meet the press, february 22, 2009, video link and transcript

8/14/2019 Meet the Press, February 22, 2009, Video Link and Transcript

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/meet-the-press-february-22-2009-video-link-and-transcript 1/32

Meet the Press, February 22, 2009

Governors Charlie Crist (R-FL) and Bobby Jindal (R-

LA)

MR. DAVID GREGORY: Our issues this Sunday: An unprecedented economiccrisis grips the nation, and it's the states at a breaking point. Lost jobs, failing

businesses, home foreclosures and record revenue shortfalls all confrontingAmerica's statehouses. The president says help is on the way.

(Videotape)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: This plan does more to lay a new foundation for our cities' growth and opportunity than anything Washington has done in generations.It'll bring real and lasting change for generations to come.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: But does everyone want it? Some Republicans say maybe not,while others have openly supported the president's efforts. With us, twoRepublicans on opposite sides of this heated debate. First, the man who willdeliver his party's response to President Obama's Tuesday night address to

Congress and considered one of his party's likely contenders for the White Housefour years from now, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. And the man who buckedhis own party and stood with President Obama on the stimulus package, FloridaGovernor Charlie Crist.

Then, our political roundtable gets to the bottom of this week's highly chargeddebate over the housing crisis...

(Videotape)

MR. RICK SANTELLI: How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor'smortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand?How about we all...

(Group boos)

MR. SANTELLI: President Obama, are you listening?



(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: ...and offers insights into a busy political week: Al Hunt,executive editor for Washington of Bloomberg News; Michele Norris, host of

NPR's "All Things Considered"; and Becky Quick, co-anchor of CNBC's "Squawk Box."

But first, the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R-LA): Good morning.

MR. GREGORY: You have a budget shortfall in Louisiana of $2 billion. Now,under the stimulus plan by the Obama administration, you would get a cut of that.You'd get $4 billion in federal stimulus. But this is what you said on Mondayabout the stimulus plan: "We're going to have to review each program, each newdollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the stringsand see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars." And just Fridayyou made good on that pledge not necessarily to take the federal money, sayingthat you would reject almost $100 million in federal unemployment assistance.Why would you turn this money down?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, let's be clear. The best thing that Washington could do to

help Louisiana and all of our states with our budgets is to get this economy movingagain. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think the bestway to do that is for the government to tax and borrow more money. I think the

best thing they could've done, for example, was to cut taxes on things like capitalgains, the lower tax brackets, to get the private sector spending again. I think theyhad a provision the net operating losses to help small businesses. Unfortunately,they slimmed that down. They could've done some things on a real energy policy.If all they do is borrow federal money and give it to the states, all we're reallydoing is delaying the inevitable. We're eventually going to have to make thesehard choices anyway. In Louisiana we made midyear reductions, $241 million.

We're going to have to do more with less. What would be more helpful fromWashington is less unnecessary spending. How does $300 million for federal cars,$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, how is spending like thatgoing to help our economy? How's that stimulus?



MR. GREGORY: All right, but let's focus on--because I want to get to some of those larger issues in just a moment. But let's focus on this. Why would you turndown $100 million for federal unemployment assistance for your state?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, let's look at the programs we turned down.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

GOV. JINDAL: You're talking about temporary federal money that would requirea permanent change in state law.

MR. GREGORY: But it is--it's a tax break.

GOV. JINDAL: Well, it, it's--no. The $100 million we turned down wastemporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws.That would've actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a statewould've been responsible for paying for those benefits after the federal moneydisappeared.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but the Democratic senator from Louisiana, MaryLandrieu, says you're wrong. This is how it was reported in The Times-PicayuneSaturday: "Senator Landrieu disputed the governor's interpretation and said thenew unemployment benefits are designed to be temporary. `The bill is anemergency measure designed to provide extra help during these extraordinarily

tough times,' Landrieu said. `To characterize this provision as a "tax increase onLouisiana businesses" is inaccurate.'" Her point being, you could insert a sunsetclause when this has to go away, but it would certainly be beneficial at a time whenyou're in economic stress.

GOV. JINDAL: That's great, except the federal law, if you actually read the bill--and I know it was 1,000 pages, and I know they got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before they voted on it--if you actually read the bill, there's one problem withthat. The word permanent is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanentchange in our law. Law B--our employer group agrees with me. They say, "Yes,

this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana." It would be like spending $1 toget a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end uphaving a permanent program?

And here's the problem. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal



clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within threeyears the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, wehave to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to beraising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challengingtimes. And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're goingto look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makessense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars. If it doesn't, like onFriday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us." Itmakes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to taketemporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations.

MR. GREGORY: Are there other parts of this stimulus money that would go toLouisiana that you will reject?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, we're going to continue to do our process. On Friday wesaid, for example, we are going to take--we are going to recommend the legislaturethat we take the road money. These are dollars the federal government was goingto spend on roads anyway. In my view they're going to spend it a little morequickly than they would have otherwise. Louisiana's still a donor state. We paymore in federal gasoline taxes than we get back. So on the same day we said we'renot taking the $100 million in the unemployment, we said we will take the roadmoney. We're going to look at every provision, see what's good for the state, seewhat's not, see what strings are attached. But the reality is the bigger philosophical

point is this, I just have a fundamental disagreement with this package. When itwas originally proposed, it was talked about as--the president originally talkedabout tax--targeted tax cuts...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. JINDAL: ...as well as infrastructure investment.

MR. GREGORY: But a third of this package is made up of tax cuts.

GOV. JINDAL: Well, but you look at the provisions that would get our economymoving--for example, they--both the House and the Senate had more generousversions for the small businesses, the net operating losses, the carryforwards. Theyget into conference and it ends up smaller than where both houses started.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.



