11p show
Guests: Bob Greenstein, Ari Melber, Ezra Klein, Howard Fineman, Phil Kerpen, Judson Phillips, Adam Green
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: We‘re live covering the late night drama in the White House. After a day of no progress in talks to avoid a government shutdown, the president had Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid return to the Oval Office tonight for a second night of talks.
After President Obama just announced they had a productive meeting, only one thing remains certain: if they agree on anything, the Tea Party won‘t like it.
Good evening again from New York. We are 49 hours away now from a shutdown of the federal government. And there is no compromise agreement yet. President Obama just finished a 90 minute negotiating session with House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the White House.
Afterward, the president came to the briefing room and gave an update on the negotiations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We just had a productive meeting with Speaker Boehner, as well as Majority Leader Reid. We discussed the impasse that we are currently at with respect to the budget. I thought the meetings were frank. They were constructive.
What they did was narrow the issues and clarify the issues that are still outstanding. I remain confident that if we are serious about getting something done, we should be able to complete a deal and get it passed to avert a shutdown. But it is going to require sufficient sense of urgency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: The president also promised that he would stay involved until an agreement is reached.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: It would be inexcusable, given the relatively narrow differences when it comes to numbers between the two parties, if we can‘t get this done. So my expectation is that folks are going to work through the night. In the morning, I will check in with the respective staffs of the speaker and the majority leader, as well as my team here.
If we haven‘t made progress, we are going to go back at it again. We are going to keep on pounding away at this thing, because I am absolutely convinced that we can get this done. There is no reason why we should not be able to complete a deal. There is no reason why we should have a government shutdown, unless we have made a decision that politics is more important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Senate Leader Reid and House Speaker Boehner then went to the microphones.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER: We have had a long meeting with the president. It was very honest. We have narrowed the issues significantly and we‘re going to continue working. Our staffs are going to work through the night.
The Speaker and I will get back together tomorrow morning and see how they did and continue. I have confidence that we can get this done. We are not there yet, but hope lies eternal.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER ®, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We did have a productive conversation this evening. We do have some honest differences, but I do think we made some progress.
But I want to reiterate there is no agreement on a number and there is no agreement on the policy writing. But there is an intent on both sides to continue to work together to try to resolve this. No one wants the government to shut down.
We are going to continue to work throughout the night and tomorrow. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now, Ezra Klein of the “Washington Post” and MSNBC, and the founder and president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Robert Greenstein, and Ari Melber, columnist for “The Nation Magazine.” Thank you all for joining me tonight.
ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos did an interview with Speaker Boehner today that will air tomorrow morning. But this clip was just posted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: Listen, there is no daylight between the Tea Party and me.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: None?
BOEHNER: None. They want us to deal with this crushing debt that will crush the future for our kids and grandkids. There is no daylight there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Ezra Klein, there seems to be some daylight between the speaker and the Tea Party. Maybe about—I don‘t know -- 40 billion dollars of daylight between them. You sure they want to cut spending, but how much?
EZRA KLEIN, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: I think the speaker wishes there were less daylight than there actually is. Remember that at the beginning of this, Speaker Boehner‘s number was 33 billion dollars—or actually 32 billion dollars, if I am remembering correctly.
The Tea Party‘s number is about 40 billion dollars beyond that. So there is a lot of space between them. If John Boehner could take the deal right now, he would. The question is whether or not—not whether there‘s daylight, whether or not John Boehner can survive what will happen if he takes a deal the Tea Party doesn‘t want.
O‘DONNELL: Bob Greenstein, you have seen so many of these late night crisis meetings at the White House, budget summits of this kind. The staff, the president tells us, is going to be left there all night, working all night.
That would be White House staff. That‘ll be Senate staff. That will be House staff trying to work something out. Where are the kinds of details? Where are the places they go in the budget in these all-night sessions when they are looking for the spots where they can close the gaps?
BOB GREENSTEIN, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES: Well, Lawrence, there really have been three sources of disagreement. One is, what is the size—what‘s the depth of the cuts? Second has been all these policy riders killing environmental regulation, repealing the health care law.
