KEITH OLBERMANN: For all of your alleged tea party revolution and "take our country back"s and the like, if the Democrats get a net swing of 25 seats in November, they again assume control of the House of Representatives.
In our fourth story — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is here to talk about what this year holds the Democrats and the country at large.
A poll released Tuesday showed a record 84 percent of Americans disapproved the job Congress is doing, the highest ever reported. The House returned Tuesday from its holiday break, welcomed back by Occupy, which reminded members of Congress they were elected by the people, not the corporations. Which — along with Mitt Romney's message to the 99 percent of "America's right, you're wrong" — is where Nancy Pelosi and I began when she visited here this afternoon.
Madam Minority Leader, it's good to see you.
NANCY PELOSI: Good to see you.
OLBERMANN: Are you well?
PELOSI: I am well, happy.
OLBERMANN: I would not ordinarily start here, but this happened this afternoon on the rope line at his headquarters in Charleston, South Carolina. Someone asked Mitt Romney, "What would you do to support the 99 percent, seeing as you are part of the one percent?"
And he started — I already played the tape — but here is what he said: "Let me tell you something, America is a great nation because we are a united nation, and those who are trying to divide the nation — as you're trying to do here, and as our president is doing — are hurting this country, seriously. The right course for America is not to divide America and try to divide us between one and another, it's to come together as a nation. And if you've got a better model — if you think China is better or Russia is better, or Cuba is better or North Korea is better — I'm glad to hear all about it. But you know what? You know what? America is right and you're wrong."
That's Mitt Romney's message to the 99 percent today. Does that strike you as startling as it does me?
PELOSI: Yes, it is startling. It just shows you how really out of touch he is, and those who support him. He doesn't even know how out of touch he is, to make a statement like that.
But I was interested in the press reaction to it. They were saying it was Reagan-esque. How could they say such a thing? Am I missing something here?
But remember President Obama's speech in 2004, when he talked about us being one nation, but united with fairness and justice, not this dividing — divisive statement, accusing somebody else — it's projection. They know that they are the divider, and so they want to project it on somebody else.
OLBERMANN: You were working practically on some of this stuff. As recently as 24 hours ago you were on the Hill, counting noses on the idea of restarting the millionaire surcharge as we go do another dance of the payroll-tax-cut-holiday extension. It was the first thing that was essentially sacrificed to get the two-month deal. Why is it not going to be sacrificed this time?
PELOSI: I think public sentiment is everything, and the more the public knows — that here we have an opportunity to do a payroll-tax cut for 160 million Americans. We didn't have to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country, but the Republicans are demanding that we pay for the tax cut, and we're saying, "Okay, there is the simple way to do this."
The simplest, fairest, most easily understood — a tax surcharge on those making over one million dollars a year. Not who have a million dollars but who make over one million dollars a year. And we're just going to keep on this, because even if we don't prevail now — which I hope we will, because I hope public sentiment will weigh in — it is going to be there, because fairness is what is fundamental to the system, and this is totally unfair.
And we're not going to give with one hand to the middle class and take with the other hand, and say, "Okay, you are going to get a tax cut but, by the way, you're going to pay more for Medicare, you're going to pay more for this that or the other thing."
OLBERMANN: But the system nearly came — or, actually, pretty much did come — to a grinding halt just to get a two-month extension, because of the way, now, the majority operates in the House and what their stated publicity goals really are. Are we going to go through that sort of hostage drama — not to make an unfortunate analogy — but semi-hostage drama again for another two-month extension, or is this thing — the payroll-tax cut — going to be pushed through for an entire year this time, along with all the other measures we're talking about?
PELOSI: I certainly — we could do this in one meeting. Everybody knows what the choices are, in terms of what we want to do. Payroll-tax cut for 160 million Americans. Unemployment insurance for millions of Americans who are out of work through not fault of their own, and tens of millions of seniors who want to see their doctor under Medicare.
