MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews - Transcript

MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews - Transcript

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEWS: Thank you, David.

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi is running for re-election and has no major primary challenger today. He's the former Senate majority leader, and he might be looking to get back into the leadership one of these days.

Senator Lott, late today President Bush said that Iran situation is moving in the right direction. Let's listen to what the president had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And so we will see — we will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously. The choice is theirs to make. I have said the United States will come and sit down at the table with them, so long as they are willing to suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way. So it sounds like a positive response to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Are we going back to war with another country in the Middle East, do you think?

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R), MISSISSIPPI: I don't see that in the foreseeable future; obviously, you can't take that off the table.

But I think the administration and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others are playing it properly. We've had others trying to talk to Iran. Now they made a little switch and said, no, we'll be engaged, too; I thought that was a smart move.

They have put an offer on the table. Now, it appears that Iran is at least looking at it seriously. I don't know quite what to make of their leadership, and they're very troublesome, but I do think that the diplomatic string in an effort to get them to work with the world community and come up with some solution is worth pursuing to, you know, the final effort.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should go to war if Iran insists on building a nuclear weapon? Should we go to war over that?

LOTT: I don't ever advocate going to war. But, again, you cannot ever say what you will not do when you don't know what the circumstances may be in months or, you know, years from now.

They are troublesome, and we have to be worried about what they might be planning to do or what their threat to the region, to the greater region. And so, you know, we need to try to bring them to their senses. Look, Libya finally got the word.

MATTHEWS: Right. Well, they wanted back into the oil market, too. Let's look at the dollars and cents here.

LOTT: Well, Iran has got a little interest in the oil market, too. They can threaten to cut it off, but who would it hurt the most? Them, 80 percent of their economy...

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question?

LOTT: Yes.

MATTHEWS: I have a tough one for you.

LOTT: All right. Good.

MATTHEWS: Does the president have the authority right now to bomb Iran if he wants to...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... without going to Congress and get a formal authorization for an act of war?

LOTT: The answer I have learned over the years is he probably does, but should not, without consultation and approval by the Congress.

MATTHEWS: But constitutionally can the president commit an act of war against another country? This is the problem I've had with this situation for years now. Why doesn't the Congress insist on its constitutional duty...

LOTT: I think it should.

MATTHEWS: ... to declare war, if we should, and impeach the president if he starts a war without approval?

LOTT: Well, you know, Chris, there are a lot of questions that come into play there. You've been around this town a long time.

MATTHEWS: No, but it's a serious question. Why don't you just say, Senator, that the president has to get authority from Congress to take an act of war against a country like Iran?

LOTT: I think he should. But, obviously, constitutional scholars might argue the other side, but those days are over. The president — this president, any president, before they took an act of that nature, except, you know, in an emergency, having to defend ourselves against an attack, would come to the Congress, and this president would, too.

And, by the way, if he doesn't, it would be a huge problem, because there are worries about erosion of the separation of powers between the branches of the government. It's a legitimate concern.

MATTHEWS: Haven't you heard this story that the president has decided that had will have to act against Iran, because the president who comes after him won't have the stomach for it, so he's going to do it before he leaves? You haven't heard that?

LOTT: I haven't heard that. You know, I presume that that's a theory that somebody could come up with. But, you know, I don't — this president is not going to act precipitously. He didn't with Afghanistan, and he didn't with Iraq.

Now, you can disagree with what was done, but I was involved in the middle of that, getting that Iraq resolution through. I was very much a part of it. We worked very hard to make sure that Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman and others were in on it. I worked with Colin Powell.

MATTHEWS: They were willing partners at that point.

LOTT: Well, they were. Actually, they were very articulate.

MATTHEWS: They were at a sprint to get to the White House, those two guys, to join you.

LOTT: Well, they were very convincing and very articulate the day we stood in the Rose Garden and spoke together in support of the resolution.

MATTHEWS: I remember that. I will never forget it. Let me ask you this, Senator, just to clear that up, so that people watching will have a clear statement. Under your beliefs in the balance of power, the checks and balances, this president cannot bomb targets in Iran without the approval of Congress?

LOTT: It would depend on the circumstances. If it was an emergency situation, he probably could. But if it was a deliberate act, not provoked by emergency circumstances, he should come to the Congress.