What‘s gotten a little less attention is the third area of dispute, which is even if they agree on the billion dollar number, the amount they are cutting, what are the specific cuts you make to get to that number? So the Tea Party people and Boehner, representing them, have been pretty intransigent in saying, well, the cuts that go in have to be cuts that came out of our bill, our HR-1 build.
The White House is saying, look, we have some alternative ideas that are sound or less damaging in terms of hitting education, hitting poor people, costing jobs, some better designed cuts. There has been resistance to some of those.
So I suspect that part of what they are doing or most of what they are doing tonight is for the dollar level of cuts that is common to both of them, trying to see if they agree on what are the specific cuts you take to get to that number.
O‘DONNELL: Bob, if you were advising the president on this, what would you tell him he absolutely could not cut? What would be the cut he could not make that Boehner might be asking him to make to close a deal?
GREENSTEIN: Lawrence, there is not just one or two. The Republican bill is filled with really unjustifiable cuts. Cutting Pell Grants so fewer low income children can afford to get a college education, even as states facing budget crises are raising tuitions.
Cutting thousands of low-income children off of Head Start. Cutting off things that are life lines to help people have a better opportunity in life. Or cutting the IRS budget. Does this make sense if we have a budget deficit, that we want to do less to go after tax cheating and let more of the money that is legally owed be uncollected?
There are a large number of things that really oughtn‘t to be defensible. and my understanding is that the White House has a list. They have a list of alternative cuts that they believe are much less damaging. They will be fighting that out.
The other key point, Lawrence, is the that Ezra just mentioned a couple minutes ago, which is the president is already entirely at the level. He has agreed to the same dollar level of cuts that John Boehner said he wanted on February third.
Each time the president moves, they have changed the goal posts. First Boehner was forced for deeper cuts by the Tea Party. Then, when the president and the vice-president moved a week or two ago to their latest level, they understood they had an agreement with Boehner because they had moved all the way to his original level.
He went and talked to his caucus and he rejected that number. So I am little concerned that even if we seem to have a deal tomorrow, even if it is something Boehner would agree to himself, if he takes it back to his caucus and they reject it, we are back at the starting line.
O‘DONNELL: Ari Melber, let‘s talk about the Democratic politics about this and what happens when Harry Reid takes a deal back to his caucus and what happens with President Obama in trying to make a deal here. It‘s striking to me that we saw a great deal of tension within the Democratic caucus and certainly a great deal of tension in December among liberal support groups of President Obama‘s, who were terribly, terribly disappointed that there was a compromise made on the top tax rate, top income-tax rate, personal income tax rate.
I am not hearing that kind of agitation from President Obama‘s left side in this story as it has developed in the last couple of weeks. He seemingly has been allowed to move rightward in a compromising direction with John Boehner and still not achieve a deal, as he then continued to move rightward budgetary toward Boehner.
What is the pressure that the president has to think about, that Harry Reid has to think about on the left side of their caucus as they move toward some kind of deal with Boehner?
ARI MELBER, “THE NATION”: I think there‘s two types of pressure. One, as you say, is the question over the budgeting priorities and how this affects the country at large and, of course, Democratic constituencies. I definitely agree with the remarks that the type of onerous cuts to education, particularly low income education, are something that is near and dear to a lot of people. And bad, not something you want to do in a recession.
That‘s on the substance. On the politics, though, I think people get increasingly frustrated when Obama goes more than halfway, as even he admits—that‘s not a factual debate at this point—and then still have to keep compromising.
That stylistically is something that has been a complaint on the left on a host of issues for this presidency. So I think if you get up to a shutdown scenario, you do see a rallying affect. And we‘re going to see a real partisan reaction, which may redound to Obama‘s benefit even if there are criticisms about sacrificing too much or putting too much on the table.
To the other end, though, if he cuts a last minute deal that gives away even more and hurts people and hurts communities, then yes, I think there will be an outcry about that. This is, of course, the same week that he has announced his reelection campaign.
O‘DONNELL: Ari, it seems to me that Democrats generally, and liberals generally bring a larger sense of an overall responsibility to these kinds of negotiations. They all fear a government shutdown. They will all tell you here is what‘s wrong with a government shutdown. Here‘s the damage it will do.
The Tea Party cheers for government shutdowns. Mike Pence went out on the Capitol steps today speaking to a Tea Party group that cheered for him because he said, you know, shut it down. If they don‘t do what we want, shut it down. They don‘t feel anything defensive about some failure of a larger responsibility, a larger sense of responsibility on their side.
MELBER: I think that is exactly right. Donald Rumsfeld famously weakness is provocative. If you are weak, you will get attacked more. That can be true in a political context. Responsibility, unfortunately, can also be provocative, if the other guy is willing to blow up the building and you are not.
I think that is frustrating here. The problem with the Tea Party on this issue is that for them failure is victory. That is why I think some of our attention to the exact numbers, frankly, may be missing the boat, because at least part of the caucus—again, I don‘t say this about every Republican in Congress, but it is clear that part of this caucus views the failure of American government, the failure of this budget process, and the failure of even what Speaker Boehner says he wants to achieve as victory.
When people see failure as victory in our government, they are very hard to negotiate with.
O‘DONNELL: Ezra, we know a lot of these staff members are going to be working all night. Surely, Gene Spirling (ph) is going to be in there staying up all night. Not his first time staying up all night on budget negotiations and a White House.
What do you think the details are? What do you the rocks are that they are looking under for some savings here, some trims here that they just might be able to put something together that gells?
KLEIN: Spirling would be staying up all not either way. He prefers it that way. There—but it goes back to what Bob said. So there is question of mandatory spending and non-mandatory spending. The Republicans have wanted to cut out of this 12 percent of the budget called non-defense discretionary.
That 12 percent of the budget tends to focus on programs for low income people. It‘s a lot of education programs, a lot of worker retraining programs.
Democrats want to cut out of mandatory. They want to slow the growth of things in Medicare and Medicaid, in the bigger meatier part of the budget where, because they tend to focus on politically stronger groups, they don‘t get cut as often. And that means that there is more waste or easier places to cut.
So when they are looking around, what they are looking for is things that, frankly, they think they can cut without too many people being affected. The problem is right now, for reasons that they have actually had a lot of trouble explaining, republicans have been very loath to allow cuts out of the non-defense discretionary area.
Boehner has made this a real point of contention in the debate. So the question isn‘t whether or not they can find the cuts. You can find eight billion dollars of cuts in the multi-trillion dollar federal budget. The question is whether or not they can get Boehner to sort of walk down off of this cliff weird cliff he‘s gotten on, that he will only allow cuts from this tiny slice of the budget known as non-defense discretionary.
O‘DONNELL: Bob Greenstein, there is talk of another continuing resolution, another stopgap measure, that buys them a week. But it would buy them a week with a package of what—it varies what you hear on estimates, but possibly 12 billion dollars in cuts—additional cuts to get to that week. Does the president and the staff of the Democrats involved in this—do they all have to be concentrating on what that proposal looks like, as well as trying to work out the larger deal?
GREENSTEIN: They have been thinking about it, but I think their main focus is on the larger deal. And this possible additional continuing resolution you mentioned, if it comes forward, I don‘t think it will be like the last several. The last several were smaller in terms of cuts. And the Republicans agree when they did the last few temporary resolutions, first four billion in cuts, then another six billion in cuts, to do cuts both parties can agree to.
I believe that the Republican strategy, if they do yet another continuing resolution, will be to put in 12 billion of cuts, a much larger number, for only a one-week extension, and to make a lot of those 12 billion dollars in cuts things that are really painful, in my view of egregious, the kinds of things that the president and Democrats really can‘t and shouldn‘t agree to.
And then add to it funding the Pentagon for the year, while leaving education, environment, all the social programs hanging out there to dry. I think that if they do that, it may be a strategy to try to come up with something that extends for a week that isn‘t acceptable, as a way to make it look like it‘s the Democrats‘ fault if there‘s a shutdown.
Of course, the thing that I keep going back to, the part that doesn‘t get enough coverage in my view, Lawrence, is that all last year we didn‘t get this done because the Republicans prevented there being 60 votes in the Senate to pass a full year appropriations bill unless it had a certain level of cuts in it.
In September, Harry Reid threw up his hands and said I will take that level of cuts. They wrote a bipartisan bill. And in December, after the election, McConnell blew it up and moved the goalposts because the House Republicans, at the behest of the Tea Party, told him to.
