SHOW: Meet the Press (10:00 AM ET) - NBC
October 27, 2002 Sunday
LENGTH: 4,798 words
HEADLINE: Newt Gingrich and James Carville discuss the upcoming election

BODY:

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Newt Gingrich, James Carville, welcome, both.
Let's go right to it. Our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: Who
would you vote for for the U.S. representative in your district? The
Republican candidate, 39; the Democratic candidate, 39.

Newt Gingrich, why should people vote for a Republican for Congress?

MR. NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I think if they want a member of the House who's
going to fight to keep their taxes lower, who is going to--who's actually
passed a Medicare drug benefit, unlike the Democratic Senate, who's actually
passed welfare reform, unlike the Democratic Senate, who's actually passed a
homeland security bill, unlike the Democratic Senate, they've had proof that
the Republican House can deliver, while the Democratic Senate can't pass any
of these major bills. I think it would be a vote for delivering on things
that matter in people's lives and to give them a better chance to have a
better, safer future. MR. RUSSERT: James Carville, why should people vote
for a Democrat?

MR. JAMES CARVILLE: Well, first of all, I think that Senator Wellstone's
death reminded us that this is a big election and there are big issues here.
I think there are three reasons. Number one is if you believe in a status
quo in the economy, then vote Republican. If you think fundamental charges
are needed, that we need to make replacements, if you think we need a tax
cut now, for every American in the form of a relief from the payroll tax,
then you need to vote Democratic. If you think tariffs on lumber and steel
are the way of the future, then you need to vote Republican. If you think we
need to expand American jobs, then vote Democratic. If you believe we need
to go fast in the war on Iraq, if you want to send a signal that we need to
invade Iraq without international cooperation, go alone kind of thing, then
vote Republican. If you think that we need to go slow on Iraq and build
these coalitions, vote Democratic. If you want to go slow on corporate
corruption, if you want the SEC to be underfunded, vote Republican. If you
want an aggressive pursuit of corporate corruption, if you want top people
in there doing this, then vote Democratic.

So I would say status quo vs. changing the economy. I would say go slow in
Iraq as opposed to go fast. And I would say crack down on corporate
corruption or go slow on corporate corruption. Those are the three reasons I
think people ought to vote Democratic.

MR. RUSSERT: Interesting...

MR. GINGRICH: Can I claim semi-equal time for one second here?

MR. RUSSERT: Absolutely. And interesting that Mr. Carville raised Iraq.

MR. GINGRICH: Well, I mean, first, I didn't raise Iraq because I think
there's a broad question of national security and homeland security. And it
is the Democratic Senate which can't even pass the homeland security vote,
something which, for example, Democratic Senator Zell Miller spoke out
forcefully about when they failed to pass it.

But let me just take up his points. It is the Bush administration which has
been putting CEOs and their staff in handcuffs and I think has been pretty
darn aggressive on things like Enron and WorldCom. It is the Democrats who
have a record of raising taxes. And it's not just a question of this
wonderful tax cut. The truth is, Daschle has promised basically he'd raise
taxes and every Democratic critique of the Bush tax cut stops him and says
to him, "Would you repeal it?" But I think if you get a Democratic Congress,
you'll get higher taxes. If you have a Republican Congress, you won't have
higher taxes.

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah, I'll go back, first of all. It's the Democrats that
proposed homeland security in January. You know, Senator Lieberman did. This
White House fought it tooth and nail until May when they saw the polling
going the other way. It's the Democrats and the Republicans in the form of
Senator Breaux, a moderate of Louisiana, and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island
that have offered alternatives. But, Mr. Russert, again, if you vote
Republican, you're sending a signal that we want to invade Iraq now and we
do it alone. If you vote Republican, you're sending a signal that you want
to under...

MR. GINGRICH: That is...

MR. CARVILLE: ...excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GINGRICH: Sorry.

