid-1970s.

CIA director William Colby appeared on MEET THE PRESS in 1975 and tried to walk a very fine line.

(Videotape, June 29, 1975)

MR. LESLIE H.  GELB (New York Times):  In the wake of the disclosures about CIA collection of 10,000 or more dossiers of bugging and surveillance and whatnot, you did not refer to these activities as illegal.  In fact, you said they were not illegal, they were merely missteps.

MR. WILLIAM E. COLBY (Director, Central Intelligence ):  I have said that they were wrong.  I think wrong is a word that covers the, those few missteps and misdeeds that CIA has conducted over 28 years.

MR. GELB:  Does wrong mean illegal?  Does wrong mean illegal?

MR. COLBY:  Sometimes it does, sometimes it merely means that we were outside our charter, although, although there’s nothing otherwise illegal about the activity.

MR. GELB:  Does outside the charter mean that it was illegal?

MR. COLBY:  That—it means that it is wrong for CIA to do it.

MR. GELB:  Well, was it illegal for the...

MR. COLBY:  It was not necessarily a crime that it be done, but it was wrong for CIA to do it.

MR. LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK:  Mr. Colby, as one who knows the CIA from long association with it and who I assume is dedicated to the security of this nation, will you give us your appraisal of whether the investigations have, on the whole, been good or bad for the country?

MR. COLBY:  Well, I think they’re both goods and bads, Mr. Spivak.  I think that the, the good is that we are in the process of updating the old image of intelligence that is carried by many Americans to the new reality of intelligence, that intelligence today is more than the old spy story or the TV spectacular on Saturday night.

On the bad side, I think are the sensational and irresponsible leaks and, and, and discussions that go on so that the characterization of our intelligence apparatus still does suffer that old image.  I am interested really in trying to focus on the ‘70s and ‘80s and forget about the ‘50s and ‘60s, but I’m having a hard time doing it.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  And in a message to CIA employees this week, the current CIA director, Michael Hayden, said, “It’s important to remember that the CIA itself launched this process of recollection and self-examination.  [The documents provide] reminders of some things the” CA—“CIA should not have done [and] a glimpse of a very different era and a very different Agency.”

That’s all for today.  We’ll be back next week at a special early time, 8 AM Eastern right here before the Wimbledon finals.  Check our Web site for air times in your area, mtp.msnbc.com.  If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.  Have a safe Fourth.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

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 Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Sept. 13: Durbin, Cornyn, Dean, Gingrich, roundtable Sept. 6: Axelrod, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: