MSNBC Hardball - Transcript

MSNBC
SHOW: HARDBALL 19:00

February 26, 2004 Thursday

HEADLINE: HARDBALL For February 26, 2004

BYLINE: Chris Matthews

GUESTS: David Dreier; Bob Kerrey; Rowan Scarborough

HIGHLIGHT:
A Republican Congressman defends Bush's proposal for a gay marriage ban and addresses the issue of decency on the airwaves. Also, he gives an update on how Arnold is doing. Kerry and Edwards debate in California.

BODY:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Tonight, five days before Super Tuesday, is it John Edwards' last stand.

And meanwhile President Bush stays on the offensive. We'll ask Congressman David Dreier how the president's doing out in California.

Plus, why is former Senator Bob Kerry threatening to quit the 9/11 commission?

Let's play HARDBALL.

I'm Chris Matthews.

Former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell married her girlfriend today in San Francisco. O'Donnell says President Bush's call for the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage inspired her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROSIE O'DONNELL, ENTERTAINER: We were both inspired to come here after the sitting president said the vile and vicious and hateful comments he did on Tuesday. It inspired myself, my brand new wife.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Despite the president's call, many Republicans on Capitol Hill say his amendment isn't necessary.

U.S. Congressman David Dreier is a Republican from California, the chairman of the House Rules Committee and a Bush campaign supporter.

Congressman Dreier, why do you think the president believes we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage at this point?

REP. DAVID DREIER ®, REPUBLICAN: Well, first, let me say there was nothing vicious, vile or hateful about what the president said.

I met with him two hours after he made that speech, and he talked about his vision of tolerance and understanding. He just believes, as I do, and I think you do and most Americans do, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

My disagreement is very simply that I believe that we should leave this to the states at this juncture. And I know some people believe we should take steps immediately to move towards amending the Constitution.

But you know from having worked up here with us, Chris, you know, we take James Madison's vision of keeping the Constitution as it is very, very carefully. We look before modifying it.

You know, I've opposed amendments to outlaw flag burning. That doesn't mean I'm a proponent of flag burning. I've opposed an amendment to point member of Congress, if we were to have a catastrophic loss of life here.

And so I just think that we need to allow this to run the course through courts. And I think amending the Constitution should be the last, rather than the first resort.

MATTHEWS: Well, I appreciate you thinking about me. But actually, Congressman, I'm lucky enough, I don't have to take a position on everything like you do. So I suspend judgment...

DREIER: Yes, but I think I know how you think, though, Chris. I think I know how you think.

MATTHEWS: Well, I suspend it on this one for awhile. Let me ask you about the contingency whether the president may be dead right here.

Suppose this May, and it's not much of a supposition. There's going to be a lot of couples from California and other states, gay people, going up to Massachusetts to take advantage of the first state to have recognized legal gay marriage.

And then going back to the states of their origin, where they came from, and asking those states to accept on formal documents, whether they be tax returns, employment documents, whatever, that they're married.

What happens then?

DREIER: Well, Chris, that's when we're going to see the Defense of Marriage Act tested, I believe. And frankly, most of those rights about which you speak, virtually all of us support for every one.

I mean, we want visitation rights. We want those sorts of things to be made available to anyone who wants them.

But I think that when it comes to this definition of the institution of marriage, I don't believe that we should work to amend the Constitution as a preemptive strike on this question. I think that what we need to do is we need to allow the judicial process to work.

Which is basically what my colleague Dianne Feinstein said in response to her successor, Gavin Newsom's actions in San Francisco. She said this should be left to judges. And I believe that's the reason we have a third branch of government, the judicial branch.

And that's the route we should take before any action is taken here in the Congress.

MATTHEWS: The California voters in an initiative voted overwhelmingly for what's called the California Family Code. And in one of its provisions, I read it the other day, it defines marriage the way you did, as basically, male-female.

Why do you have to have court rulings if the public so clearly stated its position in California?