MR. CARVILLE: ...you want to underfund the SEC. That's what this president's
proposed to do. The Democrats want--and Senator Sarbane, who is the most
non-partisan guy in the world, who has supported Mr. Pitt until recently,
until he saw the shenanigans that they're up to. This party, the lobbyists
on K Street, according to The Washington Post, are giddy at the prospect of
the Republicans taking over this Congress, and they're giddy because they
know there's not going to be a crackdown on corporate corruption.

MR. GINGRICH: Let me just say, first of all, to set the record straight for
a minute, President Bush has reached out to Britain, which is an ally. He
has reached out to Turkey, which is an ally. He has reached out to Kuwait,
which is an ally. He's reached out to Italy, which is an ally. He's reached
out to Spain, which is an ally. Colin Powell, the secretary of State, is
working the United Nations today to get a resolution. So people have to ask:
Do you want James Carville's vision of the foreign policy or President
George W. Bush's? And I think if this were a foreign policy election,
there's every evidence the Republicans would win in a landslide. The fact is
on keeping the country safe, this country trusts President Bush over Tom
Daschle by a huge margin.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you another question from our poll because this is
quite striking: Which statement do you agree with? Statement A: "In a time
of war when we have a Republican president, it is much better to have a
majority of Republicans in the House and Senate as well to provide the
president with the kind of support and unity needed on both the domestic and
international fronts."

Statement B: "When issues such as prescription drugs, the environment, and
strengthening regulations on business are being debated and we have a
Republican president, it is much better to have a majority of Democrats in
the House and Senate to provide checks and balances on domestic issues."

The result, 41 percent said Republican control, 49 percent said Democratic
control. Are the issues on the minds of people against the Republicans?

MR. GINGRICH: No. I think that there's a historic pattern which we also
experienced when Clinton was in office. People basically like the
constitutional checks and balances. I mean, this was--people don't want a
parliamentary system where you have one party controlling everything. And I
don't think any Republican ought to be running on the sense that they'd be a
blank check for George Bush. I think, you know, Norm Coleman in Minnesota
has to represent Minnesota values. John Thune in South Dakota has to
represent South Dakota values. This is not a country that wants to give even
the most popular president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a blank check. That
strategy doesn't work.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Carville, let me show you a graphic I've used in Senate
debates. This is the Bush-Cheney first 21 months. Dow Jones down 20 percent;
the unemployment rate is up 33 percent. We've gone from a $281 billion
surplus to $157 million deficit. Net loss of two million jobs. And yet, the
Democrats seem unable to take advantage of that or have that issue resonate
politically. Leon Panetta, a man you know well...

MR. CARVILLE: Very well.

MR. RUSSERT: ...former r chief of staff through Bill Clinton, said this:
"Democrats have not unified on a common approach to the economy. They've
beaten up on Bush, but they're afraid to take on his tax cut. They complain
about the deficit, but they haven't said how they would pay for the new
programs they want."

MR. CARVILLE: You know, the best time to plant an oak tree was 25 years ago.
The second best time is today. What the Democrats need to say is, "First, we
need a new economic team in here." Harvey Pitt has got to go. This
president's economic team is not up to the job. Everybody agrees with that.
Even the people on Wall Street agree with that.

The second thing they need to say is, "Let's not worry about tax cuts for
the top 1 percent in 2006. Let's deliver a tax cut to every person who
works," you, me, the speaker of the House, the guy behind the camera, the
guy mowing lawns in terms of payroll tax relief.

The next thing they need to do is they need to say, "Tariffs on steel and
lumber are just going to cost the economy to go worse and it's going to
cause prices to go up. We need to expand our opportunities in trade."

And the next thing you need to do is take this administration on the fact it
has cut the education budget, it has underfunded not even at the rate of
inflation because we have to supply these companies with an educated and
trained work force. So I would tell Democratic candidates out there, "Do
these things."

The second thing is stop this immediate invade Iraq without international
cooperation and send a signal that America is part of the international
community and the most important thing is we're serious about cracking down
on corporate corruption. We're taking this administration on its plans to
cut the funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission. We're going to
expand that and give investors confidence that this whole thing is on the up
and up. If they do that, they'll win.

MR. RUSSERT: But my question was, with those economic numbers...