GOV. JINDAL: Other spending started out, like the, the magnetic-lev trainsubsidy started out smaller and ended up larger than what both chambers passed inconference, $8 billion. You know, now they're talking about spending billions of that to build a train from Disneyland to Las Vegas. There was so much wastefulspending here. I think the president had a chance, if he had worked with theRepublicans--instead of allowing Speaker Pelosi to write this bill, if he had workedwith the Republicans to say, "Let's really invest in infrastructure, let's do targetedtemporary spending, let's do some tax cuts, let's get the economy moving." I don'tthink we're going to solve our economic challenges through government spending.

MR. GREGORY: But Democrats would, would argue, with regard to a call for greater tax cuts, that over the course of the Bush presidency you only had a--threemillion new jobs through aggressive tax cutting, that the change in median incomedid not appreciably go up at all. And yet there is this emphasis on tax cuts as the

best way to cure what ails the economy.

GOV. JINDAL: Well, I think there's just a--I think this is--shows the fundamentaldisagreement...

MR. GREGORY: Is that wrong? Is that--are those facts wrong?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, I--a couple of things about those facts. You look in our country's history, when President Kennedy, when President Reagan and, yes, whenPresident Bush cut taxes, you know what, they created jobs for our country. It

caused some of the best economic times and prosperity for our country. But I think it goes to the fundamental difference about our approaches to this stimulus bill. Onone hand, you have this idea that the way we're going to solve this--and you heardeven the president say that government may be, at one point--I'll paraphrase--may

be the only entity that can help us solve this. You've got another view that says thisis all--this spending is temporary, it's creating debt my children, my grandchildrenare going to have to pay.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. JINDAL: What I think is the only way we grow this economy is to get the private sector hiring again, expanding, creating jobs. It's the only way you're goingto solve the foreclosure crisis, the only way you're going to have the credit freezeresolved is by the private sector expanding.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but wait a minute. But let me just stop you on that point...



GOV. JINDAL: We can't quit.

MR. GREGORY: ...Governor, because this is a really important point.

GOV. JINDAL: Well, well, all right, but one, one last point.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

GOV. JINDAL: We can't print enough money to move this economy. Let's beclear. This isn't free money...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. JINDAL: ...just because they spent nearly $1 trillion. That's debt that willcause inflation and interest rates.

MR. GREGORY: But you would concede that most economists are worried aboutdeflation right now, not inflation.

GOV. JINDAL: Sure. But if you look at CBO, even, even the...

MR. GREGORY: Congressional Budget Office.

GOV. JINDAL: Even the congressional's own budget office said that this stimuluswill actually has the potential of reducing GDP growth because of inflation.

MR. GREGORY: But let me ask you this as a philosophical point. We are in themidst of an unprecedented global process of de-leveraging, which means peopleare not spending money, they are paying down debt, they are saving money.Businesses are not expanding, they are contracting. So why is it wrong for government to try to, try to create demand for goods and services in the economywhen the private sector is too weak?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, I think--again, I think you could have had a bipartisanstimulus package that it was truly what the president outlined: targeted,temporary. If he had come and said, "Here's infrastructure that is realinfrastructure, that really will grow our economy," investing in ports and roads canhelp grow our economy, "Combined with tax cuts that help small businesses andothers to employ and stay in business"...



MR. GREGORY: But you don't dispute that federal stimulus money is necessarywhen the economy is not being stimulated through the private sector.

GOV. JINDAL: I think if it's targeted, temporary and there is a real commitmentthat this is not creating permanent new government programs, not adding to thedeficit, that we understand what temporary means. There's a commitment that wereduce spending. Now we hear tomorrow the president's going to be talking aboutreducing the debt and the deficit.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. JINDAL: You know, it's great that, that we're going to close the barn door after the horse is gone, but there has to be real attention--when you look at thespending that was in this stimulus, I think a lot of people are skeptical. A lot of

economists, by the way, are skeptical...

MR. GREGORY: Right. By the way, Governor...

GOV. JINDAL: ...this will grow our economy.

MR. GREGORY: There is a lot of Republicans who complain about the deficitnow, didn't have a problem with deficit spending when it came to funding the warsin Afghanistan and Iraq. And you've had among those--among the likes of WarrenBuffett who said, "This is like Pearl Harbor for our economy."

GOV. JINDAL: Well...

MR. GREGORY: Isn't it worth the deficit spending?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, a couple of things. Both Republicans and Democrats areguilty when it comes to spending. Make no mistake about it, Republicansdefended incredible growth in spending that we shouldn't have these last severalyears. This is an order of magnitude different. Let's be clear, because sometimesit's hard to get our minds around these numbers. When people are talking about

trillions of dollars, when you're talking about permanent deficits as far as peopleare predicting out...


GOV. JINDAL: ...when you're talking about the effect this'll have on our currency,on interest rates, when you're talking about China being our largest foreign holder



of U.S. debt, we're talking about real changes in our economy. That's not free.You've seen the comparisons that this is more than we spent--this one bill was thelargest spending bill that Congress has passed; more than we spent in, in Vietnam,more than--and you can look--more than the Louisiana Purchase.


GOV. JINDAL: To, to use a, a local, a, a relevant example. But the point is this.It was rushed through the process. There were many--I think many would agreethere were many aspects of this bill--how's a billion dollars for the census? How'snew computers for the federal government, $300 million for new federal cars,how's that stimulus? Why did that have to be done without the proper committeehearings? Why didn't the, the members of Congress get a chance to read anddebate this bill? Why didn't taxpayers get to see it online...


GOV. JINDAL: ...like we were promised we would? Why the rush through the process? Why not do this in pieces? Why not start with what was truly--what wasoriginally described as temporary, targeted stimulus?

MR. GREGORY: All right.

GOV. JINDAL: And again, it comes down to we believe put people to work, let

small businesses hire.

MR. GREGORY: I want to have you react to a couple of reactions this week toyour position on the stimulus. The first one was an accusation by a top Democratin the House of hypocrisy. Jim Clyburn. This is how--the statement he made onFriday: "House Majority Whip [Representative James Clyburn] argued that manyof the federal funds are specifically targeted towards low-income minoritycommunities. He also accused GOP governors who have resisted the stimulus of hypocrisy." Quoting him, "`Let's take, for instance, Louisiana Governor Jindal has

been in my office a number of times asking for billions of dollars in assistance to

stand communities back up as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. ... Yet he saysthere is something wrong with this money for the stimulus that comes from thesame pot, that he sees nothing wrong when he's trying to stand back up after Katrina."



