Leads: The Chris Matthews Show
Announcer: This is THE CHRIS MATTHEWS SHOW.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, host:
Betting on disaster. Do Republicans want Obama to fail so much they're rejecting any deal the president offers? Does this mean no matter what Obama offers, nothing's going to happen on health care or anything else?
Tipping point. Is there anything that might change all this for Republicans? Could there be a point of diminishing returns on just saying no?
And finally, the gift of fear. Does fear of another attack remain a key Republican advantage? By wanting to try the 9/11 mastermind in New York, by reading Miranda rights to the Christmas bomber, has the Obama team given its critics an edge?
Hi, I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to the show.
Katty Kay covers Washington for the British Broadcasting Corporation, Bob Woodward is Associate Editor of The Washington Post, Gloria Borger is Senior Political Analyst for CNN, and John Heilemann covers politics for New York
Magazine and co-wrote the number one best-seller "Game Change."
First up, what an amazing snow week we've had here in Washington. It's been a week of gridlock on the streets and in Congress, which simply shut down. It's reminiscent of 1995, when there was also a blizzard and political gridlock during that government shutdown. President Clinton was frustrated that Newt Gingrich's forces wouldn't even consider compromise.
President BILL CLINTON: (From December 20, 1995) I think it's very important that all of you understand here, you've got a group of people that, in my judgment, do not represent even the majority in the House of Representatives and certainly not the majority opinion of Republicans in America, who are prepared to shut the entire government down unless we agree with their priorities. That's what's going on.
MATTHEWS: Wow. President Obama has that same frustration, Republicans unwilling to compromise.
President BARACK OBAMA: (From Tuesday) Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship.
MATTHEWS: A new ABC/Washington Post poll showed the president is blamed, but less so than the Republicans are. Fifty-eight percent say Republicans are doing too little to compromise with President Obama; 44 percent say Obama's doing too little to compromise with Republicans.
Bob, the president's hit with gridlock now, the Republicans on their side of the wall, his side's on his side. Shouldn't he have predicted it was going to be like this when he got here?
Mr. BOB WOODWARD (Associate Editor, The Washington Post): Well, I think the remedy is—your old boss Tip O'Neill, in the '80s, when Ronald Reagan was president, Reagan set up the Greenspan Commission to deal with the Social Security problem and got the political opposition on board, Tip O'Neill, and they doubled the payroll tax. I think it's—it may not be too late. I think Obama could get the Republicans and say, you know, I—it's part of their talking points, the Republicans, `Let's start over,' but I think they kind of need to start over. No one understands health care. It is totally confusing.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
Mr. WOODWARD: Even the people in the Congress don't comprehend it.
MATTHEWS: But both sides are really getting marks for not getting anything done. Is this going to continue like that, where both sides get hit but the Republicans gain from it?
Mr. JOHN HEILEMANN (New York): Well, right. There's this—there's this pox on both your houses quality to all these polls, both sides getting blamed somewhat equally. Obama actually gets a little bit of a pass on that. Democrats in Congress are getting hit just as hard as Republicans. But Republicans have no incentive to cooperate right now. The independent vote in the country has swung dramatically towards them. They win in Virginia, they win in New Jersey, they win in Massachusetts. Where is the electoral incentive for them to suddenly go along?
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
Mr. HEILEMANN: I just don't—I don't see it.
MATTHEWS: Well, that's the—that's our main focus today.
Katty, the question is about this thing that Bob was talking about. In the next couple weeks they're going to have this summit, it looks like. The question is, are they going to start over square one and build a health care bill or not? And second question, is this really going to be a blame game summit where both sides position themselves to blame the other side for
failure?
Ms. KATTY KAY (BBC Washington Correspondent): At the moment, Chris, it's shaping up to be the latter, which is probably not what the country needs. I mean, if you are going to try and do something, you've certainly got to start again on the issue of cost, which the health care bill as it stands doesn't seem to address. You've expanded the coverage. But the other big part of this, the cost side of it, just hasn't been addressed. But if you look at the mood in Congress and you look at the language that's going back and forth between the White House and Capitol Hill and the Republicans at the moment,
everyone's just pointing fingers.