O‘DONNELL: Very, very important point, that that‘s where this all begins. Ezra Klein of the “Washington Post,” Bob Greenstein of the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, and Ari Melber of “the Nation” Magazine, thank you very much for joining us all of you.
KLEIN: Thank you.
MELBER: Thank you.
GREENSTEIN: All right.
O‘DONNELL: Still to come, what do the American people think about the shutdown and who will they blame? A look at the new NBC News/”Wall Street Journal” poll with Howard Fineman.
And Michele Bachmann says she is betting against a government shutdown.
That is not what her Tea Party followers want to hear.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: And inside the politics of a government shutdown. Tonight, NBC News and the “Wall Street Journal” released a new poll showing where Americans stand on the budget and the shutdown threat. Seventy six percent believe an agreement will be reached in time to avoid a shutdown; 19 percent think a shutdown will happen.
When asked who would be more to blame for a shutdown—more to blame, 37 percent point to Republicans in Congress; 20 percent would blame Democrats in Congress; and 20 percent would blame President Obama.
And when asked if leaders in the House and Senate should make compromises or stick to their positions and risk the shutdown, 68 percent of Democrats say make compromises; 26 percent of Democrats oppose that. Only 56 percent of Republicans say hold firm; 38 percent favor compromise.
With me now, MSNBC political analyst Howard Fineman, editorial director of the “Huffington Post.” Thanks for joining me tonight, Howard.
HOWARD FINEMAN, “HUFFINGTON POST”: I like Howard Find Me better.
O‘DONNELL: I don‘t know where that came from. You know, there‘s something -- there some sort of enforcement strength you have around me, Howard.
But, Howard, we have a little more than a majority of Republicans saying absolutely stick to your guns and shut it down. But it sounds like what we‘re hearing from Senate—from House Republicans is all of them are willing to stick to their guns. But they don‘t want to shut it down.
They‘re saying both things. They‘re saying we won‘t compromise, but we won‘t shut it down. One of those things is going to have to turn out to be untrue.
FINEMAN: Yes. And I think what this is a battle over here, Lawrence, is for the hearts and minds of independent, fair-minded voters. And believe me, there‘s still a few of them left in this country.
What‘s happening right now is that the parties are playing to their own constituencies, really, on the one hand. The Democrats are trying to portray the Republicans as the shut it down, shut the government Tea Party led party. And the Republicans are trying to portray the Democrats as irresponsible.
But I think the key here is which of the two parties and which leaders in the end are going to look more reasonable in this situation? The numbers are split in the polls, but I think the advantage that the Democrats have - or that the Republican Tea Party people, I think, a fair number of them are going to celebrate if there‘s a shutdown.
And the fact that they‘d be celebrating would I think reveal what the true part of that party is right now, whatever John Boehner says.
O‘DONNELL: Howard, let‘s listen to what President Obama had to say in New York just a few hours ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I know that there are times where the work is frustrating. I know there are times when it is hard. There are times when change can seem painfully slow to come by. There are times where some of you may have said, you know, I don‘t know what Obama‘s doing there.
There are times where you lose hope. Times when folks in Washington focus on scoring points instead of solving problems. And some of you may just put up your hands and say, politics is too tough.
But in those moments when we start asking ourselves if change is possible, we‘ve got to remember what we‘ve done together over the past few years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Howard, here is the president saying, there are times some of you are thinking, you know, I don‘t know what Obama‘s doing there. Now he clearly is trying to reflect what could be the public‘s—what surely is the public‘s confusion about what‘s going on in Washington, trying to give them a feeling that he knows what they are feeling.
But is he going too far there in possibly presenting himself as not in control of the situation?
FINEMAN: Yeah, I don‘t think that particular sound bite did him any good politically. He‘s the president of the United States. He‘s not observing this situation like a reporter would, philosophically. He‘s supposed to be leading the situation. And indeed, that‘s what he‘s trying to do by inviting the leaders of Congress down to the White House tonight.
I think that the president needs to project the sense that whatever happens -- whatever happens, he‘s going to try to be in charge of the situation. Barack Obama prospered in the campaign in 2008 by being the adult in the room. Ironically, John McCain ran as the guy with experience, but it was Obama who seemed the more mature and secure and focused guy. You don‘t get that from a sound bite like the one we just heard.