And this was New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who was at the White House onFriday meeting with the mayors, who suggested that your position on the stimulusand this federal money is political posturing. Listen to him.

(Videotape, Friday)

MAYOR RAY NAGIN: I think the governor of the state of Louisiana is aRepublican. I think he's been tapped as the up-and-coming Republican to

potentially run for president the next time it goes around. So he has a certainvernacular and a certain way he needs to talk right now. I told the governor

personally any dollars he does not want, we will take them gladly.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Reaction to both those statements?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, it's not the first time I've disagreed with the good mayor of New Orleans. But going back to Representative Clyburn's comments, a couple of things. Let's be clear. Everybody knows the federal levees that were designed and

built by the Corps didn't do what they were supposed to do in 2005. We absolutelyhave worked with Representative Clyburn and other members of the Congress in

both this administration and previous administration to--and as governor of Louisiana, I will continue to work to make sure that the federal government repairsand builds the levees the way they should have been built in the first place, repairs

our coast to prevent against future storms and also, by the way, helps to repair some of the damage that was caused by the breaking of those federal levees. That'simportant for Louisiana, it's important for our country.

Our, our state, by the way, 9 to $10 billion comes off of our coast in terms of federal oil and gas royalties. If that was federal lands within our state, we'd get 50

percent. We get virtually none of that. You look at 30 percent of the nation's oiland gas in some form comes off of our coast. It's important for the country thatAmerica rebuilds those levees, that America helps those communities get back ontheir feet. Absolutely, as the governor of Louisiana, I'm going to say--because the

federally built and designed levees didn't do what they were supposed to,absolutely I'm going to advocate that they get--be rebuilt properly, absolutely I'mgoing to be willing to put up my own share, and absolutely I'm going to push thefederal government to cut through the red tape. In this stimulus bill, for example,there wasn't new money for Katrina, there wasn't new money for Rita, there was nomoney targeted after the storms. One provision we did ask for--and I want to thank Senator Landrieu, who actually got this provision in. We said there are 4,000



projects, $1.4 billion already funded, already approved that are been caught in redtape in the federal government. We said just give us an adjudication process, tellus yes or no. So absolutely, as the governor of Louisiana, it's my job to representthe taxpayers of our state.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

GOV. JINDAL: Federal levees didn't do what they were supposed to. Yeah, wewant them to build properly.

MR. GREGORY: Let me spend our last couple of minutes talking about politics.What is the state of the Republican Party?

GOV. JINDAL: Look, our Republican Party got fired with cause these last twoelection cycles. We became the party that defended spending, corruption that wenever should've tolerated, and we stopped offering relevant solutions to the

problems that Americans care about. I think now is the time and it's a greatopportunity for Republican governors and other leaders to offer conservative-basedsolutions to the problems. For example, whether it's the mortgage crisis, how wecan help people keep their homes, whether it's the banking crisis. We haven't--wewon't have time to talk about, you know, mark to market and some of the other reforms that could be done. Whether it's the stimulus package, the RepublicanParty has got to offer conservative alternative solutions. I think our obligation is towork with the president every chance we can, to be bipartisan. We've done that in

Louisiana. We've cut taxes six times, reformed ethics. We need to work with the president every chance we can. But on principle--when we disagree with him, weshould be unafraid to stand up on principle and to point out our alternativesolutions.

MR. GREGORY: Will that be your message Tuesday night in response toPresident Obama?

GOV. JINDAL: That will be a part of it. We can't just be the party of no, we haveto offer real solutions. We stand ready to work with our president. I think he, he

has a chance to, to work and lead our country in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately,with the stimulus he allowed Congressional leaders to write this bill. A lot of them

put 10 years worth of spending in this bill they've been waiting to do. I think he'sgot a real chance. We want to work with him going forward.

MR. GREGORY: You talk about core conservative principles. There are some inthe party who say the only way the Republican Party is really going to get back on



track is if it seeks to broaden the party. If it can broaden the party geographically,would that only happen if there is a change on some core positions on issues likeclimate change, social issues, stem cell research?

GOV. JINDAL: I think on each of the issues that Americans care about, if we'lloffer relevant solutions, if we're authentic and honest with the people--and I think governors have an opportunity to demonstrate proven track records. We have to

balance our budgets and build roads and schools and other things, and grow our economies. I think if we can offer authentic, honest solutions, we will build a largecoalition. There'll be people that don't agree with us on everything. RonaldReagan did it. And to his credit, President Obama did it.

MR. GREGORY: But the party has to expand, you believe that, if it's going to besuccessful.

GOV. JINDAL: Oh, absolutely. Look, we lost both elections because we got lessthan 51 percent of the votes. Obviously we've got to expand. But I don't think weexpand by becoming an imitation of the other party. I think we expand by standingon principle for what we believe in. I think that attracts voters, I think that attractssupporters. They may not agree with us on everything.


GOV. JINDAL: But they'll respect our honest. Most importantly, they'll respect

the results.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, your political future is something that's beenspeculated about. Here you were in November in Iowa, traveling there to raisesome money all the way from Louisiana. And this is how the economists reportedsome of your recent activities: "Mr. Jindal's recent fundraising forays to other states--including Iowa, which every four years holds the crucial first presidentialcaucus--have raised some eyebrows at home. His ambition is well known, andmost people think he is laying the groundwork for a run at the presidency in 2012."Do you want to be president?

GOV. JINDAL: I want to run for re-election to be governor of Louisiana in 2011.I told the people of our state we have a once in a lifetime chance to change our state.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.



GOV. JINDAL: We just finished the longest presidential election in America'shistory. I don't think our country needs another election. I think we need this

president to be successful. We need to work with him. We need to, when wedisagree with him, stand on principle.

MR. GREGORY: So if, if you're re-elected in 2011, will you serve out your termas governor in Louisiana?

GOV. JINDAL: It's my--if the people of Louisiana will have me, I absolutely wantto be governor for the next seven years. Now, that's up to the voters of Louisiana.We've got a lot of work to do at home. We've cut taxes, we've grown the economy,we've reformed ethics laws. We still have a lot of work to do.

MR. GREGORY: So if you win, you will serve out your term.

GOV. JINDAL: I want the people--yeah, it's my intent to, to run for re-election. If they elect me to serve as governor, I will...

MR. GREGORY: You're not ruling out a run for the presidency?

GOV. JINDAL: What I'm saying is I'm running for re-election. I have no, no plans beyond that.

MR. GREGORY: So your, your position, essentially, is that you're focused on

doing the job that the people of Louisiana have sent you there to do.

GOV. JINDAL: Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: All right. So just to show you, we save our tapes around here.There was another prominent politician who had something similar to say when hewas on the program back in 2006. Watch this.

(Videotape, January 22, 2006):

PRES. OBAMA: I'm not focused on running for higher office, I'm focused ondoing the job that the people of Illinois just sent me to do.

MR. TIM RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

PRES. OBAMA: I will not.

(End videotape)



MR. GREGORY: We'll be checking this tape closely.

GOV. JINDAL: Keep it in your archives.

MR. GREGORY: Governor Jindal, thank you very much.

GOV. JINDAL: Thank you. And happy Mardi Gras.

MR. GREGORY: Thank you.

Coming next, the other side of this heated debate over the stimulus. A GOPsupporter of Obama's stimulus package, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida. Plusour political and economic roundtable, all here only on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, a supporter of President Obama's stimulus package. We'll ask him why after this brief station

break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: We're back with Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist.

Welcome, Governor.

GOV. CHARLIE CRIST (R-FL): Good to see you, David.

MR. GREGORY: So there you were down in Florida, in Fort Myers with PresidentObama just a couple of weeks ago, talking about the stimulus plan, very supportiveof the stimulus plan. Why would you buck your own party, which did not vote for this plan in Congress, as you know, to support the stimulus?

GOV. CRIST: It's not a matter of bucking the party, it's a matter of helping the people. I mean, I really view it as an issue of what can I do that's best for the people of Florida? We've got almost 20 million people that live in the SunshineState now. I think my obligation is in essence the CEO of the state, to doeverything I can to help us get through this tough economy. Certainly this stimulus

package, about $12.2 billion to Florida, will help Florida an awful lot.

MR. GREGORY: You heard Governor Jindal on the program just a couple of minutes ago. Much different view, thinks they got the plan all wrong. You



disagree with the government role that's being exercised here in trying to fix theeconomy?

GOV. CRIST: I do. I think that, you know, there are times when you're in a crisisand we all need to work together in order to get through those crises. And I think that this is one of those times. It is fundamental to be able to make sure that wehelp our children in school. This is going to help us in our education in Florida byabout $3.5 billion. It's going to help us with Medicaid, the most vulnerable amongus who really need help and need it now. That'll be in excess of $5 billion for Florida. It also helps us in road construction and producing jobs. That's almost$1.5 billion for the Sunshine State. It's fundamentally important that we help the

people, we reach out to them, we understand they're in a time of need. In the pastfive weeks, I've visited six unemployment offices throughout Florida. I look intothe eyes of these people and I understand that the challenges are serious that they're

having to deal with, and I want to do everything I can to help them.

MR. GREGORY: There's no Republican from Florida in Congress who supportedthe stimulus. One prominent Republican consultant said this about you and your support for it: "I don't think he's helped any national Republican ambitions he mayhave had by stepping up to the plate and batting for the other team. ... There's adifference between working in a bipartisan way for the common good andswitching sides and putting on the other team's jersey. At the one moment when wefinally found our voice and remember who we are as Republicans, Charlie Cristforgets. It is stunning." Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, also said

nobody thinks you're a fiscal conservative. Are you an Obama Republican?

GOV. CRIST: I'm a Florida Republican. And in the Florida way, we work together in a bipartisan fashion to do what's right for the people. That's really whatit's all about. You know, people run for office in order to try to help their constituents, the people of their state or their district or their country. In my caseit's Florida, and that's all I care about. And in Florida we work across the aisle.My friends in the House and the Senate that are of the Democratic Party, I reachedout to them. People like Robert Wexler. He wanted to have a paper trail for our

elections. We had some embarrassing elections in the past in my state. I didn'twant my state to be embarrassed anymore. So I'll take ideas from anybody. Itreally doesn't matter if they're a Republican, a Democrat or an independent; if they're a Floridian and they care about the people of our state, I want to work withthem to make sure that we have a better future and a brighter future.



MR. GREGORY: Do you think it's a mistake for the Republican Party to defineitself by opposition to the stimulus?

GOV. CRIST: Well, it may be. All I know is I have to do what I think is in the best interest of the people of Florida. And from my perspective, it's to try and helpthem. Help them every single day in every way that I can in education, ininfrastructure, in health care; do the kinds of things that keep us from having toraise taxes. You know, another part that people don't talk about in the stimulus billis that it cuts taxes. About a third of it cuts taxes. That's an important thing for

people to remember, I think, because people need a break. We've been able to cuttaxes in Florida. We have reduced our property taxes. It's the largest single tax cutin the history of my state. I'm very proud of that. At the same time, because of thestimulus we'll be able to pay our teachers more next year than we were this pastyear. So I think it works, it works well, it helps people, it does what's right.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think the president has the right prescription to ease thisrecession?

GOV. CRIST: I think he's on the right track. I don't think anybody says this is a perfect bill. I don't. I don't think even President Obama says that. But we've gotto do something. We are at a time of need, and to do nothing certainly is notacceptable. This is not perfect, but we've got to do something to try to get our country back on track for the benefit of our people.