Ms. GLORIA BORGER (CNN Senior Political Analyst): There's a real downside, though, for both sides if they look like it's a—it's a finger-pointing game of Kabuki here on this health care summit. The Democrats had better get their act together before that summit to figure out what they want, because then they'll look like they're not a governing majority if they can't figure it out.
MATTHEWS: Good point, it's their game.
Ms. BORGER: Mm-hmm.
MATTHEWS: And they've got to win it.
Ms. BORGER: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Or look like they're playing it, at least.
Let's take a look at a ray of hope here during this past week. Here was New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg, a fiscal conservative, on "Hardball" Thursday night. He might be the leader in this budget summit.
(Beginning of clip from MSNBC's "Hardball")
MATTHEWS: Is it possible, even conceptually, for two or three senators to break from the pack and join the president?
Senator JUDD GREGG (Republican, New Hampshire): I think it's possible for a fair number of conservative senators like myself be willing to sign onto a bill that unalterably bends in the out year the cost of health care and uses Medicare savings to make Medicare solvent.
(End of clip)
MATTHEWS: Is there a deal there? Bob?
Mr. WOODWARD: I mean, it's always possible. But, look, here's the reality. I was talking with somebody this week who actually read the whole health care bill, 2,000 pages, twice. And I said, `Would you rather be waterboarded or read that twice?' And he said, `I read it twice, and here is the secret sauce, that it doesn't save money.' And I've heard other people say that, it really doesn't...
MATTHEWS: Meaning the total national cost of health care doesn't go down.
Mr. WOODWARD: Exactly, in a reasonable time frame. And that, in a political world, is just not something you can sell to people.
Ms. BORGER: I don't think there's a deal. I just don't think there's a deal, because you'd have to ask the House Democrats in particular to give up everything they voted on, and those were tough votes for them.
Mr. HEILEMANN: Democrats are running for re-election in 2010. Containing costs on health care is not a Democratic base issue. This is an election where the Democratic base needs to come out to vote. For a lot of people, a lot of Democrats in Congress, as Gloria said, especially in the House, if this bill doesn't achieve any liberal ends—and Barack Obama was very clear about this. He wanted to contain costs, but he also...
MATTHEWS: A liberal end being what?
Mr. HEILEMANN: Much more coverage.
Ms. BORGER: More coverage.
Mr. HEILEMANN: Close to universal coverage. That is the great, cherished Democratic goal. If this bill contains costs but doesn't accomplish anything of that nature, what is the victory for the—for most Democrats?
Ms. BORGER: Well...
MATTHEWS: OK.
Ms. BORGER: Well, there is...
MATTHEWS: Let's take a—Gloria?
Ms. BORGER: Well, there is a victory, though, because the Democrats, on the other hand, do have to prove they can govern. And if they've been working on something for nine months...
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
Ms. BORGER: ...and they have absolutely nothing to show for it, it's a problem. So I will raise the word triangulation.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Ms. BORGER: We've heard that with Bill Clinton. Will the president have to cut a deal and leave some of those House Democrats behind?
Mr. WOODWARD: But—can I—can I be boring and go back to this idea—you know, you almost have to start over with the commission that investigates health care, hospitals, doctors, insurance companies. Make it bipartisan and say—actually take a year so you get beyond this off-year election...
MATTHEWS: OK.
Mr. WOODWARD: ...and really look at it and come up with something that will
work.
MATTHEWS: Can you—Bob, great thought in terms of fiscal responsibility. And everybody's worried about the debt. But can you achieve a social ambition like full coverage or something like it, with a commission? Or does it have to be a Democratic push for something like that?
Ms. BORGER: I think you have...
Ms. KAY: I think a much stronger communications push from the president and from the leadership.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Ms. KAY: You need to make this in people's interest to make, if necessary, some sort of short-term sacrifice for the country, because this is not something America can afford. And that's not a message that's being put out there.
MATTHEWS: Well, the big problem so far is the people that have health insurance don't want to have it rattled or shaken up by something new.
Ms. KAY: Right. They don't—they don't want to give anything up.
Ms. BORGER: Right.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at the political thing here, the gridlock here. As for a bottom line on the political stakes, we put it to The Matthews Meter, 12 of our regulars: Is there any point of diminishing returns—that's Gloria's question—for Republican opposition to Obama? Nine say yes, there is a point where they start to get hurt, diminishing returns for Republicans. Three say there's no way they get hurt, just keep banging Obama and you win.
Gloria, you're with the ones who say there's a limit.
Ms. BORGER: Yeah. I think there is a point...
MATTHEWS: When is it—when is it going to be when they stop gaining on banging him? Because they've been every week on this.
Ms. BORGER: Here's the thing. Yeah, they do. And here's the point. You showed the clip earlier of Bill Clinton being upset at the government shutdown.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
Ms. BORGER: When Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich went head to head, that was when the public said, `Wait a minute, the Republicans are going a little too far here,' and public opinion shifted in favor of Bill Clinton. I think that Republicans have to do something on a jobs bill.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Ms. BORGER: Because, you know what? Then they can—they have more credibility then. They can say...
MATTHEWS: OK.
Ms. BORGER: ...`Look, we tried to work with Bill Clinton on—Obama on health care'...
MATTHEWS: OK.
Ms. BORGER: ...`didn't work. But we're doing it on jobs.'
MATTHEWS: You disagree. You disagree, John.
Mr. HEILEMANN: I disagree.
MATTHEWS: You think the Democrats and Republicans are smart to just keep hitting him hard, blaming everything on Obama and it's going to work in November.
Mr. HEILEMANN: Now, right now, for this year...
Ms. BORGER: Mm-hmm.
Mr. HEILEMANN: ...being anti-Obama helps Republicans with the Republican base. Being anti-big government helps Republicans with independents. I don't see where the advantage is for them...
MATTHEWS: OK.
Mr. HEILEMANN: ...in this time horizon to suddenly shift on those things.
MATTHEWS: OK. You agree, Katty. You agree. It's no win—no lose for them.
Ms. KAY: I—yeah, I agree. The anti-government, anti-establishment feeling is very real out there in the country. The Democrats control government, and so they're the ones that suffer most from this. Unless Obama can actually produce concrete results between now and November—and I think that's what people want.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Ms. KAY: They want competence in Washington, they want action in Washington, and they're going to blame Obama if he doesn't get it.
MATTHEWS: Well...
Ms. KAY: Now, the risk—the risk for Democrats during the Bush years was that if they kept saying no and if they criticized Bush too much, they got accused of being unpatriotic. There's no downside for Republicans in that respect.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me just—let me just start here about the health care, just to finish that one up. Next couple weeks there's going to be a summit, it looks like. Is this the last chance saloon for health care in this presidency?
Ms. KAY: Yeah, I think this is the last chance.
MATTHEWS: Bob?
Mr. WOODWARD: No. I mean, I'm going to go back and say it again. You need to start over and you need to get the facts.
MATTHEWS: So they could do it. But won't they have to start that process this next two weeks?
Mr. WOODWARD: They—look, people don't have the facts.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Mr. WOODWARD: Everyone gets up, including the president, and they say, `Oh, there are all these extravagant costs.' Where? Who's responsible? That requires a detailed investigation, as boring as it is.
MATTHEWS: OK, you don't think it's too late in the game.
Ms. BORGER: You know...
MATTHEWS: Gloria, the next two weeks, is this the endgame?
Ms. BORGER: ...I think they have the facts, I don't think they have the political will.
Ms. KAY: Right.
MATTHEWS: OK, is this it, the summit?
Ms. BORGER: And I don't think they have the political will now, and I think it's...
MATTHEWS: It's dead anyway.
Ms. BORGER: ...make or break.
MATTHEWS: John, any chance the next two weeks? Is this the last chance?
Mr. HEILEMANN: They will come to that summit not to praise health care, but to bury it.