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...why aren't the Democrats in a midterm election...

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...of a president's first term way ahead in the polls?

MR. CARVILLE: 'Cause too many of them haven't said what I just said. And if
they go out and say this for the next nine days, we'll end up controlling
both houses and Congress because the Democrats--I would agree with Leon that
we've been too timid to this point, but, hey, there's nine days left to go.
And it's time to call this administration's disastrous economic policies on
the carpet and present alternatives: top-rate people; a tax cut for
everybody now as opposed to one for the rich people in the future; expand
trade; and increase investments in education and job training. You do those
things and crack down on corporate corruption--if you do those things,
you're going to win the election.

MR. RUSSERT: Should Democrats call for the repeal of the top brackets...

MR. CARVILLE: What they need to do is have a tax cut now. And if works
enough and you can afford it, deal with the 2006 tax cut for the top 1
percent in 2006. Deal with the economic crisis we're facing right now
immediately. And that is in the form of payroll tax relief for every working
American.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Gingrich, as you well know, midterm elections of a
president's first term generally go very much against the incumbent. With
those economic numbers, why haven't we seen a potential for a Democratic
landslide?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, I think part of it you just saw with James Carville who
has a terrific sales pitch, and then when you put him right to the test, he
says, "Well, I'm not so sure I'd want to repeal the tax cut from last year
because"--and he goes off and has, I think, as a good pitch as you can get
if you're a Democrat right now.

Here are the facts. The fact is the recession began in the Clinton
administration but wasn't reported very much. The fact is that the Nasdaq
had already dropped 2,500 points under the Clinton administration. The fact
is September 11th hurt the economy. And so two out of every three Americans
look up and say, "OK. I want to give George W. Bush and the Republicans some
chance to get this thing fixed." They then turn on the TV and watch the
corrupt CEO that Carville's describing taken off in handcuffs, so it's a
little hard to make the case the Bush administration isn't willing to arrest
people and prosecute people. They then realize, I think, intuitively that
the tax cut of 2001 may have been, in fact, the best time tax cut since John
F. Kennedy in 1962. The fact is that tax cut gave us more stimulus going
into this terrible period with September 11th and the economic problems and
has actually helped us begin to recover.

And so then they back up--and this is where do I think the Democrats have no
answer. Having failed in the Senate, which they control, to pass homeland
security, to even pass a budget, having failed to pass welfare reform,
having failed to pass pension reform, Democrats are not in a position to
say, "We can deliver." And I think people have a gut sense that the
Republican House, which has passed Medicare drug benefits, has passed a
budget, has passed other tax cuts, that the Republican House can at least
deliver and the president clearly wants to deliver and I think that has sort
of taken the wind out of the sails of the Democrats going in the last two
weeks of the campaign.

MR. CARVILLE: Let me talk about some things they delivered, Mr. Russert.
They delivered a retroactive tax cut that would have given hundreds of
millions of dollars to people like Enron. They delivered protection for
these companies going to Bermuda to not have to pay U.S. taxes while they
enjoyed the benefits of a U.S. economy and U.S. protection. They have
delivered on cutting the SEC budget. They have delivered on all these kinds
of things. The Democrats were the people that first proposed the Department
of Homeland Security in January. The Republicans obstructed this. They
called it an unnecessary federal intrusion.

I'll tell you something else the Democrats are going to block. They're going
to block what President Bush himself said was the first step to completely
privatize Social Security. That is going to happen. If you want--as
President George W. Bush told R.G. Ratcliffe of the Houston Chronicle, this
proposal of his was the first step to completely privatize Social Security.
The Democrats will block that. I'll guarantee you. Senator Lott as recently
as last week said the first thing that they're going to do when they take
over the Congress is appoint 50 conservative judges. You better believe that
the Democrats are going to make sure these judges are appointed on the basis
not of ideology or conservative ideology but competence. So these are the
kinds of things--and I'll tell you what. A little obstructionism here is not
a bad thing. They're going to obstruct this administration's plans to cut
the funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission. I guarantee you
that. So a little obstruction is a good thing here.