O‘DONNELL: Howard, there‘s another item in this poll that I find interesting. This is the question: is there a particular type of budget cut that is so unacceptable to you personally that you would prefer to have a budget stalemate and federal government shutdown? Sixty one percent say they would prefer to keep the government running, and that no cuts are completely off the table.
That strikes me as a problem for Democrats, because Democrats are trying to hold the line on cuts and say absolutely no more cuts. Sixty one percent are saying, do whatever you have to do on any cuts, even the ones that I like, that I don‘t want you to cut. Do whatever you have to do to keep the government running.
FINEMAN: Well, I think beyond that, it‘s a sort of cry for action from the American people. Lawrence, I think everybody out there knows that we‘ve got a problem with spending. And they, indeed, want members of Congress and the president to compromise on some kind of reasonable plan that—in which everybody would give up something, every age group, every interest group, every special project, all the way across the board, including the military budget, including the wealthy taxpayers and so forth.
And I think what the American people—the big loser in this situation, Lawrence, is the system. It‘s the faith of the American people and the ability of Washington and the federal government to run things, to make decisions. And I‘ve been covering this for a long time, covering the budget for a long time, covering Washington for a long time. I‘ve never seen a situation where this city seems so helpless and unable to make a decision.
O‘DONNELL: When you watch the players and their public comments about this, I don‘t think there‘s any doubt that the player who fears being the biggest loser here is John Boehner, the one who has the most difficult situation to manage. MSNBC political analyst Howard Fineman, thank you for joining us tonight.
FINEMAN: Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Still to come, the results of the shocking election that could challenge the collective bargaining law in Wisconsin.
And Tea Partiers protesting on Capitol Hill today say they want the government shut down.
Michele Bachmann, the leader of congressional Tea Partiers, disagrees. Is the Tea Party now at war with itself? That‘s coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE PENCE ®, INDIANA: And if liberals in the Senate would rather play political games and force a government shutdown instead of accepting a modest down payment on fiscal discipline and reform, I say shut it down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: In the Spotlight tonight, the Tea Party held another rally outside the Capital today. The crowd of a few hundred, slightly larger than the last Tea Party rally, called for a shutdown of the government despite what the congressional leader of the Tea Party said today on MSNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA: I think what we need to do is end this thing for 2011, because as you know, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats did not do their job. They didn‘t pass a budget. They didn‘t fund government for this year. That‘s why Republicans are involved in this exercise.
FOR SUBSCRIBERSCBP leaders cut out of Trump ad buy decision
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSCBP leaders cut out of Trump ad buy decision
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
I actually think that we will come to an agreement. And then we‘ll move on to 2012. And then you‘ll see, I think, some dramatic cuts in government spending.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now, Phil Kerpen, vice president for Americans for Prosperity, a Tea Party group who organized that rally today. Also, Tea Party nation founder Judson Phillips. Thank you both for joining me.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: Phil, your group, which is actually funded by David Koch and has—
PHIL KERPEN, AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY: Among 80,000 other donors, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Well, he‘s put in more than anybody else. Wouldn‘t you agree he‘s your biggest donor? He‘s your chairman?
KERPEN: I would not agree with that. We don‘t disclose specific information.
O‘DONNELL: -- how many the millions the Kochs have given you, right? You live off their money and you don‘t—
KERPEN: Just like Center for American Progress doesn‘t say how much they get from the Sandlers and --
O‘DONNELL: So we‘ve established on this show and others have established that there are many different Tea Party operations out there, things that call themselves a Tea Party, different degrees of phoniness involved. Some of them are legitimate grass roots connected. Yours I don‘t think qualifies in that description.
KERPEN: We have 1.7 million activists nationally.
O‘DONNELL: But let me get to what Michele Bachmann said today. You heard her saying that she believes we should just get this 2011 deal done and move on. You heard Mike Pence say to your rally today, shut it down. Who is right? Michele Bachmann or Mike Pence?
KERPEN: I think there was a very important predicate in the statement there from Mike Pence that you‘re trying to skip over, and that is if we cannot even get modest spending reductions, then we ought to call the Democrat‘s bluff and get to a shutdown, so we can deliver what the vast majority of the American people want and what they asked for in this past election, which is cuts to spending.