MATTHEWS: Let's talk about something that's not quite as important to most people, and that's this issue of gay marriage. The last time this was voted on — you're smiling, because it isn't as important.

Two years ago, you had a vote in the Senate and you were able to come up with 48 votes for cloture. I think it was 47 Republicans. And Ben Nelson, I think, joined you, 48 votes. Do you think you'll do better?

LOTT: I suspect we might do a little better, but I don't think it will be nearly enough.

MATTHEWS: It's 67 you need.

LOTT: You couldn't get anywhere near that.

MATTHEWS: So why the exercise?

LOTT: I mean, if you get — you know, I'd be surprised if we get much more than 51, 52.

MATTHEWS: Why the vote then?

LOTT: There are a lot of people, obviously, that are concerned about this situation, about the erosion that has been or will be taking place through the court actions. There are people all over this country that feel very strongly about it, Republicans and Democrats.

Look, I can't be too critical of the leadership for scheduling a vote on something like this. I mean, I've scheduled votes on constitutional amendment myself when I had that role to play. I did it on the balanced budget issue, and I did it on the flag-burning constitutional amendment. I don't think I ever did it on this...

MATTHEWS: Just to what, accomplish what?

LOTT: Well, first of all, on the balanced budget and on the flag burning, we actually had a chance to win them both. I think one of the criticisms that is understandable is, "OK, why now, the timing of it?" Well...

MATTHEWS: Do you think it's Karl Rove pushing for an election issue?

LOTT: You know...

MATTHEWS: He's been pretty busy lately.

LOTT: ... I wouldn't put it past him.

MATTHEWS: Right.

LOTT: But in the defense of the leader, Bill Frist, scheduling it now, sometime, even as the leader of the Senate, you don't control totally what the schedule may be. Events cause you to have to take something off. Then you've got to put it back on and with good reason.

MATTHEWS: Back home, you're a beloved senator from Mississippi. I think this election will prove it. Do the people back home, when they come up to you in restaurants or at airports, whenever you bump into them, do they bring that issue up? Do they bring it up, or is it something that they don't bring up?

LOTT: It's not brought up in a category like Iraq, or immigration, or energy costs, or even tax policy. But when you go to meetings where you have a number of religious activists or if — you go to church, people do come up and comment on it. It's not something that you don't hear about, but it's not one of those big issues that people do just come up on the street and bring it to you.

MATTHEWS: Why do you think kids — I mean, kids in their 20s, as old as their 20s — seem to be OK with this and people our age don't seem to be so OK with it?

LOTT: Frankly, I'm not sure that's a positive commentary...

MATTHEWS: About our times?

LOTT: ... about our times and our kids. You know, I don't want to be too judgmental. But it is, you know, an evolving or a different standard from what we've had in the past. I'm troubled by it, quite frankly.

MATTHEWS: Everybody has a right to argue this issue. I don't see what's wrong with arguing it.

LOTT: No, no, and...

MATTHEWS: I'm just amazed by the — younger kids are much more turned off to abortion than people my age, but, for some reason, they are shifting on this. Maybe because it's been legal.

LOTT: You know, Chris, we've been through this. You've been through this. With I was in college, I was a little more liberal myself. I remembered arguing this very point, this question of abortion with my own kids, particularly my daughter, who couldn't understand why I would be opposed to that. And then one day she became a young professional woman, and then she became a mother, and now she's much more pro-life than even I am.

MATTHEWS: Yes, yes.

LOTT: Life has changed her. You know the old argument: When you're young, if you're not liberal, there's something wrong with your heart. And when you're older, if you're 60 and you're still liberal, there's something wrong with your mind.

And I do think life teaches you lessons, and sometimes they take you the other way. Sometimes you learn by the difficulties of life that maybe you were too high and mighty, and maybe you were too profound and...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I'm getting to like you too much. Anyway, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who is going to be re-nominated tonight by his party, I'm sure.

Coming up, San Diego voters are deciding who will replace the disgraced former Congressman Duke Cunningham today. Why are the Republicans and the Democrats pouring so much money into this race? What's the national importance of one little congressional race in San Diego? We're going to find out.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13172421/