MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

But first, the debate over the war in Iraq.

Senator David Vitter is a Louisiana Republican and Senator Jack Reed is a Rhode Island Democrat.

First question, a HARDBALL question for Senator Vitter. Do you support a vote if the vote is to attack the president‘s plan to escalate the war, to send more troops to Iraq?

SEN. DAVID VITTER, ® LOUISIANA: I support multiple votes on the Senate floor to give senators every opportunity to clearly articulate where they‘re coming from. The obstacle, Chris, isn‘t having a vote. It‘s how many different resolutions and votes we‘re going to be able to have. For some reason, Senator Reid is adamant at holding it to just two. And there is a great diversity of opinion, perhaps particularly on the Republican side. And our caucus wants more ability to express different views and have different resolutions. All we‘re asking...

MATTHEWS: Why are you afraid of having a vote on whether to oppose the president‘s escalation, a simple up or down vote? Because that‘s the question at hand right now. There‘s a lot of things to talk about, but the key question is: do you support the president‘s decision to increase the number troops by 21,000?

If you had to vote on that right now, Senator, would you vote for that escalation?

VITTER: I‘d vote for it, Chris. You‘re...

MATTHEWS: Why not let other people vote the way they want to vote?

VITTER: ... you‘re very good at reading the Democratic talking points...

MATTHEWS: ... that was probably a clever line twenty years ago.

But let me ask you...

VITTER: ... but to answer your question directly, I‘ve said publicly, going back a week ago, that I would support it. But I think we need to have a full, open debate on the floor of the Senate, which is what the Senate is supposed to be about.

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, Senator, since you‘re talking about Democratic talking points, what I‘m talking about. We have a NBC/"Wall Street Journal" poll that shows the great majority of the American people do not support this move to increase the number of troops in Iraq. I think the American people would like to know why they can‘t have a vote on that particular point of view.

Your answer?

VITTER: Chris, I gave you my answer, and I‘ll repeat it. We can have a vote on that. What the Republican caucus is simply asking for is the ability to bring one additional resolution to the floor because there is great diversity of opinion, particularly on the Republican side, and people want to express themselves.

You‘re right, we should speak clearly about the president‘s plan. But particularly for folks who want to reject the president‘s plan, which is clearly their right, I think they also have a responsibility to put forward a plan, a way forward in Iraq.

And you have one vote, you can‘t have that open debate. The U.S. Senate is supposed to be about free and open debate. And why that‘s trying to be narrowly constrained and managed and choreographed, I don‘t know.

MATTHEWS: Senator Reed, what‘s wrong with offering the Republicans a chance to put up their option?

SEN. JACK REED, (D) RHODE ISLAND: I think they should get a chance to

put up their option. What they want to do is put up two options and

attempt to confuse what is very straightforward and simple. And I think

you made it pretty clear. This is a vote of whether you support or you

don‘t support the president‘s proposed increase in forces in Iraq. That

vote should come to the floor of the Senate. We should have an opportunity

indeed, I believe we have an obligation to vote up or down on that.

If there‘s an alternative view that the Republicans want to present, that too should be considered. But to try to put multiple proposals on the floor simply to gain this with numbers and with confusion—I think this is the point: we deserve an up and down vote. More importantly, the American people deserve an up and down vote.

VITTER: Well, Chris...

MATTHEWS: What the Gregg—Could you tell me about the Gregg resolution that‘s sponsored by Judd Gregg. What would that do? What would be that point of that resolution?

VITTER: Who are you asking, Chris, me?

MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.

VITTER: It would put another resolution on the floor. There is significant support for that resolution. Many senators, particularly Republicans, want to be able to be on record supporting that sentiment. Go back to...

MATTHEWS: What is that? What is that? Tell me if you can, because the public‘s watching this, learning this as we go along. What does that resolution say?

