MSNBC "Meet the Press" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Congresswoman, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

REP. BACHMANN: Good morning, David. A pleasure to be with you this morning.

MR. GREGORY: So you heard Speaker Boehner. My question to you is, under what circumstances would you support an extension of the payroll tax cut through 2012?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I didn't support it a year ago when it was first proposed, and the reason why I didn't is because it, it denied $111 billion to the Social Security trust fund. I didn't think that that was a good thing to do last year. I don't think it's a good thing to do this year. And remember, the reason why President Obama proposed it in the first place was to create jobs. There isn't one shred of evidence that that created jobs. So it defeated its purpose, plus it's put senior citizens at risk by denying the $111 billion to the Social Security trust fund.

MR. GREGORY: But the...

REP. BACHMANN: All it's doing is adding to the debt.

MR. GREGORY: The actuary for Social Security takes issue with that in terms of accelerating insolvency for Social Security. And, you know, last, last summer during the debt fight, you made the point on this program that the debt ceiling should not be extended, in your view, because the American people were against extending it. So, by that logic, Congresswoman, look at the polling. Fifty-eight percent of those polled favor extending the payroll tax cut.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, if you go back to last summer, what we should have done is had all 535 members of Congress sit down together and deal with this problem of overspending because the question at that time was, should we raise the credit card limit so that the country can go an additional $2.4 trillion in debt? That's all we're, we're doing right now. We're putting our American people more and more in debt. And I will tell you, all across Iowa, all across South Carolina, all across New Hampshire, people are so tired of seeing the government put them more in debt. When I came into Congress in January of 2007, the country was $8.67 trillion in debt; today it's $15 trillion. Next year it'll be $17 trillion. We're acting like Greece and like Italy, and that's what people are frustrated with. They want us to act like a first world nation, not like what President Barack Obama's doing. He's acting like we're a banana republic. We've got to get our act together and stop spending money that we don't have.

MR. GREGORY: You're not--I mean, you're seriously calling the United States acting like a banana republic compared to the sort of debt issues that, that the eurozone countries have had?

REP. BACHMANN: What, what I'm doing is I'm--what I'm doing is saying that what--the decisions that Barack Obama is making is acting like a banana republic. It's absolutely irresponsible what President Obama is doing to get behind measures to, to increase spending to such a level that we're going into debt $1.5 trillion every year. This compares to President George Bush. Back in 2007, our debt for the entire year was $160 billion.

MR. GREGORY: Congresswoman, that just misstates the record.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, we topped that just in the month of November alone.

MR. GREGORY: I mean, the Bush presidency, the...

REP. BACHMANN: There's no comparison. We're talking...

MR. GREGORY: ...the, the debt--wait a minute, Congresswoman.

REP. BACHMANN: David, let me just finish.

MR. GREGORY: No, wait a minute. I just want to stop you for accuracy.

REP. BACHMANN: Let me just finish. We're talking...

MR. GREGORY: For accuracy, Congresswoman.

REP. BACHMANN: ...we're talking 10 times.

MR. GREGORY: For accuracy, the debt exploded under the Bush administration.

REP. BACHMANN: For accuracy. For accuracy. David, David, then, then let me finish. Do a comparison. I agree with you that there was too much money that was spent under George Bush. But for the year 2007, the debt for the year was $160 billion. The debt for this last year was about $1 1/2 trillion. That's almost 10 times more in debt than George Bush. And just for the month of--for the month of, I think it's November of this year, it was more than the entire year for 2007. So there's no question that the debt has just skyrocketed under, under President Obama in comparison to George Bush.

MR. GREGORY: Let me just point out, I don't want to appear to be cutting you off. Sometimes the satellite delay can exacerbate that, so I wanted to make sure you could finish your point. Let me ask you about...

REP. BACHMANN: Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: ...Iowa. What do you have to accomplish? Do you have to win Iowa in order to keep going in this race?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I'm intending to win Iowa. We're working very hard here, and we're seeing the momentum shift in my favor. And we have endorsements coming out from people all across the state. Just in the last few days--in the last five days, we've identified 1,500 new supporters. So we're adding more and more people all the time, and we think we're going to do very well on January 3.

MR. GREGORY: You've got to take on Newt Gingrich. He's the front-runner there. In the debate, you seemed to have a particularly tough exchange with him about some of the issues in this race, and I'm going to play a portion of that.

(Videotape, Thursday)

FMR. REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA): Sometimes Congresswoman Bachmann doesn't get her facts very accurate.

REP. BACHMANN: I think it's outrageous to, to continue to say over and over through the debates that I don't have my facts right when, as a matter of fact, I do. I'm a serious candidate for president of the United States, and my facts are accurate.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Besides the normal debating of the issues, you, you took particular exception to the way he was speaking to you that night. Do you think he was singling you out? And why?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I do. It was obvious that he was. In the previous debate, Newt Gingrich had made a similar charge, and yet PolitiFact came out afterwards and said that I was right in what I said. Newt Gingrich wasn't able to give any contrary argument to the fact that he did take $1.6 million from Freddie Mac. And he took that money and then influenced senior Republicans to continue the practice of funding Freddie Mac. I had also pointed out that Newt Gingrich himself had gone to the Republican National Committee and had urged them to not pull any financial support from any Republican candidates who were for the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. He wasn't able to deny either charge. All he was able to do is say that I had my facts wrong. My facts aren't wrong, it's just that he's memory challenged.

MR. GREGORY: Well, you, you, you, you said that he was singling you out. You've also said this week that, you know, he sometimes talked to you as if you were a student of his. Do you think sexism motivates him? Again, your words were, "I am a serious contender for the presidency."