MR. GREGORY: I want to talk a couple of minutes about housing. Florida, of course, second highest rate of foreclosures in the country in 2008. You also

benefited from an incredible housing boom and a speculative boom that precededthe fall of the housing market. Now, the Obama administration's plan essentially

boils down to this: more available refinancing for about five million homeowners,and help with payments--modification of payments, reduction in payments--for three to four million homeowners. Is this the right plan?

GOV. CRIST: It may be a good start. I think some of the details still have to berolled out in early March, as I understand it, and we're going to watch it veryclosely. But we need to do something to help the housing market. Certainly it'shuge in Florida, as you know and you, and you alluded to. One thing that'shappening in Florida that's encouraging, in December of '08 we had a 27 percentincrease in housing sales over December of '07. I think that's mostly a matter of

people getting reasonable about the prices they expect for the value of their home.



MR. GREGORY: But this housing plan, can you describe how it will stop the slideof housing prices?

GOV. CRIST: Well, I'm not sure that it will. I don't think we know that yet. Ithink it's too early to tell.

MR. GREGORY: Can it be called a success if it doesn't do that?

GOV. CRIST: Well, probably not. But you know, none of us have a crystal ball.


GOV. CRIST: So we have to try something, we have to do something to make thiseconomy move forward. I think it was Warren Buffett who said--and maybe it wasquoted earlier--that this is like the Pearl Harbor of the economy. I mean, we are ina crisis. I think everybody understands that and appreciates it, whether it's housingor whatever sector.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. CRIST: We've got to do something to get it going again.

MR. GREGORY: But there are critics of the plan, and here's one criticism thatappeared in Bloomberg: "The Obama administration?s mortgage-modification

plan offers the most aid to homeowners who `really stretched to buy their houseand lied the most about their income,' Amherst Securities Group LP analysts said."

I want to go back to Florida. Again, biggest beneficiary of the housing boom. Therest of the country did not share in the upside that Florida shared of the housing

boom, a huge speculative boom. Why should taxpayers have to subsidize the poor decisions of so many Floridians who misrepresented their income, got in over their heads when it came to paying their mortgages, when people around the country

played by the rules, didn't get in over their heads, bought what they could afford?

GOV. CRIST: Well, we all have to play by the rules. You know, we all have tostrive to do what's right. Some people speculated beyond their means and, andthere shouldn't be a bailout for that. That would be inappropriate.

MR. GREGORY: But that's a big part of this plan.

GOV. CRIST: Well, I didn't say the plan...



MR. GREGORY: Three to four million people should get modifications on their mortgages.

GOV. CRIST: I didn't say the plan is something that I've adopted. We're lookinginto details.

MR. GREGORY: But you--do you support it or don't you?

GOV. CRIST: Well, I think we might. It all depends on what the details are oncethey're finally laid forward.

MR. GREGORY: But you're not sure yet. I mean, that's a significant point, thatthe Florida governor doesn't support the plan yet.

GOV. CRIST: Well, we have--we don't support it yet. You know, we have to look over it, we have to review it and we have to be practical and pragmatic. I'm notgoing to lurch forward because we're on the show today.


GOV. CRIST: I appreciate the opportunity. But I want to be prudent and I want to be cautious.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think modifying payments, modifying mortgagesworks?

GOV. CRIST: It can. It can. And you know, to renegotiate, we've encouraged thatin Florida, David, and we think it's important that banks work with people. Weunderstand that this is a tough time when it's difficult for people to make thosemonthly payments, and so we got the Florida Banker's Association together and wesaid, "Look, you know, number one, can you suspend your foreclosures during theholiday season?" They did, voluntarily. Another things we said is, "You know,wouldn't it be better, instead of foreclosing on the home--you don't want to beat a

bunch of homeowners around the state of Florida--wouldn't it be better to

renegotiate with those homeowners, maybe lower the amount that they have to payduring a month so that they can get through it, that the homeowner still has a placeto have their family, still has a place to raise their children, and you don't have totake over the debt that would be on the house?"

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about your political future. Would you like torun for the Senate in 2010?



GOV. CRIST: I don't know. I'm focused on Florida. And I think it's important inmy case--we've got a session that begins the first week in March. I've got to getthrough what's happening in the Florida economy. I'm focused on that and that'swhere my, my focus has been and will stay.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the Republican Party generally. Who's theleader of the party, would you say, right now?

GOV. CRIST: The people. The people are the leader of the party. And...

MR. GREGORY: But the, the, the people have to represent someone, have toactually elect someone to head the party.

GOV. CRIST: Well, they've elected a lot of people, a lot of Republicans around thecountry.

MR. GREGORY: Is there no one national leader right now?

GOV. CRIST: I don't know if there is or is not at this time. And I think--well,there is a national leader, his name is President Obama. And, and the peopleelected him. And, and I'm willing to give him a good shot and, and try to helpmake this work. We're in a tough time, as we talked about before. I think we doneed to be bipartisan. We need to be, in fact, nonpartisan. We're all Americans.Our country is at a dire point, and we need to do everything we can to work

together to get America through this, and I know that she will.

MR. GREGORY: You have disagreements with your party right now nationallywith regard to the stimulus plan. In your view, what is the key to the road back to

power for Republicans?

GOV. CRIST: I think the key is doing what's right for the people. It, it's by havinga compassionate approach, it's by being fiscally conservative and it's by utilizingcommon sense. The people of our country want people in office who will putcommon sense in their decision-making process. Many times government and

common sense don't meet. We're trying to introduce them a lot more in Florida.

MR. GREGORY: Is it your view that the, the, the party in Washington, theRepublican Party should not be the party of no?

GOV. CRIST: Well, you shouldn't be the party of no. I think you have to--well,there's a time to say no. But I think you need to be a party that works across the



aisle, that you participate. Both of them have to do that. And I think it's importantfor both Democrats and Republicans to work together for Americans.

MR. GREGORY: We will leave it there. Governor Crist, thank you very much.

GOV. CRIST: Thank you, David.

MR. GREGORY: We'll continue our discussion online and ask Governor Cristsome questions that our viewers have submitted via e-mail and Twitter. You canwatch our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web extra. It's up this afternoon on our Web site at mtp.msnbc.com.