DREIER: Well, obviously, there are interpretations that are made of that. I mean, Governor Schwarzenegger has very firmly called for actual enforcement of the law. He is working with our attorney general in California to make sure that that happens.

And he believes, as I do, and I suspect you do as well, Chris, that you know, within local communities, they-the mayor should not make decisions as to what the laws they want to respect or not respect. And that's really what we've gone to.

And you know, there are often challenges made from initiatives passed in California. And I think you and I have debated the issue of the referendum in California many times in the past. But I think that that is on the horizon as to exactly how that initiative is going to be interpreted.

MATTHEWS: Do you think all those wedding licenses that were issued by mayor Newsom could end up being on disappearing ink? They could disappear when the states-the courts finally get at it?

DREIER: Sure. And I suspect that they will, because that's the law in California. That is California law. And that's the law with which all of those people have to contend.

MATTHEWS: Suppose you lived in Massachusetts and were a member of the state legislature. And you were-picked up the newspaper, the "Boston Globe" one day, and it said a 4-3 decision by state supreme court justices has determined that you as a legislator, elected by your constituency, have to go out and pass a gay marriage law. You have to do it.

Isn't that a concern, as well?

DREIER: Sure. But I will tell you, Chris, the likelihood of my ever being elected to the state legislature in Massachusetts is very, very slim.

MATTHEWS: Well, put yourself in their...

DREIER: I'm not going to do that. I can't do that. What I'm doing-is my job here as a member of Congress is what I'm going to deal with. And at this juncture, I believe having supported the Defense of Marriage Act, it's the right thing for to us pursue that.

We believe the states should handle it as they see fit. They're dealing with it in the state of Massachusetts. We're struggling with it in the state of California, because we've got the governor and the mayor of San Francisco, obviously, looking at this very differently.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your role as chairman of the rules committee. You have to define how a bill is taken up on the House floor. You've got to arrange for the scheduling. You have to arrange for the form in which it comes up and what amendments are in order and all that difficult legislating you have to do.

What will be your position when, I assume, somebody from the Judiciary Committee, the chairman Judiciary Committee reports out a bill to amen the Constitution, to make at this time 28th amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage?

What would your reaction be as chairman of the rules committee? Would you schedule a vote or would you form a vote, or how would you do it?

DREIER: Chris, as you know, your former boss and my former colleague, the great Tip O'Neill was a member of the rules committee and he dealt with these questions on a regular basis.

The rules committee is the speaker's committee. If the speaker of the House makes a determination that he wants to move ahead with this, absolutely. We will support that effort to allow the vote on the House floor.

And if the vote were to be held today, I suspect that on the House floor, I would vote no. But I wouldn't do anything in the rules committee to block consideration. That's something the speaker-the speaker is the one to make that decision. Not any other member, not any committee member, not any committee.

But it would be up to the speaker to, you know, tell me that that is something that he would want to move to the House floor.

MATTHEWS: Does it have the 2/3 now, do you think, 2/3 plus one to submit it to the states from the House?

DREIER: I mean, I will tell from you having talked to colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle. I'm very proud-In fact, we bicamerally, the House and the Senate. A go-slow approach is what I've heard from Democrats and Republicans on this issue.

I guess there are roughly 120 or so co-sponsors of the one amendment, the Musgrave amendment, that is out there. And you know, we're going to allow the House to work its will. And that this will be discussed and considered.

And it's been put forward by the president, though interesting enough, as you know very well, the president of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment process to the U.S. Constitution. It's the United States Congress, both house, with a 2/3 vote and then state legislatures and 3/4 of those are necessary. And on average, it takes about seven years to ratify a constitutional amendment.

And I've-frankly, as I said, I'm opposed to virtually every single amendment that I've seen out there. Save the one that Ronald Reagan wanted, and that was repeal of the 22nd Amendment, which limits the terms on the president. That was his No. 1 priority, Chris, in 1989 when he left the White House.

He wanted to allow the American people to have the freedom to choose whoever they wanted as their president. And as long as they wanted him.