So, we have those three initiatives that must be covered. We can cover the seniors with war savings, the overseas contingency fund. We can cover the other two — some of it could come from that, but the surcharge is the simplest way to do it. If they have another idea that is not harmful to the middle class, let's hear what that is.
The fact is, is that if they want to have — you know, it's a funny thing because they never have been for the middle-income tax cut. You know, understand that. And then they said — when we were doing it for two months, just to get us through — they said, "Well, it isn't long enough." I said, "Well, this is like Yogi Berra — 'I don't like that the food in that restaurant. Besides, the portions are too small.'"
OLBERMANN: Exactly. You mentioned public sentiment. You were interviewed by The Hill and they published Tuesday and you made a comment about Occupy Wall Street that I'd like to follow up with, that you suggested that they should have stood behind a common theme.
And the quote that they attributed to you was, "If I were they, I would have wedded this directly to the role of money and politics." Do you feel they didn't? Because the sense was, from here, that they had changed the dialogue about program cuts and what are we going to eliminate and which part of the safety net is going to get cut to, instead, job creation, income inequality, and money in politics. Did they not, to some degree, already do this?
PELOSI: Well, I think this. I think their statement — People said, "Oh, they didn't have a message" — their statement was a clear one. The status quo is unacceptable. The disparity — of not only income in our country, but of ownership, of equity — is just totally unfair.
And again, never again should the recklessness of some — not all, but some — on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street. I think that was a very, very clear sentiment that, really, 100 percent of the Americans — except for a very few — would agree with.
What I was saying is — right from the start, it should have been about money in politics. Maybe you got that message, but I think that that's the place that this has to go. If you are going to change the policy that is unfair to masses — most of the American people — overwhelming.
If we're going to talk about 100 percent of the American people — let's just talk about 100 percent — you cannot support the policies that are — that the Bush administration put forth.
And what I was saying there is — the tea party was almost a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. They said I was distancing myself. I said, "No, that's not the point." The point is — they are who they are. They don't want to be associated with any party or any establishment and the rest, and good for them. But I think we have to take this to mind. And one of the reasons we want to win the election is so we can reform the system.
First, we have to — right now — disclose. Disclose where this big money is coming from. This big special-interest money.
Secondly, win the election and reform. Reform the system. We have our legacy be a new politics, free of special interest-money. So, disclose, reform and then — starting now — amend, but that's a longer-term thing. Disclose, reform, amend. You've got to — its got to — something different has to happen, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision.
OLBERMANN: I want to talk to you about the Supreme Court decision, about the 2012 race, particularly in the House, and — it's not often you get to talk about another former speaker of the House about another former speaker of the House making news today. I can't resist. Let me take a quick commercial break and I'll bring that up in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: Back, as promised, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. And thank you, again, for staying with us.
As I said before the break, I can't resist. Newt Gingrich — also a former speaker of the House, your former co-star in a public-service announcement, that he seems now to have completely forgotten the justification for — is in the deep end of the pool after one of his ex-wives has granted a series of interviews that do not portray him very kindly in a public light. You've hinted, previously, in the Republican primary season about having spent a lot of time with Gingrich and aware of the Gingrich investigations and all the rest of that. What is your reaction to this interview today?
PELOSI: Well, you know, what is personal is personal, and has an impact on how consistent people are about what they say and what they do, but I'm more concerned about their policies and how it effects people. And the integrity issue is an important one.
Nothing that I would never say about Newt Gingrich is anything that isn't in the public record. He made it sound like I was telling — breaking the secrecy and the confidentiality. It's all in the public record where he says, "I am the definer of civilization, I am the teacher of civilization, I am the defender of civilization, globally, with force if necessary." I mean, I think people should know those kinds of things. That's kind of strange, don't you think?
But the record speaks for itself. His family will speak for themselves. The public will make a judgment. The Republican choice for their candidate for president is really up to them, but you see resistance — the more — the more he advances, the more people will come out and speak to the inappropriateness of him to even be running for president.
OLBERMANN: As David Axelrod suggested, when you're the front-runner or near that, you become the monkey's butt that is visible from all corners of the stage. It's not exactly —
PELOSI: That's an interesting analogy.