And coming next, a closer look at this week's housing debate and insights on avery busy week for Washington and the Obama administration. Our roundtableweighs in--Al Hunt, Michelle Norris and Becky Quick--only on MEET THEPRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: We're back with our political roundtable: Becky Quick of CNBC, Al Hunt of Bloomberg News and Michele Norris of NPR.

Welcome, all.

Becky, first time on the program.

MS. BECKY QUICK: Thank you, friend.

MR. GREGORY: Glad to have a new voice here.

MS. QUICK: It's great to be here.

MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much.

I want to start on this issue of housing, because the debate has been so fast andfurious this week. And, Al Hunt, I have to say, I was struck--Governor of Crist,governor of Florida, second highest foreclosure rate, he is still not necessarily on

board with this plan to up the refinancing, lowering the standards for refinancing,and offering a reduction in payments for people who have real dangers now of foreclosing. That, to me, is striking.



How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has anextra bathroom and can't pay their bills. Raise their hand. How about we all...

(Group boos)

MR. SANTELLI: President Obama, are you listening?

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: One person who was listening was the White House PressSecretary Roberts Gibbs, who had--took on Santelli by name from the podium.

(Videotape, Friday)

MR. ROBERT GIBBS: I would encourage him to read the president's plan and

understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I'd bemore than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cupof coffee. Decaf. Let me do this, too. This is a copy of the president's homeaffordability plan. It's available on the White House Web site. And I wouldencourage him, download it, hit print and begin to read it.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Well, I have read the plan from top to bottom.

MS. QUICK: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: And the reality, Becky, is that Mr. Santelli's criticism is shared by a lot of people who think that it, A, is fundamentally unfair to subsidize peoplewho may have misrepresented their income, gotten in over their heads, they owewhat they owe. There's also real questions about whether modifications work.Fifty to 60 percent of modifications end up in a re-default.

MS. QUICK: Right.

MR. GREGORY: That's a fact.

MS. QUICK: It is. And we, we spoke with Jim Lockhart this week. He is thehead of OFHEO, which oversees Fannie and Freddie. He said that they're hoping,they're hoping that 40 percent of these people that they help out won't fall intoforeclosure anyway. That's just what they're hoping at this point. When Rick was



talking, I mean, if you watch him on a daily basis, he does stuff like this all thetime. He yells about Wall Street getting a bailout. He yells about 10-year Treasury

prices on a regular basis. But the reason this probably picked up steam is hetouched on something, touched a nerve that lots and lots of people around thecountry are feeling. They, they, they feel like the ants who are now being asked totake care of the grasshoppers. Now, there were probably some ants that were outthere working all summer, too, and you feel bad if they got stuck out in the rain,

but there are people who are just angry about the idea that people lied on their mortgage applications and that they're going to get bailed out.

MR. GREGORY: You hear about subprime loans, Alt-A loans, which are knownas liar's loans.

Michele, the White House position is what's wrong with Santelli's argument is

doing nothing is not a good option.

MS. MICHELE NORRIS: And, and it goes to what Al was saying earlier. If my--if I've paid my mortgage on time, made great sacrifices to do so, took on an extra

job, sold a car, I played by the rules, why does this person down the street get thisfederal funding?

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: Well, if their house goes into foreclosure, it affects the value of my

house and every other house on the block. That's the argument that they make.The, the, the reality is, though, when the economy turns sour, usually we turn to

jobs and that's the sort of indicator of the strength or the weakness of the economy.Right now the housing market is the beating heart of the economy. And if theydon't fix the housing market, everything else will just continue to tumble south. Imean, you know, in talking about the people who maybe misrepresentedthemselves on the loan, the other big question is the lenders.

MS. QUICK: Right.

MS. NORRIS: You know, they will be receiving federal money also. Will lenderswho wrote bad loans, knowingly wrote loans to people that they knew would beunable to make these payments once the balloon hit two, three years out, will theyget federal funding?




MS. NORRIS: The--Gibbs' reaction this week was an indicator of just howsensitive they are right now to the fact that they have got to make a major sales jobright now.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: The fact that the spent so much time at that briefing...

MR. GREGORY: And it's...

MS. NORRIS: ...talking about this rant on cable television shows.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: That they know that they're...

MR. GREGORY: And it's not just housing, it is saving the banking industrygenerally.

But, Mr. Hunt, you made some news this week in your interview with the chairmanof the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd. This was a portion of your interview.

(Videotape, Friday)

MR. HUNT: Mr. Chairman, as you know, Alan Greenspan and Lindsey Grahamhave recently said that it may be necessary to nationalize some banks. Do youthink as a short-term measure that some nationalization of a few banks may bevery likely?

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): I don't welcome that at all, but I can see how it's, it's possible it may happen. I'm concerned that we may end up having to do that, atleast for a short time.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And here's how the markets reacted as captured by this headlinein The Washington Post: "Bank Shares Topple on Talk Of Possible U.S.Takeover." Our banking industry is so fragile as it is, and the government has beena bit opaque about whether it's going to go in and nationalize the banks.



MR. HUNT: David, I think what this story really suggests--I'd love to say itsuggests my brilliant question, which really is able to...

MR. GREGORY: That's what I thought it indicated.

MR. HUNT: Exactly, yeah. My wife disabused me of that notion.

I think what it suggests is the fear and the fragility in market, that pervadesmarkets. What Chris Dodd said was relatively benign. It's what Ben Bernanke,what Alan Greenspan...

MS. QUICK: Mm-hmm.

MR. HUNT: ...what Lindsey Graham had said before. And it's quite simple. If we,if we decide, as I think there's a consensus, that some banks are too big to fail, thatit would be far more injurious, far more cascading than the Lehman effect lastSeptember; and if we're going to get a stress test, a solvency test--and most expertssay a number of them can't pass it--what are the options? Well, one of the optionsis some kind of government temporary takeover. Now, if they want to consider that option, David, I think what we've learned is they better come up with another word. Nationalization is a word that just scares people.