MR. GINGRICH: Well, why haven't they even been able to pass--I mean, why has
Daschle not been able to get the Democratic Senate to pass welfare reform, a
pension reform, a budget. I mean, Lott, with an equally divided Senate, got
65 votes for a budget a year ago. Daschle can't even pass a budget.

MR. CARVILLE: Well--well--it--you--you know--you know, Mr. Speaker, let me
tell you, this president has said, and these Republicans believe, the
biggest problem we have with the economy is terrorism insurance. And so
paltry was this that The Washington Post reported that they made fake
numbers to show this. Now, if anybody out there believes the number-one
economic problem in the United States is terrorism insurance, which would
help insurance companies, who have happened to have lost trillions of
dollars in the stock market, then go out and vote Republican. If you think
the problem with this economy is, is that this administration doesn't have
the kind of people in high positions that are competent to deal with it, if
you think we need a tax cut for every American now as opposed to a tax cut
for the top 1 percent two years down the road, then I--I--that's your
choice.

MR. GINGRICH: But...

MR. CARVILLE: But this is what this president said. That's not even a--that
doesn't even pass the laugh test.

MR. GINGRICH: But let me repeat my simple question.

MR. CARVILLE: All right. What? What is it?

MR. GINGRICH: Welfare reform is popular. They can't pass it. Pension reform
is popular. They can't pass it. They can't even pass a basic budget.

MR. CARVILLE: Well, what do you call pension reform?

MR. GINGRICH: So why would people believe the Democrats are going to pass
your tax cut when they can't pass anything else?

MR. CARVILLE: They put a proposal--they were the first people to propose
homeland security.

MR. GINGRICH: But they can't pass it?

MR. CARVILLE: They--again, no, they're not--they can pass it tomorrow. They
can pass one that does that. The pension reform--your definition of pension
reform is people getting less pension. Your definition of pension reform is
privatizing Social Security. They're not going to pass that.

MR. GINGRICH: No! I--wait. I want to come back again.

MR. CARVILLE: That's your definition of it. There are two different
definitions her, Mr. Speaker. You know?

MR. GINGRICH: Let's take your definition.

MR. CARVILLE: Take it. Mine.

MR. GINGRICH: Daschle and the Democrats...

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. GINGRICH: ...can't pass your definition of welfare reform, they can't
pass...

MR. CARVILLE: Sure. Sure.

MR. GINGRICH: They haven't passed any of this.

MR. CARVILLE: They passed--the Democratic--because you were there. President
Clinton passed welfare reform.

MR. GINGRICH: No, no--yeah, but we're talking about now.

MR. CARVILLE: What you say--what you call reform is quite something else.
Just like you call judicial reform putting a bunch of right-wing judges in
there...

MR. GINGRICH: No.

MR. CARVILLE: ...that are going to do away with environmental protections...

MR. GINGRICH: OK.

MR. CARVILLE: ...and do away with protections of women. I don't--just
because you use the term reform--you call passing a budget that underfunds
the SEC an accomplishment.

MR. GINGRICH: Well, I didn't say that.

MR. CARVILLE: I say that's a terrible thing to do.

MR. GINGRICH: I didn't say that.

MR. CARVILLE: Every budget, every Republican wants to cut SEC funding. Just
like every Republican ...(unintelligible). OK. All right.

MR. RUSSERT: Let the speaker in here.

MR. GINGRICH: Wait a second, James. I didn't say they had to pass my budget,
although I would like it. But, I mean, I'm enough of a realist to know Tom
Daschle is not going to pass my budget.

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. GINGRICH: My point is, as Zell Miller said, recently--you're a good
friend of mine.

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah.

MR. GINGRICH: Zell Miller said on the floor of the Senate...

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. GINGRICH: He was voting against Daschle's efforts to get closure on the
homeland security bill because it cheated the president of a chance to get
an up or down vote. And my only point is procedural. The average American
has the common sense out there to have known that over the last six weeks
the Democratic-controlled Senate has accomplished zero, and so I think it
has weakened in every state the Democrats willing to make a strong case
because they can't deliver.