MATTHEWS: OK. Before we—well, there's very Shakespearean. Before we break, here's a photo caption challenge for you viewers, something new here. Take a look at this official White House photo. Look at it. President Obama entering that retreat up in Baltimore two weeks ago where he faced down those House Republicans. See, that's—by the way, that's Republican Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican...
Ms. BORGER: Ray LaHood.
MATTHEWS: ...playing blocking back for the president. E-mail your caption—mine is the Chattanooga Choo-Choo, I don't
know—thechrismatthewsshow.com.
And we have some pretty pictures, by the way, that show you Washington is never so sparkly as in a big snow like this week's, the Capitol, the monuments, the White House never looking better. Giant snows in our Washington's past have sometimes been metaphors for what was going on at the time. When Jack Kennedy was inaugurated back in 1961, the snow was deep and the cold was bone-chilling. It seemed a metaphor for his youth and his vigor as the new president. And remember the steam coming out of Robert Frost's breath there? Look at it there. What a time that was.
The snowy second Reagan inaugural of '85 may have been morning in America, but boy, was it a cold morning. The swearing in was actually forced inside by a wind chill factor of minus 25. Here was NBC's Douglas Kiker.
Mr. DOUGLAS KIKER: (From January 21, 1985) This is where it was supposed to have taken place. The president would have been sworn in here. This is thick glass, bulletproof glass. Then he would have addressed the crowd, looking out towards the Washington Monument there, a crowd estimated at 140,000 people. Well, then the cold swept in and let's call the whole thing off. Now he'll be sworn in again in the rotunda.
MATTHEWS: And when the blizzard of January '96 hit DC it was another metaphor, at that time for the government shutdown, which had gone on for weeks.
(Beginning of clip from January 8, 1996)
Mr. MATT LAUER: NBC's Bob Hager is in the nation's capital this morning and, believe it or not, the government is now shut down because of the weather, not because of the budget.
Bob, good morning.
Mr. BOB HAGER: That's right. This was the day the government shutdown was supposed to end, but forget that. Not only is the government shut down, but just about everything else in town is shut down. This is Pennsylvania Avenue, the main drag here, and there's nothing stirring.
It's being called one of the East's worst snowstorms in 70 years. In Washington, the Clintons trudged through the weather to church, but Senators Dole and Graham were snowbound and had to cancel campaign appearances. One government employees' union said this is God's revenge on the politicians for the government shutdown.
(End of clip)
MATTHEWS: And this time Congress just gave itself the whole week off.
When we come back, has the Obama team fallen into the same old Democratic trap of looking weak on national security? Has the botched promise to close Gitmo, the effort to try that 9/11 mastermind up in New York and the mirandizing of the Christmas Day bomber raised the old question about Democrats? Plus, scoops and predictions right out of the notebooks of these top reporters. We'll be right back.
(Announcements)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back. We've been talking about the stand-off now between the president's—over the president's domestic program, especially health care. But the political fighting over national security has really gotten hot. Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal editorial page called it "Cheney's revenge," Republican success undermining confidence in the Obama team on national security, miscues about closing Guantanamo within a year and not doing it, moving to try that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed up in New York City and in our criminal courts, and mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber before he could be fully interrogated.
Bob, it's like a Republican rap sheet on the Democrats, and it's growing, and they're going to use it, it looks like.
Mr. WOODWARD: Sure they are. And the Democrats and the Obama administration have made some serious mistakes in these areas, not only in terms of substance, but how it looks. And I think—in fact, I know that it was—it really rattled Obama that they screwed up on the Christmas one...
MATTHEWS: Was he wrong to delegate the decision making about the trial of the—of the mastermind of 9/11 to his attorney general? Should he have held onto that power?
Mr. WOODWARD: No. I—look, what's the president deciding an issue like that? They should have used common sense and somebody should have checked with the security people and said, `How much is this going to cost? Two hundred million dollars for a trial? No thank you.' You know, we can—deficit...
MATTHEWS: Well, whose fault is it that—whose fault is they were diddling around with going to New York?
Mr. WOODWARD: This is one of these things that should not get into the White House.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Mr. WOODWARD: Somebody should have enough experience to realize...