MR. GREGORY: It's about--well, and Becky, there's a larger point here, which is,first of all, the more these--the, the shares of these bank, these banks gets talked

down...

MS. QUICK: Hm.

MR. GREGORY: ...the closer you get to wiping out the shareholder completely.And it's, it's not clear to me that everybody understands that the investor in thiscountry, who is not just a fat cat, the investor is us.

MS. QUICK: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: It is the taxpayer, it's the teacher, it's someone who's invested ina 401(k). The investors on the sidelines, scared to death about taking any risk.And unless that changes, this economy really can't turn around.

MS. QUICK: And what you hear from investors is they don't necessarily hateeverything or fear everything. What they fear is not knowing the, the rules of thegame. They're getting changed all the time. Which is why, when you asked Dodd



about that and he says, "Maybe we'll nationalize," and then you hear from theWhite House saying, "Well, we're still going to have a private banking system,"OK, but that doesn't really answer the question. Are you nationalizing some banks,are you taking over some banks? What does it mean if you nationalize a bank?There's just a lot of confusion.

MR. GREGORY: Right. And what does it mean?

MS. QUICK: Well, if the, if they take over--I think you can look at AIG right nowand say that AIG is nationalized.

MR. HUNT: Yeah.

MS. QUICK: They own the majority of that company. They own the votingrights.

MR. GREGORY: Got $160 billion from the government.

MS. QUICK: They're going to have to do anything the company tells them. Youcould also look at somebody like a Citigroup or a Bank of America, though, andsay, "Hey, they're going to be basically--the government may not actually ownthose banks outright, but you can bet they're not going to be doing anything, themanagement there, that they don't run past the government." If the governmentdoesn't like it, they're not going to be doing it anyway.

MR. GREGORY: And, Michele, does the government want to be in the businessof running the major banks?

MS. NORRIS: Well, that's, that's the question is we know what the government--Imean, Barack Obama has assembled a whip-smart team of economic advisers. Butif they take over there are so many questions, detailed questions about liquidity inthe markets, what kind of loans they could make. I mean, it goes well beyond these

big questions about CEO salaries if they're actually taking over and running thehearts and the guts of the national banking system.

MR. HUNT: Can I pick up with something Michele said a minute ago?

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. HUNT: Because I think she's absolutely right. This--you know, right now wehave a, a incredible fear, a psychological fear. I think the economy is going to--and



most experts, more importantly, say that the economy's going to be lousy for thenext year. You're not going to see any effects of the stimulus bill for, you know, atleast a year. And you're not going to see it until jobs and housing start to rebound.Which is why I think, in all due respect, Mr. Santelli's comments were sosophomoric. Until you address that, you're not going to address the question of confidence, you're not going to get credit flowing again and you're not going toresolve the banks. I don't know when that's going to happen, but I know it's notgoing to happen till jobs and housing get up.

MS. QUICK: But do you believe it's got to be done in terms of writing down the principle on mortgages? Do you think that that has to be a part of it? And wheredoes it stop?

MR. HUNT: I haven't heard, I haven't heard a better plan. There may be one.

MS. QUICK: Yeah.

MR. HUNT: But I think the idea of ranting about, you know, some people aregoing to--who, who made mistakes--a lot of these people made very innocentmistakes. They were duped. And, and I think to say that they shouldn't be helpedis really quite unfair.

MR. GREGORY: Let, let, let me just move on to the budget, which'll be a bigissue this week. The, the first federal budget under the Obama administration. In a

really difficult economic environment and a huge deficit environment, the president will aim to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He's alsogoing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 for those making over $250,000. There was a thought that he would do that immediately, now they're justgoing to--he doesn't want to raise taxes in, in the course of--in this economicenvironment. It'll have to expire first.

MS. NORRIS: He wants to keep that campaign promise.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: But they can obviously argue that the parameters have changed,that the economy has gone south and that changes things.

The thing that is surprising, actually astonishing to me, is their talk about deficitreduction. I mean, in reducing the deficit, you know, by that amount, I mean, itwould be difficult if you take--if you just separate the troubles in the economy. It



would have been difficult because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it wouldhave been difficult because the baby boomers that are now marching into their sunset years and the stress on Social Security. And so to talk about this kind of deficit reduction in a short period of time, wow. I mean, that's the kind of thingthat could really boomerang and come back to haunt him, come back to bite him...

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

MS. QUICK: Especially when you're doing it without cheating...

MS. NORRIS: ...in 2012.

MS. QUICK: ...when you're counting in the cost of the war...

MR. HUNT: Exactly.

MS. QUICK: ...a bunch of other things that have been taken out before.

MR. GREGORY: Is this overly ambitious to think you can cut it in half?

MR. HUNT: It's certainly ambitious, David, and I think the key here is healthcare. The key here is what, what you can do to both reform health care, to getmore health insurance to people and try to save some money at the same time.That is a very, very dicey trick to pull off.

MR. GREGORY: Let me...

MR. HUNT: But that's essential, I think, to all these arguments.

MR. GREGORY: Let me move on to one of the spicier topics of this year, and thatis Illinois politics. The president might have thought filling his vacant Senate seatwould have been a little bit easier than this, but now Senator Roland Burris iscaught up in changing stories about whether or not he tried to raise funds for Governor Blagojevich before he was appointed by Blagojevich, who is of course

under investigation and has been charged with corruption for trying to sell,allegedly, Obama's Senate seat. All of this happening, Senator Burris indicating hemay make a decision in the near future to step down; and again, Press SecretaryGibbs at the White House appeared to be nudging him a little bit on Friday. Let'slisten.

(Videotape, Friday)



MR. GIBBS: The appointment of Senator Burris was--and his taking the Senateseat was based largely on the representations that he'd made. Some of those storiesseem to be at variance with what's happened, that the president is supportive of aninvestigation that would get some full story out. And I think it might be importantfor Senator Burris to take some time this weekend to either correct what has beensaid and, and certainly think of what lays in his future.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: You get the impression that every word of that statement wasthought through very, very carefully. Of course, Governor Blagojevich has beenimpeached. Governor Quinn now in Illinois has called on Senator Burris to resign.

