| ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for Sept. 26 |
| Read the complete transcript to Friday’s show |
| Guests: Dana Rohrabacher, Jim McDermott, Donna Brazile, Tim Searcy, Joe Tacopina, Arnie Arnesen, Dick Armey CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I’m Chris Matthews. Let’s play HARDBALL. The “Big Story,” tonight, President Bush details his $20 billion request for Iraq’s reconstruction. Is Iraq’s price tag deepening the divide between Republicans and Democrats? Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Congressman Jim McDermott will be here. Plus, Democratic strategist, Donna Brazile, will be here to give us her take on who emerged the winner in last night’s Democratic presidential debate. And later, the “HARDBALL Debate,” 50 million Americans want telemarketers to stop calling them at home. But a federal judge says blocking telemarketers violates free speech. Should the First Amendment protect telemarketers? We begin with the fight that’s been festering on Capitol Hill over Iraq. In an interview with the “Associated Press,” Senator Ted Kennedy assailed President Bush on the war and said, quote: “There was no eminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.” And earlier this week, the House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, fired back at Senator Kennedy and the Democratic Party. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MINORITY LEADER: The Democrat leaders must finally decide, are they going to be the party of Franklin Roosevelt’s moral clarity or the party of Ted Kennedy’s extremist appeasement. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is a Republican from California and member of the House International Relations Committee. And Congressman Jim McDermott is a Democrat from the state of Washington. Congressman Rohrabacher, are those Tom DeLay thoughts about Ted Kennedy the talking points of the Democratic Party on the war issue now? REP. DANA ROHRABACHER ®, CALIFORNIA: Well, I’ll tell you that Teddy Kennedy certainly has no credibility with anybody. If you want to compare his moral stature with that of the presidents, I think the president wins every time. We have a president who is taking care of business, who is making sure that our country is secure. We got Democrats like Teddy Kennedy nitpicking, trying to take this magnificent achievement we’ve accomplished in Iraq and downplay it and actually turn this-dismay our troops and demoralize our people, and actually encourage those people overseas, who are killing our troops, to keep doing that. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Congressman McDermott, can you use - are you comfortable with the words that Senator Kennedy used against the president with regard to the war? Words like fraud? Words like made up? Bribery is a later ... (CROSSTALK) REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: I think the ... MATTHEWS: ... for a term he used in terms he used in terms of our getting support from other countries. MCDERMOTT: I think it is very clear the president mislead the American people, and his speech at the United Nations was no better the other day. This man is clearly is hurdling down a track set down by Wolfowitz and by Rumsfeld, and he won’t look at what’s happening. More people have died in Iraq in combat than died during the Iraq war after-before he said mission was accomplished. This is a mess and he won’t get United Nations involved in it. He is going to try and get a blank check out of the Congress. And Senator Kennedy was just saying in it strong Irish terms. It has to be said. MATTHEWS: Yes, but you sound more like me than Ted Kennedy. I agree with what you said but that is not what Kennedy said. What Kennedy said was, this is a fraud. It was practiced-this war was perpetrated to win votes in the 2002 election. It was totally partisan and totally corrupt. That’s what Kennedy said about the war. He didn’t say it was fought for ideological reasons like you just said-and a lot of people say. He said this was a corrupt war, basically. It was a fraud practiced for political gain. Do you believe that, Congressman? MCDERMOTT: Well, I think it is pretty clear that this has been in the wings since his father’s administration. And they’ve just been waiting to do it again because they think that it will give them total control of the middle east which will be, in the long run, best for them to control the country. ROHRABACHER: He’s right that it’s been in the wings since his father’s administration because, yes, George Bush, Senior, didn’t finish the job. We had this vicious dictator then who had lots of power and gaining more power, I might add, with all of his oil wells, who had a blood grudge against the people of the United States. So yes, it’s really good that we took him and we eliminated him from power in Iraq, because we’re safer now because of it. Now, do the Democrats want to put Saddam Hussein back in power? Let’s quit hearing the nitpicking. If they want to change the position, let’s let come out and say it, we should retreat from Iraq, let Saddam Hussein retake country and murder all of the pro Democratic elements as he’s been doing. Is that what the Democrats want? MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you this. If you will side with Tom DeLay, the majority leader’s words, do you believe that those who opposed going into Iraq are appeasers? ROHRABACHER: Not all of them, of course not. Some people have-but I would-I’ll just have to say, I think it is better. People- Republicans have better sense. Our president has good sense to take care of this problem before we have-you know, we suffered 9/11 because we didn’t take care of business. Now we took care of Saddam Hussein and that threat has been alleviated. This man hated our country and had enormous power. It was good thing to get rid of him for our sake and for the sake of the people of Iraq who now live under Democracy, before they were living under this vicious monstrous dictatorship. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you again, Congressman McDermott, do you believe this war was fought for ideological reasons or for partisan reasons? MCDERMOTT: I think this war was fought for ideological reasons. That’s my own personal take on it. MATTHEWS: So you don’t degree with Kennedy then? MCDERMOTT: I agree with a lot of what he says ... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Because he doesn’t say the sophisticated stuff. You just said he said it was basically some cheap little political trick, sort of like wag the dog in the movies, to try to win a few more Senate seats. Listen to what he said. There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas. Announced in the January to the Republican leadership that war would take place. It was going to be good politically. The whole thing was a fraud. Do you agree with what Kennedy said or not? MCDERMOTT: All of what he said is true. It was made up out of thin air. MATTHEWS: In Texas? MCDERMOTT: And it was-it was made up in Texas. Well, wherever you want to say these strategists meet. They put-the neo cons got together and came up with the strategy and there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein or anything else. ROHRABACHER: I am no neo con. I am no neo con. There’s a lot of other people besides neo cons that recognize that Saddam Hussein hated our country and was becoming ever more powerful, and it was a good thing for us ... MCDERMOTT: No he wasn’t, Dana. ROHRABACHER: ... to-it was good for us to eliminate him. MCDERMOTT: He hadn’t done a thing for 10 years under sanctions, and you know it. ROHRABACHER: No, what I know is that ... MCDERMOTT: They didn’t find anything. ROHRABACHER: ... Iraq is one of the most richest countries of the world with petroleum reserves except for that-in fact, they even equal more than Saudi Arabia. MCDERMOTT: And they found no weapons of mass destruction. ROHRABACHER: We don’t want to have Saddam Hussein with that kind of power in his hands. Now, OK. If that’s the position, is your position now that we should let him go back to power? Murder all those people who believe in Democracy in this country as he was doing? MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, gentlemen. Dana-Congressman, let me ask you, sir. Do you believe that the country is divided between people who think in your terms, which this was a totally justified action in terms of self-defense, and the view taken by Congressman McDermott, that this was not a good idea. Is that it simple? Are there some people in the middle of this baby? ROHRABACHER: No, look. There’s some people who have a natural inclination not to get involved in military action overseas and they’re idealistic people. No. There are some people who can honestly disagree with you. But, the leadership of the Democratic Party are nitpicking and doing this for political purposes. And you can tell that because they’re not willing to come out with what their solution is. They’re not willing to come out and say, OK, we are going to get out and give it back to Saddam Hussein. They just want to nitpick the president and undermine our efforts in Iraq. MATTHEWS: Congressman, are there any people backing this war are doing it because they care about the country or are they all a bunch of Texas sleaze-balls the way Teddy Kennedy set it up here? MCDERMOTT: I think there are people who are backing this war who are misperceiving our safety. I think we did not get safety from taking on Saddam Hussein. And on that basis, you can take on Iran and Iraq and every... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think-I am afraid they’re next. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, thank you for joining us. Congressman Jim McDermott. Coming up, former Gore campaign manager, Donna Brazile, will be here to say who won the debate last night among the Democrats. You are watching HARDBALL. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Yesterday in New York, all 10 Democratic presidential candidates met for the first time in a debate. And afterwards, I asked four of them about their thoughts on the hot button issues of the night. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We had a choice in this election about whether we’re going to go backward to the old policies, fiscal irresponsibility, protectionism, soft on defense that got us into the political wilderness for a long time, or are we going pickup and go forward with where Bill Clinton and Al Gore took us. That’s what I’m all about. That’s what the future is about. I’m for tax cuts for the middle class. I thought Howard Dean was absolutely wrong on that subject. I’m for fiscal responsibility and trade to create jobs. Of course I’m for aggressive enforcement of the trade laws, which Bush hasn’t done. REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If we’re going to get everybody covered with health insurance, and I believe we need to do that, you got to lay aside the Bush tax cuts. And on trade, everybody is a Johnny-come-lately. Everybody is now where I’ve been for 25 years. I’ve been a leader on this issue. I will continue to be the leader on this issue when I’m president of the United States. SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The plan that I have proposed is a step by step plan which will get us to the objective of covering all Americans. It shifts some of the tax cuts from the richest Americans to working Americans because they are the ones who are most likely to spend the tax cuts and therefore generate activity in our economy. REVEREND AL SHARPTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We got into where it was personal attacks and we saw people-hearing people saying thing like, I can dare anybody up here to do this, that, or the other. That is not distinguishing policy. I think that we ought to be clear on who is for what policy. We ought not be acting like Republicans, but I don’t think we get so ugly that at the end of the process, the Republicans can use those ugly attacks and personal attacks to try to defeat whoever the ultimate nominee would be. (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: Donna Brazile is a Democratic strategist. She ran the campaign for Al Gore for president last time around. Let me ask you about what I think is the hot button issue of the campaign. Where you stand, where you stood on the foreign policy, specifically the war. I’m running through the list of candidates right now. Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, Congressman Gephardt, Senator Lieberman, all voted for the war resolution. DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That’s correct. MATTHEWS: Those who put themselves on record from the beginning include Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean-not John Dean-Senator Graham of Florida, General Clark, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton. BRAZILE: That’s right. MATTHEWS: Which of the two columns will provide us with the winner? Will it be an anti-war candidate or a pro-war candidate, or one who voted for the war resolution? Which kind of a candidate do you think will be the Democratic nominee? BRAZILE: Well, I think if the election was held tomorrow, it would clearly be an anti-war candidate who would emerge as the nominee. But, as this debate goes on and on, I believe that some of the pro-war candidates will likely become our nominee. The reason is simple. During the early stage of the campaign, the energy right now has been with the anti-war candidates and also the anti-war activists within the Democratic Party. But as voters begin to pay attention and to focus on this nomination race, I do believe that some of the candidates who supported the war and for the right reasons at the time, they were told, like most American, that, you know, Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. He had weapons that he was about to use, et cetera, et cetera. So I do believe at the end of the day, that one of the pro-war candidates will likely emerge as the nominee. MATTHEWS: Why? Why is it-why does it slant-as more people get involved? But, don’t the polls show that most Democrats did oppose the war? BRAZILE: Well, because I think ultimately, the decision is not going to rest on one issue. The decision to go to war. I think it is going to rest on the aftermath of the war. America’s standing in the world. America standing at home. And for those reasons, and many other reasons, I believe, that the other-the pro-war candidates have offered up some of the best ideas on how to revive the economy, how to revive the health care system, and of course, how to protect our environment. MATTHEWS: But, aren’t you really saying, Donna, that one of the establishment Democratic candidates out of the Washington arena, in which we both live, is going to win the nomination because the establishment always wins. I mean, you’re saying, basically, it seems to me, I’ll ask you if you’re saying this. Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, or Lieberman will provide the pool of the potential nominees. BRAZILE: Yes. But you can of a balanced ticket. You can have a pro-war nominee, an anti-war vice-presidential nominee. MATTHEWS: Yes. BRAZILE: We don’t know what the eventuality ... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Do you think a Lieberman can back a Howard Dean for president if it came to it? A totally hawkish, pro-war guy like Lieberman who has it in his feelings for this war, it is not political with him. BRAZILE: Right. MATTHEWS: He deeply believes this was the right thing to do, to knock down Saddam Hussein. Could he back a dove, a certified dove like Howard Dean? BRAZILE: Well, I would hope that he would give Howard Dean every consideration if he comes out the eventual nominee. MATTHEWS: But, how can he be an honest man and do that if he thinks the war is unimportant? BRAZILE: Because Howard Dean-because Howard Dean has a tremendous track record on domestic issues that I think would provide a good balance for someone like Joe Lieberman who has been a hawk, who is a moderate centrist who... MATTHEWS: But, what matters more to Joe Lieberman, the foreign policy or tax policy? Come on. He is not going to back some lefty anti-war guy, is he? BRAZILE: Joe Lieberman is someone who, on social issues, it is just as liberal as Howard Dean. MATTHEWS: OK. You’re being a good party unifier. Let me ask you about what you saw tonight. Just looking at it for a couple hours. First time all 10 candidates got together. Did you sense-give me a couple people you thought met the test of leadership, that seemed like people that could make the big decisions and run the country. Anybody in particular you thought passed that test? BRAZILE: Well, of course, I love Dick Gephardt. Dick Gephardt is a strong leader and I think he passed that test. I think John Kerry also passed that test. John Edwards came across as a statesman. Joe Lieberman came across as someone who is presidential. Howard Dean came across as someone who has passion, who has energy, who has vision. And I think he came across very well. So I think, last night I saw the next president of the United States. MATTHEWS: Let’s take look at Congressman Gephardt. You mentioned him first, as Dick Gephardt. He went after Howard Dean last night for supporting what he said, the Newt Gingrich position on Medicare way back when. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GEPHARDT: He said in, I think, 1993, that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened. He also supported, at our darkest hour, when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the contract with America, he was shutting the government down. Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare. Now, you have been saying for many months that you are the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you’re just winging it. HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich. I’ve done more for health insurance in this country, Dick Gephardt, frankly, than you ever have. To insinuate that I would get rid of Medicare is wrong, it is not helpful, and we need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush, not each other. (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: You know, I have to wonder. I mean, Dick Gephardt is a great guy and he is on the show whenever he wants to come on. But, going after a doctor on health care. Isn’t that a suicide mission? BRAZILE: No, I think-I think, not to take sides in this debate, because I haven’t taken sides yet. Look, Dick Gephardt wanted to point out the fact that while he was in the Congress ... MATTHEWS: Right. BRAZILE: ... fighting Newt Gingrich and the conservative Republican tide, you know, Howard Dean was out there cutting deals on the side. So, this was a way to sort of paint ... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: But, he didn’t come out against Medicare, Howard Dean. BRAZILE: No, he didn’t ... MATTHEWS: You can’t say that. BRAZILE: ... he came out against ... MATTHEWS: Gephardt is implying-he said he wants to kill the good old great society program of Medicare. And always doing things like everybody else, he thinks, HICVA and the whole way they set the thing up, is screwed up. BRAZILE: Well, I mean, Dean took some of the punches last night. He threw some back. MATTHEWS: Well, let’s-here’s another guy. Here’s more punches all aimed at the head of Howard Dean. This one from Senator Kerry. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think Governor Dean is absolutely wrong. And he is wrong in his facts. If Governor Dean has his way, and Congressman Gephardt, they are going to pay $3,000 additional taxes. We can cut the deficit in half. We can be fiscally responsible but we don’t have to do it on the backs of the middle class. DEAN: With all due respect to Senator Kerry and the others from Washington that go for these tax cuts, this is exactly why the balance-the budget is so far out of balance. Washington politicians promising people everything. You can have tax cuts, you can have insurance, you can have special education. We cannot win as Democrats if we take that kind of a-if we take that kind of attack. Tell the truth. We cannot afford all the tax cuts, the health insurance, special ed, and balancing the budget, and we have to do those things. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: It is interesting, isn’t it, Donna, how they are attacking him as the guy who is off base in some constituency issues. And what he always does is say no, it’s not that. The difference between me and you is, you’re Washington types. BRAZILE: That’s right. MATTHEWS: You’re part of the problem. BRAZILE: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: Will he get away with it? Would that work with the voters? BRAZILE: Well, — oh, no question. It working right now because there’s a great hum (ph) in the Democratic Party to nominate, you know, somebody who is not from Washington, D.C. And Howard is represented their values very well. Look. I think over the next couple of weeks, Dean must demonstrate that he can take these body blows ... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Does he have an anger management problem? BRAZILE: Well, I think Joe Trippi and the staff have done a wonderful job of saying, look, you know, just stay the course and just take it. You know, do a little rope-a-dope and just, you know, get through it. MATTHEWS: So what is he going to say? So is your mama or something like that? BRAZILE: Well, I think he is ... MATTHEWS: When is he going to just say, you know-maybe that anger works. What do you think? That little bit of, don’t do this to me. BRAZILE: No. Temperament is very important. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You think? Do you have to smile through this? BRAZILE: You got to smile and grin straight through it and not show any personal ... MATTHEWS: OK. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) What about Reagan? He used to say, there you go again. That was a pretty one. BRAZILE: Well, Reagan was very good about... MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about the Clark. Is it a souffle or is here to stay? BRAZILE: I think Clark is going to stay on the playing field for a lot longer than I expected in the beginning. He is, right now, building momentum. He has tremendous grassroots support. But, you know, I have one issue that I have to raise with him at some point. And that is, did he vote for Al Gore? I mean, now we ... MATTHEWS: That’s a great question. He hasn’t said that yet, has he? BRAZILE: No. I mean, he’s talked about Reagan. He’s talked about Nixon. You know, I want to know if he voted for Al Gore? So that’s-that’s a question I am going to put to him. MATTHEWS: If he didn’t? BRAZILE: Well, I have-then I would have issues with... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Do you think he is disqualified for he nomination? BRAZILE: No, but I’m sure that ... MATTHEWS: Don’t you want converse ... BRAZILE: No, but I am sure that ... MATTHEWS: Don’t you want converse ... BRAZILE: ... the 50 million ... MATTHEWS: Don’t you want to bring over those people that voted for Bush? BRAZILE: Well, what is he going to tell us-well, of course I want to bring over those people who voted for Bush. But I would also like to see a man who is willing to champion Democratic values long term, not in the short term while he is interested in running for president. MATTHEWS: Gore won by what, 600,000 votes, and you’re quibbling over one vote. BRAZILE: This one I am. A four star general... MATTHEWS: Yes. I think that’s a great-if we get him, we are going to ask him that one. BRAZILE: Thank you. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Donna Brazile. Up next, in the “Battle for the White House”, there’s a lot of talk about whether Hillary Clinton will get into the 2004 race. But New Hampshire voters to give a resounding no when asked whether they want her to. And later-I don’t think-New York voters, I think that is. Anyway. The “HARDBALL Debate.” Do telemarketers have the right to call whoever they want? There’s a hot one to debate. We will be right back with HARDBALL. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTHEWS: Time now for a quick look at new polls in the “Battle for the White House.” The Wesley Clark boom has yet to be felt in New Hampshire. A new poll there shows Howard Dean still holding a strong first place with a third of the vote, 35 percent for Dean. John Kerry follows in second place with 22 percent. Clark does come in third but barely gets in double digits. He has only got 11 percent so far. By the way, the poll also asked New Hampshire Democrats if they want Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2004. Now, listen to this answer. A resounding no. N-o. Sixty-two percent-two thirds-are against her running. Only a third — 32 percent-said yes. Two to one, they’re down on Hillary. Meanwhile, the latest Zogby poll, 43 percent now say President Bush deserves to be reelected while nearly half say they think its time for someone new. In early September, of course, 52 percent said it was time for someone new, and just two in five — 40 percent-say he deserves reelection. Note, part of this bounce might be credited to the president’s appearance before the United Nations which occurred in the middle of the polling. By the way, that’s the first sign that I’ve seen that he did well in that speech. Finally, here’s something you didn’t see in the debate last night. Bob Graham singing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MUSIC: You’ve got a friend in Bob Graham, that’s what everybody’s saying, all across the good ol’ USA. To the Pacific ...) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I’m sorry, I said he was singing. Anyway, the “HARDBALL Debate” over whether telemarketers should be allowed to call you at home if you don’t want them to. That’s a hot one for me too. Let’s come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTHEWS: This half hour, 50 million Americans say they don’t want telemarketers to call them at home, but now a federal judge says blocking the telemarketers violates their free speech. We will fight that one out in the “HARDBALL Debate.” But first, the latest headlines right now. (NEWSBREAK) MATTHEWS: The “HARDBALL Debate” tonight, the popular do-not-call list was dealt a serious blow when it was blocked by a federal judge. He says it violates free speech. Should telemarketers be allowed to call anyone they want? NBC’s Robert Hager has the report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ROBERT HAGER, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): The government plans a last ditch, two-pronged effort to save its do-not-call list. First, back to court. EILEEN HARRINGTON, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: The Federal Trade Commission will appeal this decision from the Denver court. We also will be asking the court to stay its decision. HAGER: But imagining the legal battle could take months, even years. The government’s back-up is to ask telemarketers for voluntary compliance, hope they agree on their own not to call the nearly 51 million numbers on the list, a third of all households. HAGER (on camera): But, will telemarketers stop calling? One trade association which represents many of them today advises just that. But another which speaks for others is so far against voluntary compliance. HAGER (voice-over): So it is unclear what individual telemarketers will do. GARY PUDDLES, ANSWERNET NETWORK: For my business, it continue to be business as usual but we’ll continue to communicate with our customers to decide if they want us to do thing differently. HAGER: A showdown between court opinion and public opinion. Oklahoma City federal judge, Lee West, first decision that the FTC didn’t have statutory authority to block the calls, quickly offset by lopsided votes in Congress yesterday, providing that authority. But then, Denver federal judge, Edward Nottingham’s decision last night, saying the list violated the Constitution, limited freedom of speech. In this case, commercial speech. That makes it harder for Congress to intervene. Generally only courts settle constitutional questions. As for the public at this park today, complaints about the court rulings. Marty Goldberg who put her name on the list months ago. MARTY GOLDBERG: I just hope the calls stop. HAGER: Todd Levin ... TODD LEVIN: I’m all for business but I think there’s a line that needs to be drawn there. HAGER: Many are phoning the judges whose numbers are circulating on the Internet, flooding switch boards. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... time, so please leave a message and your call will be returned as soon as possible. HAGER: Tonight, President Bush repeated support for the list. Supposed to take effect next Wednesday. The clock is ticking down fast. Robert Hager, NBC News, Washington. (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: Tim Searcy is executive director of the American teenagers Association. Joe Tacopina is a defense attorney. Well, you have a tough job, Tim. Let me ask you this. What is your home number so everybody can hear it? TIM SEARCY, AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION: I’m not going to give out my home number. MATTHEWS: Well, why do you guys use our home numbers? SEARCY: We’re trying to do commerce. The calls that I receive from folks who are just consumers had nothing to do with trying to go ahead and improve competition or give lower priced goods and services. They’re about something entirely different. That’s inappropriate. MATTHEWS: Well, let’s go to Joe Tacopina. Should a person be allowed to be among those 51,000 people who say, leave us alone when we’re at home. JOE TACOPINA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This was such a goofy ruling, Chris, you know. It is a federal district court judge. And I read this ruling a few times and I’m baffled. To make this a freedom of speech issue is to defy common sense and reality. Freedom of speech is you stand on the courthouse steps and say what you want to say. Freedom of speech is, you know, writing what you want to write and saying what you want to say on TV where someone has a choice to turn the channel. Freedom of speech is not intruding into someone’s privacy, invading the home by wire, by telephone and at all ridiculous hours, unwanted. It is ludicrous. It is outrageous. And more importantly, the House, the Senate and 50 million people out there are outraged by this. I think the will of the society has a little more common sense than this federal court has. MATTHEWS: Should I be allowed to walk up to a person’s house, stand off their property with a bullhorn, and start addressing them with a sales pitch? Is that within the bounds of what you think is appropriate business behavior? SEARCY: No. The Supreme Court has told you that is it OK to walk up, put your bull horn down, knock on the door or press the doorbell, and go ahead and speak to that person at their door. This is no different. (CROSSTALK) TACOPINA: I mean, even if they don’t want it, Tim? Even if they don’t want it? I mean, here we... SEARCY: Joe, how do you know what you want or you don’t want until you-hold on a second. The reality is, we sell $654 billion in goods and services every year ... TACOPINA: Which is surprising, because I can never-I just can’t imagine-I don’t know one person who has ever bought anything from a telemarketer at 9:30 who calls and says, hi. We’d like to sell you some handy wipes or something. MATTHEWS: I have already figured out where I want to invest my money. Every morning at some amazing time, I get a call from somebody, could we handle your financial services. Could we invest in your bank? I got that taken care of. Can’t I say I’ve done that? I don’t want to talk to anyone about it? SEARCY: You can absolutely say ... MATTHEWS: How do you do it? SEARCY: ... that you don’t want to talk to them. You can say you don’t want to talk to ... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What, every single time they call? SEARCY: You can say no, you don’t want to talk... MATTHEWS: Every time I have to pick up and say, I’m already covered. I’m already covered. I’m already covered. SEARCY: You didn’t ask that person to stop calling you. MATTHEWS: Well ... SEARCY: Until you ask them to stop calling you, they still have the right to contact you. TACOPINA: That is the point. This is about a do-not-call list. These are people who want to be able to register to get on a list so your people don’t call them. This is what you’re opposing. SEARCY: Joe, it’s not about a do-not-call list. And that’s the problem that you make even as a lawyer. It’s about the First Amendment. And before you say that this is a bad argument, understand that the judge upheld our arguments which says that the federal government, when they create two classes of speech. When they say, you know what? Nobody can call you except for charities and politicians. When they make that distinction, they violate the U.S. Constitution. We can debate this on a whole bunch of other issues but let’s face it. It is bad policy. It is bad law. It is not constitutional. And although you have good rhetoric, you have bad legal opinions. TACOPINA: But, how-why should you be able to call someone who says, I don’t want you to call me. I mean, why should you be able to do that? SEARCY: For years we said that there are good voluntary means by which people can go ahead and eliminate their calls. MATTHEWS: How? TACOPINA: Hang up? SEARCY: Well, one, company specific. They can ask to be taken off that company’s specific list. TACOPINA: Right. That works for a week. SEARCY: The second thing they can do-the second thing they can do is they manage voluntary lists in which most companies participate in. The Direct Marketing Association’s telephone preference service. That’s existed for over a decade. The telephone service in terms of the company specific list, we have been abiding for 12 years with the federal government on this. If this is an issue about... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: How do-how does that work? If I call-if someone calls me and I said please don’t call me again. In fact, can I have your number to make sure that doesn’t happen, how’s that work? Do they have to give you the number? SEARCY: Well, as of October 1, one of the pieces that was not stopped in terms of the courts is that their number has to be broadcast to you in a caller I.D. Secondly ... MATTHEWS: What does that mean? A caller I.D.-it has to be broadcast ... SEARCY: If you have a display on your phone that tells you who is calling you. MATTHEWS: No. But, if I say, can I have your number so you don’t call me again? SEARCY: They’re, by law, already required to tell you the number ... MATTHEWS: OK, good. SEARCY: ... so that you can call them back. See, that’s the point. There’s already voluntary and legislative means ... TACOPINA: Why ... SEARCY: ... by which to address this. TACOPINA: Tim, why should I have to, as a person who is putting kids to bed at 9:00 at night, have to worry about getting your number to call your supervisor back, not you personally, but to get the number to call your supervisor back to get taken off some list and hope that the supervisor puts it through. Why do I have to deal with that? Why can’t I get on a general do-not-call list for telemarketers... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Let’s be honest about this, Joe. There’s something you’re missing here. A very aggressive argument. But there is something you are missing. When I say, no, thank you, I’m already covered, they keep talking. They don’t say, sorry to bother you. Why do we have to put up with this harassment. And that’s what it is. They don’t shut up. They keep talking. SEARCY: Well, that’s a separate argument. MATTHEWS: No. They all do it. I say I’m already covered and they keep talking. SEARCY: That’s separate argument from do-not-call. And there’s certainly room to be able to say, past somebody saying no, that we shouldn’t continue. That’s entirely different issue. MATTHEWS: Well, why do you ... SEARCY: Should the government be in the business of eliminating two million jobs, wiping out a good chunk of industry and commerce? MATTHEWS: What percentage of success justifies this kind of thing economically? I mean, how many hits do you have to make to get one win to justify calling somebody all morning long? Thousands of people. SEARCY: I would tell you ... MATTHEWS: One in a hundred? SEARCY: Let me ask you a question. How many jobs do we have to lose for to you turn around and say it’s OK... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That’s what I am trying to figure out. I go along with Joe. I don’t know anybody who has ever bought financial advice over the phone like that. SEARCY: Then why is it working? Why does anybody buy ... MATTHEWS: I don’t know. SEARCY: ... anything? MATTHEWS: Because one in a thousand, it works. SEARCY: Well, one in a thousand ... MATTHEWS: Well, give me the percentage then. SEARCY: Come on. One in a thousand would never make it ... MATTHEWS: All I know is with Joe, people don’t like this. By the way, what is your home number? Because I want to call you and offer you some deals. SEARCY: I appreciate it. What do you sell these days? MATTHEWS: I’ll sell you anything I feel like, because that’s what you want the right to do. Anything I feel like. That’s the deal you guys want. TACOPINA: That’s the funny thing. The consumer-the person is put in the position of either having to hang up in someone’s face or listening to that three-minute recorded speech. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: The White House number is 202-456-1414. Call them and tell them this guy is wrong. Anyway, Tim Searcy, you got a tough job. Happy Friday. Joe Tacopina, thanks for-you’re on the right side of this one for once. TACOPINA: Gee, thanks, Chris. Coming up, the “Political Buzz.” You are watching HARDBALL. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTHEWS: Time now for the “Political Buzz.” Dick Armey is the former Republican leader of the House of Representatives, and Arnie Arnesen — Arnesen-is the New Hampshire radio talk show host. Thanks for joining us, both of you. According to the latest Zogby poll of likely New Hampshire Democratic voters, former Vermont governor, Howard Dean, leads that primary with 30 percent, Senator John Kerry has 20 percent, retired General Wesley Clark comes in at 10 percent, Gephardt at six, and Lieberman at five. Arnie Arnesen, has General Clark taken the gravy away from Dean? The 10 points he had before? He’s gone from 30 — from something like 38 to 30. Is that because Clark grabbed his votes? ARNIE ARNESEN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I think there is some suggestion there, because he did drop the 38 to 30. And you actually saw John Kerry for the first time doing something he hasn’t done in months, which is go up. He went from 17 to 20. But, you know what? I had General Clark on the radio with me today. And at this point in time, he is still the Rorschach test. You know, we really don’t know about the substance. I kept asking him for information. And more than a headline really isn’t what we got. In fact, when I asked him for more substance, he got slightly irritable. Welcome to presidential politics in New Hampshire, it ... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Did you ask him who he voted for for president? ARNESEN: If he is going to be like, like crazy. MATTHEWS: Did you ask him he voted for president the past time? ARNESEN: No. That’s a great question. You should have given me a buzz before I had him on the air. MATTHEWS: Because Donna Brazile just asked it on the show earlier. She said she wants to know, and it sounds like she really wants to know, whether he voted for her candidate, Al Gore, last time. ARNESEN: Yes. But, Chris, you know part of the problem, and you actually have heard from General Clark is, everyone feels there’s been a bait and switch with George Bush. I mean, a George Bush that people talked about who was the governor of Texas, the George Bush who talked about a humble foreign policy, the George Bush who talked about being a conservative, compassionate person, I mean, that’s nothing like the guy that we’re seeing now. So I can’t even blame poor Wes Clark if he voted for him. I clearly understand why he can’t this time. MATTHEWS: Let me go to Congressman Armey. Dick, what do you make of this fact that Dean, Kerry, Clark, all relatively anti-war candidates, with Kerry being a little bit murky there, but he says he would have never backed this war when it came down to it. That’s 30 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent, 60 percent of the votes accounted for, the great bulk of them are all anti-war candidates. DICK ARMEY ®, FORMER HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Well, I think right now it is a very faddish thing to do among the Democrats. They’re trying to gain a foothold in foreign policy where they thought they probably had their ears pinned lately. My own view is Clark is a nova. He’ll burn out. I think he’s-was best described, by the way, in your wrap-up after this at the CNBC telecast yesterday afternoon as that steer in the bullring. I think he was seduced by the Clintons to that role. Right now, I think they are-it is kind of a relief thing that the Democrats, you know, thank heavens we can finally speak out with our objections to this war effort. And I think it will carry them for a while. MATTHEWS: Just to explain my metaphor further for Dick Armey’s benefit, you know, when they have a bullfight-in the Portuguese bullfight-they’re trying to get the bull out of the ring. They-to cool down the bulls, the horny bulls, they put a steer who has been castrated into the ring, and for some weird reason, all the bulls cool down in the presence of a steer. And that’s what I was wondering. Do you like that, Arnie, as ... ARMEY: That was a little more detail than I would have gone into. ARNESEN: Oh, that is just disgusting. Come on, Chris. He’s not that kind of a ... (CROSSTALK) ARMEY: I wouldn’t have gone into that much detail, Chris. I’m glad it was you. ARNESEN: Come on! ARMEY: Anyway ... MATTHEWS: Arnie, what do think is the ... ARMEY: Anyway. I did think General Clark was seduced into this race by the Clintons. I think you were right on that. I think it was-the idea was to sort of level off that field a little bit. He seems to be having that effect if the New Hampshire polls are any indication. MATTHEWS: What do you think is the connection between, Arnie, between ” the connection between the Clinton family, Bill and Hill, and this candidacy of General Clark? Everybody who worked for Clinton seems to have moved over automatically as if they were vassals of the Clinton family right over to work for this guy, Clark. ARNESEN: Well, it is kind of scary when Bill Clinton waxes poetic and says the two shining stars in the Democratic Party are Senator Clinton and General Clark. And I’m going, really? How come none of us knew this before? I think one of the real problems here is if that’s the case for General Clark, not only is his support going to evaporate but I think New Hampshire people have already had lots of exposure to the other nine candidates. They don’t want to go back to the farm. They’ve seen Paris. It is not going to work for Clark, and it clearly isn’t going to work for Hillary if she step back into this race. And frankly, people are going to feel so used. I think Bill should tell Hillary, let’s wait a couple years, sweetheart. MATTHEWS: What about the idea that ... ARMEY: I think this is also ... MATTHEWS: what about the idea that General Clark is really a placeholder ... ARMEY: I was going to say in the case of ... MATTHEWS: ... for the Clintons for next time. He doesn’t-the Clintons do not want a Democrat to do well in 2004. They want somebody to dry the whole thing up in terms of enthusiasm, kill the ... ARNESEN: Chris, that’s immoral. MATTHEWS: Huh? ARNESEN: That’s immoral. That’s not policy anymore. That’s not politics anymore. That’s immoral. I think there is something drastically wrong with this nation. The American people agree with me. They just did a “Wall Street Journal” poll. They think the direction of the country is going in the opposite way than what we should be going in. MATTHEWS: I agree. ARNESEN: If you want to have a placeholder to basically have us lose an election in 2004, then I don’t want a Clinton ever on the political landscape. MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Mr. Armey. ARMEY: Well, I was going to say in the case of Kerry in New Hampshire, I think an awful lot of New Hampshire Democrats see themselves as a bit of a suburb of Massachusetts. So I would expect him to pull higher in New Hampshire than otherwise. I would guess, right now, that, frankly, Dean is, in fact, the frontrunner. And right now, I think he looks like he’s the guy that will get the nomination. Pursuant to the explanation you had yesterday about the new-or old Democrats, it is between and he and Gephardt, and I think Gephardt attacked him on the basis, and I think my blue-collar labor liberals can beat your country club liberals. And I need to take the fight to you. MATTHEWS: Well, let’s go back and talk about the fact that up in New Hampshire, a new poll by Zogby says that two-thirds of the Democrats up there say they don’t want Hillary to even think about running for president. Let’s come back and talk about that in the “Buzz.” (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTHEWS: We’re back with Arnie Arnesen, who is a liberal-listed here on my paper, it says a liberal radio talk show host. Is that right, Arnie? ARNESEN: It’s true. It is not an oxymoron. She lives, she breathes, she’s on seven stations. Come on. And lots of conservatives love me, Chris, so... MATTHEWS: Well, that’s great. ARNESEN: ... you need to listen. MATTHEWS: And Dick Armey from Dallas who is the long time highly popular Republican leader of the House of Representatives. Let me ask you both about this fascinating new Maris (ph) poll just out of New Hampshire. It came out yesterday. Asked if they thought Hillary Clinton should run for president, 62 percent of the Democrats said no, 32 percent yes. Arnie, your take on that. ARNESEN: My take is, we have spent weeks, months, sleeping with these guys, eating with these guys, going to every breakfast. You can’t imagine how much time people in New Hampshire have spent with these nine candidates, frankly, only about four candidates that are running for president. We’re prepared to make that commitment. We don’t need Hillary because of the name. We want someone of substance. And frankly, I think there’s a little bit of Clinton exhaustion after the eight years, and we want not only a fresh face but a different bumper sticker. MATTHEWS: And having slept with the male candidates, you don’t want to sleep with the women candidates as well, right? ARNESEN: Yes. That’s probably true. They’ll have to talk to Howard Dean. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think you just say that, in fact. ARNESEN: ... Howard Dean about civil unions. MATTHEWS: And let me go to Dick Armey. Sir, Hillary Clinton seems to do well in these sort of general national polls. But, when you bring it home to states like New York, her own state, or New Hampshire, in this case, it is, no, Hillary, don’t run. ARMEY: That’s fascinating, first of all, that you call New York her own state. But I’ll grant you that for the moment. MATTHEWS: Well, they do. ARMEY: I don’t know. It is if ... MATTHEWS: But, look, you grew up in North Dakota and you end up as a Texas Congressman. Come on, you moved around. ARMEY: I did. I did. But I actually lived in the state before I registered to run for Congress. But at any rate, that’s New York’s problem, not mine. I don’t know. I’m fascinated by this, too. There seems to be this marvelous fascination with Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate in the abstract. But then when they say, oh, my gosh, she might really do it. There seems to be a sobering influence. I can’t read that, and you know, as you know, Chris, you’re the only Democrat I know that confides in me very much. So, I’d have to go by what you had to say. MATTHEWS: I’m not much of a Democrat these days. But, you know what? It sound like you’re saying that he’s like Ted Kennedy. Remember Ted Kennedy, everybody said, run, Teddy, run. The minute he ran, people didn’t vote for him. ARMEY: That’s right. It’s the same thing ... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Let’s look at another morning glory here, perhaps. General Clark had to explain why he’s a Democrat in the debate the other night. Let’s hear what he had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLARK: I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only one party to come to. I am pro-choice. I am pro-affirmative action. I am pro-environment, pro health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That’s why I’m proud to be a Democrat. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Arnie, do you think that this guy is a morning glory or not? ARNESEN: Hey, listen. I love that statement. You know, I’m right there. I would become a Democrat, too, after hearing Wes Clark. So I figure if General-general, remember that’s the operative word-keeps saying that stuff to the American people, they are going to feel really comfortable because they are going to feel secure and they are going to feel really positive because they’ll see a new direction for America. And clearly, all those things he listed are the things that are being undermined by President Bush. You know what? Go for it and keep using it over and over again. MATTHEWS: OK. It sounds like a good litany of ... ARMEY: That’s a great ... MATTHEWS: Yes. it sounds like a credo. ARNESEN: Oh, it is a credo. ARMEY: Well, that’s a good political ... ARNESEN: In fact, that’s exactly what it is. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Dick Armey, let me ask you this. Do you think this guy, you’ve watched these guys-you were a political student, a political junkie as well as a long time leader. Do you think that General Wesley Clark, the new kid on the block, will be around in three months as a serious heavyweight candidate? ARMEY: No, I don’t. First, I don’t see him that way now. A quick translation of that statement was, I was nonpartisan. That was my job in the military. When I decided to run for president, there was a Republican in the White House so I only had one party with which to run. I think he is a nova. I think he’ll burn out. When they come to the tough questions, I don’t think he’ll produce the answers. I said yesterday, I scored all these candidates. Watched this whole debate. I said Clark was the best of the lot on health and drugs because he didn’t say anything. That’s my perspective. But, as long as he doesn’t say anything, he’ll stay alive. But you’ve got to say something sooner or later and then he’ll die. MATTHEWS: I love it. Thank you very much. Arnie Arnesen. Thank you for coming on this show. Thank you, Dick Armey, as always. Join us again Monday night for at 7:00 eastern for more HARDBALL. I’m going out to Los Angeles for the final stretch, 10 days in L.A., bought that up in Sacramento. I’m going to be on the Arnold Schwarzenegger bus at least for a day, trying to get some time with the governor out there-Bustamante, some of the other candidates. I love it. I can’t wait to get out there. That’s where the action is. California, here we come! Right now, it is time for the “COUNTDOWN” with Keith Olbermann. END Copy: Content and programming copyright 2003 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2003 FDCH e-Media Inc. (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, Inc.), ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user’s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and FDCH e-Media, Inc.’s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation. |