MR. CARVILLE: No. No. Oh, no. The Democrats first proposed homeland
security. The Democrats' Senator Breaux...

MR. GINGRICH: Right.

MR. CARVILLE: ...proposed a compromise that Senator Chafee went along with
that could pass the bar. But this is going to pass after the election. The
Republicans already say, "We want this as an election issue. We're not going
to compromise on anything." This president knows how to compromise. He could
have compromised yesterday. The truth of the matter is he fought this
homeland security for five months. This president fought homeland security
for five months. Now, he just--he can--he's more than willing to wait until
after the election to have an issue. And that's what this is all about.

MR. GINGRICH: No...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Carville, that people in
South Dakota, in Colorado, and Missouri and New Hampshire and, well,
Minnesota, when they go to the polls, are saying, "We have to give the
Democrats control of the Senate or we have to give the president control of
the Senate so he can have both houses?" Do they think like that?

MR. GINGRICH: No. I mean, I don't think that any president gets control of
the Congress for him. I mean, I don't think FDR could do it in '38. I don't
think Reagan could do it in '86. And I don't think that this president can
do it. I think people go in and say: "Of these two people"--I mean, Thune
and Johnson in South Dakota--"which one's going to represent my values?
Which one's going to fight for what I believe in?" And I think that in state
after state, it's coming down to who can deliver--it's interesting, because
there's no big overriding issue thematically. It's coming down to: Who can
honestly deliver? And where you see, I think, a John Thune or you see Jim
Tallon beginning to pull ahead, or you see the base that Norm Coleman now
has in Minnesota, I think it's because people believe they can, at a
practical level, deliver. And I think if Sununu wins against Shaheen it will
be because, in the end, they decide Sununu can be more effective.

MR. RUSSERT: But take South Dakota. Do you think people say, "Well, if we
get Thune, we'll get a Republican Senate, and Tom Daschle, our Tom Daschle,
will no longer be majority leader"?

MR. GINGRICH: No. I think that what they're saying there is, in part--and I
think this is the reason that Johnson's gotten in trouble--that, having
watched Daschle for the last six weeks, I think in part South Dakotans are
worried about getting Daschle's attention back to South Dakota issues and
away from sort of liberal big-union positions.

MR. CARVILLE: Tim, I just want to comment. Look, deliver, absolutely. Right.
But do you really want to deliver a war on Iraq without international
cooperation this January? Do you really want to deliver cuts in the SEC
budget? Do you really want to deliver status quo on the economy? Do you
really want to deliver privatization in Social Security? When these guys
talk--it is not just a question of delivering, Mr. Russert, in America. It's
a question of what--do you want to deliver an immediate 50 right-wing
ideological judges? Because if that's what you want to do, these guys will
deliver it immediately. They'll deliver it so fast your head will spin.

MR. RUSSERT: What will happen in Minnesota now? Will Walter Mondale run for
that seat?

MR. CARVILLE: I--based on what I've seen in the press, I think that he will.
What I found interesting was that the White House called the secretary of
State's office to find out the succession law before the president even went
out and gave any condolences. I also find interesting that a Mr. Walsh in
the Republican Party was in the Star Tribune attacking Senator Mondale this
morning before we've even buried Senator Wellstone.

MR. RUSSERT: But what will the tone of that campaign be? Won't it be the
final week, "Vote for Fritz, do it for Paul," kind of an emotional memorial
vote rather than on real issues?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, sure. I mean, look, the Democrats legitimately will try
to ensure that nobody thinks about who Walter Mondale is or what he stands
for, and that it's an emotional campaign. But I think Norm Coleman has a
strong base statewide. I also think the fact that Walter Mondale--going back
to James Carville's point, Walter Mondale chaired a commission that was for
the privatization of Social Security worldwide. He chaired a commission that
was for raising the retirement age dramatically. He has a strong record of
voting to raise taxes.

And I think that what you'll see on the Republican side is an issue-oriented
campaign that says, you know, "If you want to raise your retirement age
dramatically and privatize Social Security"--Walter Mondale's a terrifically
courageous guy to say that--"and if you want a big-tax-increase person with
a long history of raising taxes, Walter Mondale's a perfect"--but this is a
six-year seat...