Michele, what's going on here?

MS. NORRIS: Well, Senator Burris spent part of his weekend speaking to FBIagents and, you know, perhaps thinking about this. What was interesting is RobertGibbs said, "stories at variance with what happened." That was a very artful way...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: ...to suggest that he may not have been telling the truth. One key person who has not called for Senator Burris to step down at this point is Mayor Daley. At this point he said he's not willing to do that. Because of the, the way the

Chicago political machinery works, if that were to happen, I think that would reallyspell bad news for Roland Burris. That has not happened yet.

MR. GREGORY: And yet, Al, for Senate Democrats this would come full circle towhere they wanted to start anyway, which was to have a freer hand in choosingwho they wanted.

MR. HUNT: Mm-hmm. What they now think is the position they should havekept. They--Harry Reid caved on this. Robert Gibbs' message was, "Adios,Roland." I mean, out, gone. And he is a dead man walking. The only question is

when does he do it, sooner or does he wait, does he wait longer? But certainly both the Obama administration and the Senate Democratic leadership would likethis long nightmare to be over.

MS. NORRIS: Can I just say one thing? You know, I--this is so interesting, because this was suppose to be Illinois' moment in the sun. And they sent a son of Illinois to the White House and then, you know, this trail follows it, so.



MR. GREGORY: In our remaining moments, I want to spend a couple minutestalking about Eric Holder, the attorney general, first African-American attorneygeneral. And he gave a speech about the national dialogue about race in thiscountry, or lack of thereof, and he used some charged language. And this is whathe said.

(Videotape, Wednesday):

MR. ERIC HOLDER: Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as a ethnicmelting pot, in things racial we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be,in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And, Al, his point is that the dialogue about race in this countryis too stilted and it doesn't happen, and that people are still afraid to have it. Wasthat the right way to invite people to have that conversation more freely?

MR. HUNT: Michele and I were talking about this beforehand.

MS. NORRIS: Mm-hmm. We did.

MR. HUNT: I think that he--his--he's absolutely right on the history. I think hemakes a very valid point. I think the attorney general should not be making that

point. I think it weakens him in some, some of the tough actions he's going to haveto take to deal with race.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. HUNT: So I think it was a poor choice of words, even though it's hard toquarrel with his history.

MS. NORRIS: You know, that, that almost--what you just said, though, seems toconfirm the argument that he's making, that if he talks openly about race that he

can't deal with race. He seems to be saying that we need to talk openly about race.I think if he had said Americans are uncomfortable talking about race...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: ...that Americans are skittish of talking about race, we probablywouldn't be talking about it at this table right now.



MR. GREGORY: So, Michele, what happens now? Is, is President Obama, thefirst African-American president, is he or should he be a catalyst for thisconversation? Or rather, does this conversation, in a more open way, have tohappen around our dinner tables and in other more casual settings amongst all of us?

MS. NORRIS: Well, you know, I was speaking to--we did a segment on the radioabout this this week, and one of the things that was said that I thought was sostriking is when someone calls for a conversation like this, people like us sit attables like this...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: ...and we have this conversation. But the places where the

conversation really needs to happen is where that conversation generally doesn'thappen, because it's really difficult to talk about this. It's fraught with landmines.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: People are afraid of saying the wrong thing or the right thing, sosometimes they don't say anything. It's fraught with anger and resentment andguilt and the need for apologies...

MR. GREGORY: And in, and in truth...

MS. NORRIS: ...and the need for...(unintelligible).

MR. GREGORY: ...unless there's a spark like this, the use of words--coward,sometimes the conversation won't happen at all.

MS. QUICK: Yeah. I think Rick Santelli would use the same argument for getting people to talk about what's happening in the mortgage argument. It does--

by saying these words it does--and using these terms, it does make us talk aboutthese things.

MS. NORRIS: Can I say one thing, though? I think that what, what you see hereis perhaps a slightly different view of the need for dialogue.




MS. NORRIS: And I hear two very different conversations. And in some waysthey're coming from two different camps, from people of color and from CaucasianAmericans. And when you talk about the need for, or the move toward a more

post-racial society, you don't hear that so much from people of color. And it'salmost like that, that ship is heading toward an iceberg, because from people of color what you're hearing more often is let's now have a more open dialogue aboutrace.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: Let's not--you can't...

MR. GREGORY: Let's not shut the dialogue off because...

MS. NORRIS: ...you can't go over it, you can't go under it.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. NORRIS: You got to go through it.

MS. QUICK: Mm-hmm.

MS. NORRIS: And going through it can be tough, but you need to go through itin order to get to the other side.

MR. GREGORY: And that's the point, Al, is that there is an opening here, but it's just the opening, with an African-American president. That may be a starting point, but it doesn't mean that that shuts off the conversation and that everything isOK.

MR. HUNT: Well, that's right. And I agree with--I actually agree with everythingMichele said, and I still think it was a poor choice of words. For instance, I believelast March that Barack Obama help open a dialogue. He was forced into it becauseof the Reverend Wright controversy. He helped open a dialogue. His words were

chosen more carefully...

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

MR. HUNT: ...which I think made it for a more constructive, if very limiteddialogue on some points.



MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. We'll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: Watch a special broadcast of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" onTuesday morning, live from the White House on the morning of the president'saddress to Congress. Among their guests, senior adviser to President Obama,David Axelrod, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I'll join them aswell. That's "Morning Joe," live from the White House Tuesday morning. And of course, Tuesday night, complete coverage of President Obama's address on NBCand MSNBC. Also, look for updates from me this week on the president's speech,the budget battle and more. It's all on our Web site at mtp.msnbc.com.

That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THEPRESS.

Video Link of MTP

http://thisweekwithbarackobama.blogspot.com/2009/02/meet-press-february-22-2009-video-and.html

http://thisweekwithbarackobama.blogspot.com/2009/02/meet-press-february-22-2009-video-and.html

meet the press, february 22, 2009, video link and transcript

Documents