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
Mr. WOODWARD: ...`We got to ask some questions about this.' But the political price Obama could pay in this area could be serious, particularly if there's another attack that works.
MATTHEWS: Katty, one of the things the Republicans are honing in on, and I think it's smart, is that Democrats don't have an instinct for what this battle with terrorism's about. It's about intelligence.
Ms. KAY: Mm-hmm.
MATTHEWS: It's not about having a nice trial for the Christmas bomber, or even getting a criminal conviction. It's about finding out who put him up to it. And it seems like the Democrats weren't smart to know that was the question when they picked the guy up in Detroit.
Ms. KAY: I think even more than that, it's about protecting America above all else, above the idea of a criminal trial or the legal procedure. I was out in Missouri speaking to a bunch of tea party people just a couple of weeks ago, and one of the things that really struck me is that almost at the top of their list, way up there with big—their dislike of big government and the establishment, is a sense that the country is not being led by patriots. That they...
MATTHEWS: Really?
Ms. KAY: They feel that...
MATTHEWS: What do they think the motive is of the Democrats?
Ms. KAY: They feel that the Democrats and that this White House in particular are not putting America's national security interests above...
MATTHEWS: Well, what are they accused of doing?
Ms. KAY: ...those of the rest of the world. They accuse the Obama White House of kowtowing to international demands on things like trying to close Guantanamo Gay**(as spoken)**and give people civilian trials.
Ms. BORGER: What you had...
MATTHEWS: Is it just incompetence, John, or is there a sense that they don't get it, that Democrats don't get the need to protect the country first?
Mr. HEILEMANN: Well, that's certainly the Republican talking point. And I'm—it's not clear to me that there's any evidence right now, so far in the data, that shows that Obama has actually lost much ground on national security. But I will say it goes to—it goes to character. I mean, I think it goes—this is something that Bob and I were talking about before.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Mr. HEILEMANN: I—you know, Obama, I think, is so confident in his own abilities in terms of national security. He's so confident that he kind of is a little bit blind to the vulnerability of him and the vulnerability of his party, historically, on these issues.
MATTHEWS: Right. Gloria?
Ms. BORGER: I think Americans are worried that we're not "connecting the dots" again, and that was the phrase post-9/11 and it's the phrase now. Obama...
MATTHEWS: Is it that he can't do the job, or he doesn't have the right instinct to do the right job, which is protect the country, not have a nice legal system?
Ms. BORGER: I think—I think people are worried that he doesn't have a tough enough instinct. During the campaign we always used to ask, you know...
MATTHEWS: Instinct.
Ms. BORGER: ...`Is Barack Obama tough enough?' And I think what you're seeing from the White House right now is this real pushback, saying...
MATTHEWS: This is scary stuff politically.
Ms. BORGER: ...`Yes, we are.'
Mr. WOODWARD: But Obama...
Ms. KAY: Well, and the risk...
MATTHEWS: You put this together, guys, and this is scary stuff politically. If he's accused of not having a natural patriotism, think about this country first, not being a one-worlder, if he's accused of not having an instinct to go for the intel and connect the dots, if that scene is not his—not his ability, then he's got a problem.
Ms. BORGER: Right. But...(unintelligible).
Mr. WOODWARD: But the idea—I mean, certainly you can find some people who are going to question his patriotism. I really think that's unfair.
Ms. BORGER: Right. Yeah.
Mr. WOODWARD: I think he takes it seriously.
Ms. BORGER: Absolutely.
Mr. WOODWARD: I think he's working on it. And what we know about terrorism, unfortunately, is you can be lucky or unlucky. You can have the best system, the best people, and somebody's going to get through.
Ms. KAY: Oh, I agree that it's unfair. But look at the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts. One of the key things that people spoke about was terrorism. There is a sense that he doesn't get that.
MATTHEWS: I'm waiting to read the Bob Woodward book, aren't—we're all waiting to read the Bob Woodward book later this year...
Mr. WOODWARD: I'm waiting to finish it, too.