MATTHEWS: That's interesting, because that's one of the other amendments that actually restricts the rights to the American electorate, says you can't do something they want to do.

What is your bet? Maybe you don't want to do this, but I'll ask you. Do you think there's a good chance this won't come to the vote, to a floor vote, before the election this year?

DREIER: I really don't know. I mean, I really don't know. I will say this.

The reservations that have been voiced by the number of my colleagues within the leadership and again, Democrats and Republican, I know that a go-slow approach is what is going to take place. And it's something that, again, may or may not take place before the election. I'm not sure.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the atmosphere on the Hill regarding decency. This is a separate question.

DREIER: Right.

MATTHEWS: The question of decency. We all went through Janet Jackson nonsense. And now we've gone through this, well, big surprise, Howard Stern is gross on the radio. I mean, I was really shocked to hear that. I'm kidding. The fact that he was taken off all the Clear Channel stations in a suspension move. We're not clear how long the suspension is.

Do you think something has turned in American public society against sleaze?

DREIER: Well, let me tell you. Everyone is concerned about First Amendment rights, the right of freedom of expression.

But I do think that when you-I mean, just take the Super Bowl incident. I was shocked. Now there are channels that I can flip to on my, you know, 200 channel cable television and see the kinds of stuff that we saw, on MTV and other stations, that took place at the Super Bowl.

But I think that what we really need to do is recognize that there has been a pattern of providing at least some semblance of warning. I mean, a little indication that this might not be suitable for a 6- or an 8-year-old child to watch.

But I will say that, of course, again on this, I'm very sensitive to this issue of, in any way, encroaching on freedom of expression.

But as far as the sentiment here, well, in the wake of what took place with Janet Jackson, Chris, there's real outrage. I mean, I was stunned and I thought it was very raunchy when I saw this thing on the Super Bowl. Not that I wouldn't stop for more than a second if it were on another channel, but I mean, at the Super Bowl it was very inappropriate.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much. Stay with us, Congressman Dreier, chairman of the House Rules Committee, member from California.

Tomorrow a HARDBALL special report, by the way, on the raging culture wars in this country. We'll take a close-up look at how issues like gay marriage and indecency on TV are shaping the national debate.

We're coming back with Congressman David Dreier. Up next, the "Battle for the White House." We'll ask him about President Bush and how he's doing out in California, a tough state for a Republican candidate.

You're watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Coming up, David Dreier on the "Battle for the White House." And tomorrow on HARDBALL, our special report on the raging culture wars in this country. HARDBALL, back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: We're back with Congressman David Dreier.

And Congressman Dreier, what do you make of the president's sort of beginning of the campaign this week, his attack on Kerry, John Kerry, as being an uncertain man on issues, which I thought was a good strike?

And also a reminder that Republicans stand for getting your tax money back or not getting it in the first place and letting Americans make their own economic decisions.

What do you think of that one-two punch?

DREIER: Well, it was a good strike because it was a very obvious strike, if you look at John Kerry's record, whether it ranged from, you know, the issue of Social Security, the war on terrorism, the economy, all of these things. You know, all the way across the board.

You know, we are seeing the campaign head toward Super Tuesday, and obviously the biggest prize is the state I'm to privileged represent here in Washington, California.

And you know, the interesting thing, too, Chris, is that over the last few days, we have the privilege of having our great new governor. And you know, I was honored in the transition and his campaign when we worked very hard during that recall election.

And Arnold Schwarzenegger really is the opposite of John Kerry, as far as I'm concerned. Here's Arnold offering his, as President Bush is, a very optimistic, positive view of the future. And we've got John Kerry focused on all kinds of negative things.

I mean, they've rallied around this one single thing. And that is, their vitriol towards George Bush. Whereas George Bush, as Arnold, is focused on, you know, reducing the tax burden on working Americans; making sure that we have a strong, secure nation; expanding the rights of individuals; getting the economic engine again.

And we're seeing very positive news across the country. And I think that we're starting to see it in California, as well.

