MSNBC - Transcript

Interview

MSNBC - Transcript

MS. MITCHELL: (Off mike) -- years ago Democratic strategist James Carville's words, "It's the economy, stupid," are now echoing more than ever. It is again the economy; the nation's economic slump forcing the White House this morning to come forward with its own economic stimulus plan. You can expect the presidential candidates to focus even more on their own economic plans, they already are.

Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York and the powerful, all-powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will have the final say on the House side on taxes.

Welcome. Good to see you, Congressman.

REP. RANGEL: Good to talking with you, Andrea.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, first of all, you heard what the president had to say today, $145 billion. Is it targeting it the right way, and is it realistic to expect Congress and the White House to get over their differences and come up with a package quickly enough, within 30 days to do it different?

REP. RANGEL: Quite frankly, we've been working on this for weeks, Republicans and Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee; have reported to our respective leadership. They are working with the Senate and working very closely with Secretary of Treasury Paulson. So it's really no great surprise that the president has outlined in general what all of us have agreed to because we think that having a bipartisan package is very, very important to the stimulus of the economy and that we all agree, even though we may not agree to each and every part of it, that we have to get it out there timely.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, Hillary Clinton has already issued statement criticizing what the president did, saying it is not targeting the relief to lower and middle-income people. I guess she's objecting to some of the business incentives. Do you agree with her, she's your candidate for president? Or do you agree with the president, and are you willing to make some compromises with the White House?

REP. RANGEL: Well, I agree with her that if we have to be timely, if we have to be targeted and have to get it out there fast, certainly going the business route is not going to do it because if you lower the rates or you make certain that there's accelerated appreciation, these things take time in order to get into consumers hands and to spend it.

However, we are very anxious to make certain that we have a bipartisan package, and so to the extent that Republicans insist in having something in there for business, as long as it's limited because -- and temporary, and I don't know how you'd do that -- we will have to accept it because we do know how important it is not to have a Democratic plan, but to have a bipartisan plan.

MS. MITCHELL: Now, you've already made sure that the president backed off on what some of his own advisors wanted, which was to make permanent the Bush tax cuts.

That's a non-starter as the far as the Democrats in the House are concerned and the Senate, correct?

REP. RANGEL: Certainly, Mr. Paulson knows that is so inconsistent with what a package like this to stimulate the economy is about. Saying what you're going to do in 2010 -- by no stretch of the imagination is this going to assist in the problems that we're facing today.

MS. MITCHELL: We're looking at pictures right now of Secretary Paulson, who's briefing the White House Press Corps.

Let me turn to politics now, Charlie. We've got this South Carolina primary coming up. The African-American vote is now really skewing towards Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has lost her lead there, and it seems to be after the Iowa results that a lot of African-Americans are saying, yes I can, yes we can, we can have an African-American president. Why are they wrong?

REP. RANGEL: Well, I'm not saying anybody's wrong. I think it's a great credit to the United States of America that we can have, in a major party, two outstanding candidates -- one's a woman, one's an African-American -- and so I think that's terrific. Quite frankly, it's difficult for me to understand the importance of South Carolina and Iowa and New Hampshire. I think that, ultimately, February 5th is going to have Senator Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate.

Having said all of this, I mean, I've worked with the Clintons, I've worked with Senator Clinton. She's done an outstanding job for New York and the country. And so I know her. I don't know how persuasive that would be to the people in South Carolina that probably don't know either one of them well, but I know it's going to be an exciting race. And as far as the national politics is concerned, I'm thoroughly convinced that Hillary Clinton will be our candidate.

MS. MITCHELL: Now, some of Hillary Clinton's supporters have said things that are offensive to some of the Obama people and vice- versa. Let me read to you something that Andy Young, a great civil rights leader, former mayor of Atlanta, former U.N. ambassador, said on a recent webcast devoted to African-American issues. Supporting Hillary Clinton, he said: "Hillary Clinton, first of all, has Bill behind her and Bill is every bit as black as Barack."

Where does that get the Clinton people to try to claim that Bill Clinton is every bit as, quote, "black as Barack Obama?"

REP. RANGEL: I don't think any attention should be paid to silly remarks like that. Andy Young is a big jokester, but as a credible American and former ambassador and member of Congress, he would be the first to say that this is a bad joke at a bad time, and it just wasn't politically funny. There are a lot of people that try to get away with funny things that are not funny, that are awkward and embarrassing to the campaign, and this is one of them.

MS. MITCHELL: Do you think that Obama and others were correct in taking offense with what Hillary Clinton said in the first instance about the relative importance of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and LBJ in accomplishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

REP. RANGEL: I don't accept your description of it. From what I understood, no one can deny that President Lyndon Johnson would never have signed the 1964 Voting Rights Act had it not been for the tremendous thrust and support of the dedicated and the late prince of peace, Dr. Martin Luther King. And nobody can challenge that Dr. King could not have signed that into law himself.

And so yes, anyone that takes offense at saying that Dr. King was not the president and could not have signed it, and probably would have to admit that neither would President Johnson have signed it if it wasn't for the great work of Dr. King, I don't see it. Unless their ego would have them to believe, on either side, that Obama was Dr. Martin Luther King and Hillary was representing President Johnson, and the latter doesn't make any sense either.

So I don't really see the offense and I think the press has taken this and made more out of it than they should have. However I am more than pleased that the candidates recognize it's not good for them, it's not good for the party, it's not good for our country, and that the issue should for all practical purposes be buried.

MS. MITCHELL: All right, thank you very much.

Source