The theme of the rally today was cut spending now. The 61 billion dollars in cuts the Republicans are calling for is tiny in the context of the 1,650 billion dollars that we are borrowing and spending this year, that we do not have to spend.
I think that that‘s very modest. That‘s quite a compromise to start with. so the idea that they‘re somehow being unreasonable or extreme I think is a little bit silly.
However this gets resolved, I also agree with Michele Bachmann that the much bigger fight over government spending comes in the budget for 2012 and the 10 year vision going forward. I think Chairman Ryan‘s put together a very, very good budget that gives the country a choice of the long term fiscal path we want to be on, and whether we want to cut 6.2 trillion dollars from what the president wants to spend. We‘re strongly supporting Chairman Ryan on that.
O‘DONNELL: OK, Phil, so and David Koch are in favor of a government shutdown if you don‘t get everything you want.
KERPEN: I can‘t—
O‘DONNELL: You heard the polling. The vast majority of the American people don‘t want a government shutdown under any circumstances. Judson Phillips, welcome back to the show. You represent that Tea Party group that is the for profit version of the Tea Party, which you‘re having a varied amount of luck with on different events of yours.
What do you make of where Michele Bachmann is on this versus where Mike Pence is? It seems like they‘re not in the same place when I listen to them.
JUDSON PHILLIPS, TEA PARTY NATION: I‘ve heard the cuts. I think they‘re both pretty much in the same place. It‘s the same place a lot of us are at.
We want to see some serious, real cuts in government spending. We have a huge debt crisis. How do you get into a debt crisis? You get a lot of debt. So we have to do something about it.
We want to see some serious cuts. If the serious cuts happen, hey, then let government run on. But if it‘s going to be business as usual in Washington, a lot of folks say hey, just the heck with this, shut the government down if they‘re not going to do anything serious about our debt problem.
O‘DONNELL: Judson, how hard—let‘s assume that we get to a vote where it‘s about keeping the government running on a package that‘s closer to where the president is right now than where you wanted to go. If some Republicans vote for that, some Tea Party Republicans vote for that, giving what in the past has been a standard speech, which is in effect, I hate this package, I hate it, but I‘m going to vote for it in order to keep the government running, and I‘m going to fight the bigger fight on the next budget the 2012 budget and going-forward—would you, in your end of the Tea Party, condemn that vote?
PHILLIPS: Well, you‘ve got a lot of very vague terminology in there. Would we condemn it? Well, to quote Bill Clinton, it depends on what it is? Well, what all is involved in this? We can‘t go into the details in the limited amount of time we‘ve got right now.
What I can say is a lot of people in this movement want a lot of serious cuts, much more serious cuts, much more substantial cuts than what even John Boehner‘s been proposing. As I‘ve said, Boehner‘s proposal of cutting 33 billion, that‘s not a cut, that‘s a joke.
O‘DONNELL: Yes, OK, that‘s what I‘m trying to get at. Phil Kerpen, what I‘m trying to get at is you are the pressure groups that are forcing this number to move in the direction it has been moving. You have successfully put the pressure on John Boehner to move it that way.
Judson Phillips has said some very disparaging things about John Boehner, things the Democrats don‘t say about him, but you have succeeded in pushing him in that direction.
What I want our audience to hear is how far are you willing to push them? You especially have tremendous amounts of money that you can move in the direction of helping their opposition in a primary or something like that, if they don‘t vote the way you want them to. If they voted on, say, a cut package of 35 billion, if Boehner was able to pick up a couple more billion, would that be the kind of thing where you guys would go, let them vote on this, and we‘ll fight on the next budget?
KERPEN: Well, I think that a number like that would be very disappointing from simply a spending standpoint. It would depend on whether policy riders are attached. We would have to assess the specifics—
O‘DONNELL: So they have to kill Planned Parenthood. If they don‘t kill Planned Parenthood, what do you do?
KERPEN: Well, I actually think that the riders related to EPA and FCC regulations that can destroy millions of jobs are much more significant from the perspective of my organization.
O‘DONNELL: those are the ones that the Koch brothers care about the most, right?
KERPEN: I can‘t speak for them. Come on, stop being silly.