VITTER: One of the very important things it says is what I believe Senator Reid, the head of the Democrats, wants to keep off the floor. And that is the notion that if people disagree violently with this plan, maybe they should do something actual and concrete and meaningful to stop it, because one thing the Gregg resolution says is that we should not cut off funding to the troops or cut off funding for this plan. It seems to me to talk about this in the context of completely nonbinding resolutions is really to avoid the tough challenge. And that is, if you‘re against the president‘s plan, what is it your responsibility to do to stop it in a concrete, real way, number one? And, number two, isn‘t it also your respondent to put forward a positive plan, a way forward in Iraq?

To go back to Jack Reed‘s point, nobody is talking about denying a vote on the Warner-Levin resolution, which would be that straight up and down vote Jack Reed is talking about. We would have that. Nobody would be denying that.

MATTHEWS: So the measure that Senator Gregg offers and you would like to see voted upon would call for—would criticize the escalation, but it would also do what?

VITTER: I don‘t think it would criticize the escalation. It would go to the issue of supporting the troops that are sent over in the field with funding and not blocking or stopping funding.

MATTHEWS: All right. OK. So you‘d like to have the whole debate by the Senate end up with the following conclusion: the Senate voted a nonbinding resolution opposed to the escalation, but voted also not to stop the funding for the resolution? You would like that to be the final resolution?

VITTER: How that comes out, obviously, is up to the collective decision of everybody who votes in the Senate. But I think it‘s really avoiding a pretty darn significant part of this debate to have purely nonbinding resolutions and nobody has the courage to step up and say, "We‘re actually going to do something because we oppose the president‘s plan."

MATTHEWS: Well, Senator Reed, it seems like what the Republicans want is to protect the mavericks. They‘ve got people in their party—seven to eleven of them, we‘re told—who are ready to vote against the escalation. They want to give them a trap door to say, "Yes, we‘re against the resolution but we‘re not going to cut the funding." To protect them that way. And that makes you guys look like you‘re impotent.

REED: Well, what is happening here is a bit of confusion. The Warner resolution contains language virtually identical to the Gregg resolution, which indicates that we would support, with funding, American forces with their assigned missions. In fact, Senator Warner put that language in, I think, to try to get Senator Gregg‘s support. So the notion that the Gregg resolution is different than Warner is, I think, not sub substantiated by the facts.

What we have here is an attempt by the Republicans to stop a vote despite Senator Vitter‘s, I think, sincere efforts to say we will have a vote. At the end of the day, if he votes against (INAUDIBLE), we won‘t get a vote.

MATTHEWS: But if you give them what they say they want, don‘t they have to go along with the vote? Can‘t you call their bluff then, if that‘s what you believe it is, a bluff?

REED: Well, we are...

VITTER: If the two resolutions are so identical, why not allow there to be the votes? Let‘s have the debate. Let‘s have the votes.

REED: Well, I believe Senator Reid offered to Senator McConnell a vote on the McCain-Warner and a vote on another alternative. What I think the Republicans are trying to do, first of all, establish sixty vote margins, which are beyond the majority. But, second, I think what they‘re trying to do is just have a situation where, at the end of the day, they can claim that there‘s no sound, decisive support for the Warner-Levin and that the approach is muddled. And I think we need a clear up and down vote. If they want an alternative, that‘s fine. But at the end of the day if Senator Vitter and other Republicans vote against cloture, they are simply saying there won‘t be votes in substance on any of these proposals.

MATTHEWS: Can you win the argument, Senator Reed, if the Republicans kill this vote? Because the American people voted in November strongly and passionately about the war. You can argue that most of them voted against the war. A lot of them voted for it, I suppose. But they all want people to decide on the issue. If you can nail the Republicans as trying to avoid a vote, do you win the argument?

REED: I think what we have to do is continue to press for a vote. If we don‘t succeed today, then I believe we have to come back as soon as we can and insist again on a very clean vote, a vision on this escalation on both sides. Whether you support it or not, you should be on the record, not a procedural vote, but a record vote on the measure itself.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, both of you senators, Senator Reed and Senator Vitter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17008063/