REP. BACHMANN: Well, the--what he said sounded very condescending, and it sounded like he was talking down to me as though I was one of his students. I' not one of his students. As I said, I am a serious candidate for the presidency. If he disagrees with my assertion, then he needs to make that claim and put it on the table.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

REP. BACHMANN: But, the fact is, I'm right about take--about him taking $1.6 million for his work on behalf of continuing Freddie Mac.

MR. GREGORY: The, the, the--in fairness to Speaker Gingrich, on the merits, there has been a lot of discussion about some of your assertions in the course of the debates. PolitiFact put out a statement saying, in fact, they did not back up your particular assertions that you made with regard to Freddie Mac. And here in the Des Moines Register this morning and the endorsement for Mitt Romney, there's an observation...

REP. BACHMANN: But, David, David, David...

MR. GREGORY: ...about you--if I can just finish.

REP. BACHMANN: ...what I said...

MR. GREGORY: If I can just finish.

REP. BACHMANN: David...

MR. GREGORY: This is what the Des Moines Register writes this morning. An observation about Michele Bachmann, "Overall impression: An impressive fireball who can absorb and regurgitate tons of information, even if some of it turns out to be inaccurate."

REP. BACHMANN: Well, and the Des Moines Register doesn't say what that inaccuracy would be. They, they don't point that out. And also, regarding what you just said prior, PolitiFact was regarding my statement regarding health care. I had made a statement regarding health care. They said that that was accurate. I wasn't saying that it was regarding Freddie Mac. But my comments regarding Freddie Mac are accurate.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about a discussion of the future of the judiciary. This has come up as a big debating point in Iowa and on the stage the other night. Here is what you said as that discussion went forward in the debate the other night.

(Videotape, Thursday)

REP. BACHMANN: What we need to do we need to do about it is have the--both the president and the United States Congress take their authority back. And I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbiter of law is the court system. It isn't.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: I want to be clear here. Would a President Bachmann ignore decisions that you disagreed with that were issued by the Supreme Court?

REP. BACHMANN: No, we don't ignore those decisions. But, again, we need to remember that the United States Congress and the president of the United States have the power and authority to pass law. We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true. It--the, the, the--Congress, together with the president can pass law and change what the, what the Supreme Court says.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But that...

REP. BACHMANN: And also they have authority over the court system to limit them...

MR. GREGORY: But that's a point of fact. But nobody--but that's not in dispute, Congresswoman. That's never been in dispute. Of course Congress can pass laws. The issue here is sort of an attack on the judiciary that do you believe that Supreme Court justices should be elected? Would that solve the problem?

REP. BACHMANN: No. I--no. The, the Constitution is set up the way that it should be. The problem is the Supreme Court or other members of the court have passed decisions that aren't in conformity with our Constitution. That's what we take issue with. That's why it's important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign in conformity with their will. What's wrong is when judges make laws in conformity with their own opinion. They can't make laws. It's the Congress and the president that make laws.

MR. GREGORY: Well, then what's the remedy? How would you inject more accountability into the judiciary?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, the best accountability is--would--if judges step across the line, there are--there are measures already contained within the Constitution, and the Congress needs to utilize those measures in the Constitution.

MR. GREGORY: So it would be open season on judges who issue rulings that politicians don't agree with.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, what do you mean by that?

MR. GREGORY: I'm asking you what you mean. In other words, if you--if there are decisions that you--if--it's up to President Bachmann or Congresswoman Bachmann as to whether the independent judge has made a decision that you think is wrong?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, again, judges make their decisions, and then it's up to the legislatures if they want to overturn what that judge states, that's up to them to overturn that decision.

MR. GREGORY: But that, that's the case now. So why are we talking about it?

REP. BACHMANN: That's what I am talking about, taking advantage of the power that they have and utilizing it.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you quickly about foreign policy. You had a back and forth with Congressman Paul about the threat that is posed by Iran. What do you think is the best way to deal with that emerging threat? And you don't believe that the United States can be in the lead in attacking Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon, do you?

REP. BACHMANN: We have a very serious problem on our hands. I sit on the Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives. We have a very serious problem. We have the IAEA report, which I have with me. It was released in early November, and this tells the world from the International Atomic Energy Agency that there is a very real threat and a likelihood that Iran could very soon gain a nuclear weapon.

MR. GREGORY: But my question...

REP. BACHMANN: That's something that the world needs to grapple with.

MR. GREGORY: ...what would you do, what would President Bachmann do to deter that threat? You don't believe that the United States should lead an attack, do you?

REP. BACHMANN: I would have every alternative and option on the table because Iran must never have a nuclear weapon because they have stated unequivocally once they gain a nuclear weapon, they will use that weapon to wipe Israel off of the map and they will use it against the United States. As recently as August and September of this year, the president of Iran again declared that sentiment. And if there's anything that history has taught us in the last 100 years, it is this, when a mad man speaks, we should listen. And I take this threat very seriously because, more than anything, I believe in the safety and the security of the American people.

MR. GREGORY: But just to be clear, in 2008 you told your hometown paper, when this threat was still very present, that the United States cannot lead this effort because we have too much work to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Has your view changed?

REP. BACHMANN: Why, I don't know what you're referring to, but this is my opinion is that we need to stand for our own safety and our own security. And if you--if we have a nation that is intending to use a nuclear weapon against us or against our ally Israel, this will change the course of history forever. This must never happen. We need to look this threat in the eye. And the problem with Ron Paul is that his statements were very dangerous. He was denying that--the International Atomic Energy report, first, that it existed; second, that it meant anything. And this is something that's very real, very serious, and we need to take that on. The next president of the United States needs to appreciate this threat and needs to know exactly what to do to address this threat.

MR. GREGORY: All right. Congresswoman, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much, as always.

REP. BACHMANN: Thank you, David.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source