MR. CARVILLE: Right. And...

MR. GINGRICH: ...and people ought to vote over how they'll vote, not the
emotions of this week.

MR. CARVILLE: I think what you're seeing right now is--you know, of course,
Senator Mondale is a distinguished person; served as vice president of the
United States Senate, was in the past--what you're seeing is a Republican
attack, which Senator Wellstone is not--by the way, we haven't even grieved
Senator Wellstone; neither has the Republicans. But this all the Republican
talking points. I think people in Minnesota know Senator Mondale quite well
and know his record. They know his dedication. And I think that they are
horrified that Senator Wellstone's memory has not even been paid respect to
before the kind of attacks that you hear now out of Minnesota and right here
on MEET THE PRESS against Senator Mondale, who is probably one of the great
distinguished Americans in the last 50 years.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to another issue.

MR. GINGRICH: But just one thing. Why is it an attack to state publicly
somebody's public positions that they have taken? Now, that wasn't an attack
on Walter Mondale.

MR. CARVILLE: Right. Right. Again, I think the people of Minnesota would
honestly like to grieve the loss of their senator and his family, who did
that--and many of the positions that Senator Mondale has are the same
positions that Senator Wellstone had, who, by the way, was getting ready to
win that race. He was 5 points up in the polls...

MR. GINGRICH: I just...

MR. CARVILLE: ...before this tragic accident happened. But this is the kind
of slash and burn, attack, attack, attack things that you're seeing from the
Republicans, and you'll see this in Minnesota. Norm Coleman has never had a
consistent position on anything. And the truth of the matter is, is Paul
Wellstone did not like him. He liked Jesse Helms better than Norm Coleman
because...

MR. GINGRICH: I...

MR. CARVILLE: ...Jesse Helms and Paul Wellstone stood for something. Norm
Coleman stands for nothing but attack.

MR. GINGRICH: I just want to represent: This is his idea of a calm
discussion, is--we'll let people decide who was slashing and burning just
then.

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Forty years ago, Theodore Sorensen, close advisor to President
Kennedy, was on this program at the end of the Cuban missile crisis. Let's
watch:

(Videotape, November 4, 1962):

MR. RAY SCHERER (NBC News): Has the president ever regretted taking himself
out of the campaign? I'm told some of the candidates regret it.

MR. THEODORE SORENSEN (Special Counsel to President Kennedy): No. The
president had no other choice. Once the country was involved in an
international crisis, it would not be right for him to be engaging in
partisan campaigning.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: In light of Iraq, North Korea, war on terrorism, should the
president not be involved so actively in partisan campaigning?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, I think everybody is going to be able to watch this week
and they'll understand the test of James Carville's analysis earlier as they
watch the secretary of State working the United Nations, as they watch Condi
Rice, the national security adviser, working the United Nations, as they
watch this administration do a number of things. But this president is
deeply committed to being able to get this economy growing again, to being
able to pass an effective homeland security bill, to being able to get
decent judges through the Senate. And I think he believes that this election
matters a great deal about America's future. And I think he hopes that every
American will go out and vote, based on those kind of issues.

MR. CARVILLE: I don't think he should. Look, the Cuban missile crisis was a
first-class tragic crisis for the United States. This thing is real danger.
This thing in Iraq, part of it's just being cooked up by a bunch of people
making souffles in Georgetown dinner parties. The thing is we have
nuclear-tipped missiles 90 miles off the shore. And that's just a fact. And
I think that, to tell you the truth, he probably can do less harm out there
campaigning than he could here in Washington making decisions.

MR. RUSSERT: We want to go--I wanted to ask you about the referendum on
pregnant pigs in Florida, James Carville, but we're out of time, so...

MR. CARVILLE: Oh! Did I cause one of them? You know, are the Republicans going 
to blame me for making a pig pregnant?

MR. RUSSERT: James Carville, Newt Gingrich. We'll be right back.