OLBERMANN: And is. And it's a really — it is a crass one, but a really good one — because everyone who's stepped into that role has gotten that kind of examination.
But, to the larger issue of whoever it is that runs against President Obama — I think everybody expected the economy was the issue as the Obama administration began, that, obviously, it would be the key issue of the election. But is it going to be the economy? Because there are upturns and there are good indicators towards the rest of this year. Could it be about — not so much about the economy, per se — but money and who has it and who doesn't — who does not have it? Is it that kind of shape-up in your mind, at this point?
PELOSI: I don't think they are completely two separate issues. I think it's all — is it a fair economy? Is it an economy that works for the American people? And the — we'll see a path.
I don't know if we can still come out of the deep ditch that President Bush took us into the meltdown of the financial system, with deep deficits that sprang from his unfair tax-cut policies, giving tax cuts to the wealthy that did not produce jobs and, of course, that lack of revenue deepened the deficit as well as near-depression in terms of what was there.
So, this is a long road back, and they want to see the path — a path that we're going on, and that path — we have a moment now when the decision can be made that this path as we go forward is one that is not about trickle-down but bubble-up, about how we had small businesses and the entrepreneurial spirit of America creating jobs, where we have the understanding that education and innovation are central to our competitiveness as well as good for the people who are being educated.
So, this has to be about springing from the people — that's our strength — rather than trickling down. And if it helps, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it.
OLBERMANN: Well, if we're looking at it from that point of view, that's a good way to ask about if you have a read on the House races, or if anybody has a read on the House races this early?
PELOSI: Well, we have a great chairman, Steve Israel, who's from New York. And we — he is a very clear-eyed, no sugar coating as to what our prospects are. He says right now, it's razor thin. But we see a path to victory. I think if the elections were held today, we would be in very good shape. They aren't, but we're more than halfway to the next election.
We've out-raised the Republicans and, under the system where you report, we have outraised them. We've out-recruited. Our candidates are fabulous — many women, minorities, small businesses, people who have run for office before. And we are doing very well on redistricting. So, we think that we're on a really good path and the president being on the ticket, at the top of the ticket, of course, will increase the turnout, which we think will help in our race as well.
But many places we'll be running where he won't be campaigning because — like Texas, California, New York, Illinois — because he is either going to win those states or not win those states.
OLBERMANN: And you mentioned — and that's a good final point to close with — you mentioned the money that you have to report, and how well you are doing about that.
And there is, on Saturday, the two-year anniversary of the thing that created this monster, Citizens United. Which I think people are beginning to see in its full dimensions in Wisconsin and other places — Ohio — where elections have essentially been bought against the interest of working-class people, while it's so heavily advertised that they think they are voting in their own interests. Is there —
PELOSI: But, accompany that —
OLBERMANN: Yes, yes.
PELOSI: With the voter suppression —
OLBERMANN: Yes, yes, of course.
PELOSI: The voter suppression that is going on as well.
OLBERMANN: What do we do about it? Is it a Constitutional amendment or no way out? How do we get out of it?
PELOSI: I think we have — I think what, as the public views the impact of big money, unidentified special interests coming in, they see some of it in the presidential — it does create an atmosphere where we can try to amend — it requires amending the Constitution. But we can disclose. We can reform, and our legacy is — there is a new politics free of those special-interest money.
We have to do that, or else we're taking our country backward to a hundred years ago where corporate and special interests controlled our country, and that doesn't take us on a path of fairness.
So, it's a very important moment for our country. Something that we owe our founders, for the vision they had about this democracy. We owe our men and women in uniform, for the sacrifices they make for a true democracy. And for our children, so they can reach their aspirations. So, it's an exciting time.
OLBERMANN: And a necessary one, 'cause we already had Jay Gould once. We don't need him a second time.
The minority leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, always a pleasure, and thanks greatly for your time.
PELOSI: My pleasure. Thank you.
OLBERMANN: Great to see you.