MATTHEWS: OK. When we come back, scoops and predictions, coming back, from the notebooks of these top reporters, TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. Be right back.
(Announcements)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back.
Katty, tell me something I don't know.
Ms. KAY: Anyone who thinks America's debt ratio is not a problem should look at Greece this week. It is causing havoc in Europe. America doesn't have the same rules as the Euro zone, but the Chinese are looking at Greece and thinking, `How long are we going to carry on bailing out this country?'
MATTHEWS: Oh, wow. Bob Woodward?
Mr. WOODWARD: Iran is going to be in the headlines sometime this year in probably many ways: the internal politics, their various weapons programs, which are escalating. There is a game going on here that involves national security, the Middle East, the—all the issues we're talking about.
MATTHEWS: Any chances...
Mr. WOODWARD: How serious Obama is about this...
MATTHEWS: Will Israel attack? Will Israel attack?
Mr. WOODWARD: Oh, of course it's possible.
MATTHEWS: Yeah. Gloria?
Mr. WOODWARD: Republicans running the Senate Campaign Committee are very excited about what they're calling the trifecta, which is getting Republicans in Barack Obama's seat, Joe Biden's seat and Harry Reid's seat.
MATTHEWS: All the empty seats.
Ms. BORGER: You got it.
MATTHEWS: That's a good point.
Mr. HEILEMANN: Harold Ford Jr. has had a rough start to his potential primary challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand in the New York Senate Democratic primary. But most of Wall Street or a lot of Wall Street is still behind Harold Ford, and the reason is because they're mad at Chuck Schumer and they see him as this is a way of punishing Schumer if Gillibrand is...
MATTHEWS: Big New York Magazine story coming.
Mr. WOODWARD: Yes, right.
MATTHEWS: When we come back, the BIG QUESTION of the week. Behind the scenes, we keep hearing that Republican leaders, the governors especially, hope that Sarah Palin doesn't run. But will they organize behind the scenes to stop a Goldwater-style disaster? Be right back.
(Announcements)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back. In this week's Washington Post/ABC poll, 71 percent say Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president. But some very skilled analysis shows a clear path through key primary states for her to actually win the GOP nomination. And that brings us to this week's BIG QUESTION: Will Republican leaders, governors, etc., take steps to stop her, to block her from winning the nomination? Katty Kay?
Ms. KAY: Well, the worry for Republicans is of that figure, a majority of Republicans don't think that she's qualified to be president either.
MATTHEWS: In that poll.
Ms. KAY: But if they lay out the path and they see that she is going through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and on up to Michigan, then I think they would go for a winner, if they thought—if they think she can do it.
MATTHEWS: Republican governors will buckle to it.
Mr. WOODWARD: She'll take herself out. I don't think she's running. I think she loves the speaking fees, loves the attention. It's like Colin Powell 15 years ago. I remember everyone saying, `Oh, he's running for president.'
MATTHEWS: Bob Woodward, I love a real prediction. Sarah Palin won't run, Bob Woodward. Gloria Borger?
Ms. BORGER: Oh, I think the Republican establishment is going to try and deep six her, I honestly do.
MATTHEWS: OK, you're with that theory.
Ms. BORGER: There's a—yeah.
Mr. HEILEMANN: Republican Party is the party of primogenitor. It's the, `It's your turn.'
MATTHEWS: Is it her turn?
Mr. HEILEMANN: It's not her turn.
Ms. BORGER: Not her turn.
Mr. HEILEMANN: It's not her turn. And they see her—if they put her on the ticket, she'll be—she'll be—she'll be...
MATTHEWS: Will they try to kill—will they try to croak her? Will they kill her in her crypt?
Mr. HEILEMANN: She'll be Goldwater if she gets—if she got the nomination. They don't want that.
MATTHEWS: And they—are they going to try to stop her?
Mr. HEILEMANN: They'll stop—of course they will.
MATTHEWS: They're going to try to stop her. OK.
Thanks to a great roundtable: Katty Kay, Bob Woodward, Gloria Borger and John Heilemann.
That's the show. Thanks for watching. Happy Valentine's Day. See you here next week.