O‘DONNELL: Come on. They pay you to speak for them.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: You made a number of comments I want to refute that I think are very important. The House Republicans have passed a bill to fund the government through the end of this fiscal year. They have also passed a short term funding bill. Senate Democrats have failed to pass a bill to fund the government through the end of this fiscal year. They‘ve failed to even put forward a proposal.
They are not putting their cards on the table and saying where they stand. From where I am, it looks like they‘re the ones trying to engineer a government shutdown so they can blame it on Republicans. I don‘t think they should be able to get away with that.
O‘DONNELL: All right, Phil Kerpen and Judson Phillips, we got to go.
Thank you very much for joining us tonight.
PHILLIPS: Thank you.
KERPEN: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Coming up, a come from behind surge in an election in Wisconsin yesterday, the first since the collective bargaining battle. What the results say about the recall campaigns facing Republican senators in that state.
And brave faces from Fox News and Glenn Beck as they, quote, “proudly announce,” end quote, the cancellation of Glenn Beck‘s show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s rewrite, which—no surprise—concerns the breaking news that after two years of embarrassing headlines and lost sponsors, Glenn Beck is stepping out of the Fox News lineup. He will shed his last tear on his Fox News show sometime later this year. The network was not specific on the exact cancellation date of Beck‘s show.
Neither Beck nor the network offered a word for why the third highest rated Fox News show was going off the air. At the close of his sermon tonight, Beck said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I took the job two years ago because I thought I had something important to share. I really thought that if I could prove my case that something wicked this way was coming, something in America was wrong, America would listen. And they have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Now, I for one don‘t think it‘s fair to say that America is listening, unless all of America is listening. That‘s 300 million people. Or at least most of America is listening, say 151 million people. Beck‘s show, on its best night, is watched by less than one percent of America.
So for him or any cable news host to think that America is listening is something far beyond delusional. And as good as Beck‘s ratings are—and they are good—they used to be much better. They have dropped 40 percent from Beck‘s peak. And it has become impossible for him to get advertisers to the show for anything other than survivalist products and gold, which is a survivalist product of sorts.
And those advertisers cannot afford to pay much for commercial time. Beck said something tonight which actually explains why he can‘t get major corporate advertisers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: If you have watched this program and you really—I ask you at times, hear me, you know what I believe is coming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: That is exactly the problem. He believes the end of the world is coming. He most recently believes the end of the world is coming because of the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan.
Now, if you‘re trying to get people to buy car insurance or plan for their future in any way, you don‘t want to advertise on a show that says the end of the world is coming. In fact, there‘s very little you want to advertise on a show like that, because if the end of the world is coming, nothing you buy is going to cheer you up.
So Beck actually managed to have a television show that was a success in the ratings, but a failure as a business. That couldn‘t possibly have bothered Beck, because—
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Our only business is the business of freedom and our country at this time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: The truth of the matter is his only business is the cult of Beck, and that business earns him over 32 million dollars a year. Only a couple million of that is from his television show. But his television show certainly drives business to his other businesses. So his other businesses in radio, the Internet and public appearances may now face a decline because of the collapse of his television business.
Beck and Fox News said today that they will try to find other projects to work on together. Nothing specific, just the general, you know, we‘re going to try to do some things together in the future. That is the standard kiss off in show business.
And Beck is in show business, make no mistake about it. That‘s what Larry King got when CNN could finally no longer bear watching the poor man get destroyed in the ratings every night by Rachel. And that deal has worked out pretty great for Larry King.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONAN O‘BRIEN, “CONAN”: I want to talk about something I‘ve been thinking about recently, which is that—well, Larry King went off the air recently. Broadcast legend, he retired, I really miss him. I really do. I love Larry King.
That‘s why tonight I‘m thrilled to announce that Larry‘s back with a brand new show, and here‘s the best part. It‘s going to be broadcast from the rafters of my studio. So now, live from 30 feet above me, Larry King. Larry?
LARRY KING, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Conan.
O‘BRIEN: Larry, if you don‘t mind, I don‘t have a lot of time. I‘m going to continue doing my show, OK?