MATTHEWS: Well, Arnold Schwarzenegger, I just saw the "L.A. Times," your local paper, out there today. It's got an amazing poll result.

DREIER: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: What is it, 65-19 favorable?

DREIER: It's amazing.

MATTHEWS: How do you account for that man's incredible leap? He is-Even counting you, the most popular politician in California right now. How do you explain it?

DREIER: Yes, he is. And I will tell you, I just-I am honored as a Californian to have him as our governor. And every single day that he does as well as he does, I think back to the many, many interviews that you and I had when there was so much skepticism towards him as a potential governor.

He's done a phenomenal job. He's done exactly what he's told he people of California he's going to do.

And right now on Tuesday, it's very important that Californians vote for propositions 57 and 58. Why? This is an integral part of the shared goal that Democrats and Republicans in California have of getting our economic engine going. Consolidating debt and then moving ahead with a growth package that will work towards creating jobs. And get our economic engine going again.

I attribute it to the very positive optimistic view for the future, which is very similar to the vision that the president of the United States has.

MATTHEWS: Well, what about, you know, the governor you bounced out there last fall, Gray Davis, was running deficits. He was borrowing money to keep the books balanced.

How is that any different than what Arnold Schwarzenegger has done? He's floating a bond to raise money to pay the debt.

DREIER: Chris-Chris, you get it. The debt that Arnold has is not his. The debt that he has is Gray Davis's.

And what Arnold is doing is he's responsibly setting up to the plate and doing what is necessary-what is necessary to deal with the debt that he inherited.

As we talked about this throughout the recall campaign, you recall and I think you even asked me. Who in the world would want to inherit the mess that Gray Davis had created?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DREIER: And we talked about that time and time again. And Arnold has stepped up to the plate, and he is responsibly dealing with the very serious problem.

Not a nickel of additional debt is being created. What Arnold is doing here is consolidating the debt so that we can, in fact, move ahead.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask but this whole issue. We were talking about the gay marriage debate. A hot debate in California, especially. And then I was asking someone, why can't Ronald Reagan-it's all here-why can't George W. Bush win the California electoral votes come November? Why...

DREIER: You know what? Chris, I think he can win the electoral votes. Is it uphill? I will acknowledge that.

But again, in this battle that we're seeing in the Democratic primary for president in California, they've got this very negative vision.

The thing that troubles me is that if you look at what John Kerry is proposing: increased taxes, increased health care costs, increased legal fees. All the way across the board, his plan would decrease the number of jobs, and it would in fact unfortunately stifle economic growth.

And as we get the word of the very positive developments that have taken place. In California, 1.5 million jobs are tied to trade. And what is it we're seeing? John Kerry and John Edwards fighting to be-to see who's more protectionist.

And that really is the way in which they're headed. You know, they're pandering to the unions on this issue.

And so what we've got now is an opportunity for Arnold Schwarzenegger, with his leadership, to be the model for George W. Bush to carry California.

MATTHEWS: And I wanted to get to one point. I mean, most Californians are against gay marriage and have shown that on the initiative on the Family-the Family Code.

DREIER: And Arnold's against it. Arnold's against it.

MATTHEWS: And the president-And the president is against it. But somebody said to me the other day, I said, "Why is the president so unpopular out there?"

And he said, "Well, because he's against gay marriage."

I said, "But everybody else is, too."

Does coming out too early on this issue, by your lights, enforce the image of him as being a cultural conservative in a way that hurts him?

DREIER: you know, I will tell you, I really don't believe that as we look at this campaign and focus on the things that people care about. You've just said it.

The American people overwhelmingly, in California and across the nation, agree with President Bush that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They agree with Arnold Schwarzenegger on this issue.

And so now we've got that issue, at least addressed. And let's move ahead with the things that are priorities: economic strength, national security, education, those things that we can agree on.

MATTHEWS: OK. Congressman David Dreier.

DREIER: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: House Rules Committee, California. Thank you, sir.