KING: All right. What the hell?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Tonight in Wisconsin, with 100 percent of the precincts reporting, the liberal backed candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Joanne Kloppenburg, claimed a shocking come from behind victory over Republican Governor Scott Walker‘s choice, the incumbent conservative Judge David Prosser, by 204 votes out of the nearly 1.5 million votes cast.
Kloppenburg‘s campaign had become a proxy war for the governor‘s attempt to eliminate collective bargaining rights in the state. Her seat on the state supreme court will be the decisive vote on whether Wisconsin‘s anti-union bill is legal.
The close vote will likely trigger a recount and could eventually end up in the courts. Joining me now is Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Thanks for joining me tonight, Adam.
ADAM GREEN, PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: Good to be here.
O‘DONNELL: Adam, you have thrown yourself into what looks like more than one losing battle in politics in the last couple years. You threw yourself into this one right away. How did you pull this thing out?
GREEN: Well, first, Lawrence, let me assure your advertisers that thanks to this fantastic election result today, the end of the world is not coming.
O‘DONNELL: I have been assuring advertisers of that same thing.
GREEN: Good. How did we pull it out? Well, look, Wisconsin has been for the last couple months ground zero in the national Republican war against the middle class. And what we saw today was that they awoke a sleeping giant in the electorate.
Regular people who often times would not vote in a special election came out to vote. It was testament to a lot of hard work and grass roots activism on the ground. but it was also testament to just how out of touch these crazy anti-middle class policies are that the Republicans are pushing.
I think it‘s a harbinger of what‘s to come in the upcoming recall elections and likely the 2012 elections, if Republicans continue to declare war on the middle class.
O‘DONNELL: Adam, I want to take a look at this spot that you are running in Wisconsin, to show people what happens when Adam Green, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, decides to go into local elections that never see this kind of advertising. Let‘s look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As a Republican, my entire life, I‘m appalled at what Scott Walker and the Republicans did. This hurts my family. It‘s about my kids and school.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Whether you‘re a college student like me, or a kindergarten, the Republicans are hurting everyone.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is for my children. This is for my wife. This is for my friends, my neighbors. This is for our community.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Republicans declared war on the middle class. And with this recall campaign, we are fighting back. And we‘re going to win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Adam, you have enough signatures for one recall election already on one Republican senator. What‘s happening with the rest?
GREEN: Well, there are close to being enough signatures for lots of recall campaigns. The folks at the Wisconsin Democratic Party are doing a great job organizing around this. We‘ve been pumping our 25,000 members in Wisconsin into these recall volunteer activities.
And in the very near future, more completions of the signature process will be announced.
O‘DONNELL: Adam, what strikes me about this is you‘re getting voters who were not moved in the actual—the last regular election. They were not animated in that election as forcefully as they are now, now that they‘ve seen what the people who won that election chose to do once they took office.
How can you get that same energy back when you needed it more, which is in that previous election, before they get to see what these people end up doing when they get in office?
GREEN: Right. Well, look, I think there‘s a common thread between 2010 and this. And that is that when party leaders of whatever side lead on economic populism issues, when they speak to people‘s economic needs and wants, that galvanizes people.
What we‘ve seen unfortunately, nationally, is the Democratic party consistently caves, consistently refuses to make the economic populist argument.
And the beautiful thing about this Wisconsin fight, the reason that we‘re so happy that it‘s ground zero in this national war is that the Wisconsin 14, those brave senators, and the Wisconsin Democratic Party there, are actually fighting. They‘re actually working with the public and rallying public opinion to their side, and going to bat against the Republicans, as Republicans side with corporations over regular working families.
And surprise, surprise, people come out of the woodwork to vote.
So our hope is that the National Democratic Party learns the lesson from today‘s election and from the upcoming recall elections, which I predict we‘ll also win. That is when you fight, when you rally the public, when you‘re economic populist in your message, you will win.
O‘DONNELL: Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, they said you couldn‘t do it; you did it. Thanks very much for your time tonight.
GREEN: Thanks, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: That will do it for this Wednesday edition of THE LAST WORD, but our conversation continues on Twitter. You can follow the show using THE LAST WORD hash tag, everything from live Tweeting during the show to the stories we‘re following during the day. You can also follow me @Lawrence.
“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” is up next. Good evening, Rachel.
END
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE, LEAVE THE LINK