Tag Archive: Transcripts

Early Voting

Joe Biden was encouraging the crowd at his rally in Colorado today to vote early since early voting in Colorado goes on until October 31st. Shep cut away from Joe’s giving his website address for information on early voting and said:

Shep: We won’t interrupt him for the meat of his discussion, but Mary Ann Marsh, why is this early voting so important?

Mary Ann: Well it’s everything Shep. You have to assume that all these polls are much closer than they appear and as Major Garrett said in the earlier segment, any vote you can get before election day is a vote in the bank. You can count those. You can go into election day, know exactly how many votes you have and then based on models know exactly how many votes you have to get on election day. The big thing here Shep that you’ve got to keep in mind is, a good field organization is worth three to five points on election day. You can find three to five points on the ground on election day. So if these polls are close then that’s exactly what’s going to determine this race and you have to say, in that respect, Barack Obama should have the advantage.

This particular line piqued my interest:

You can go into election day, know exactly how many votes you have and then based on models know exactly how many votes you have to get on election day.

I was under the impression that early votes were counted at the same time that absentee ballots were counted, on election day.

So I called up the County Clerk’s office and asked just to make sure.

Early votes are held until election day. So are absentee votes. Then the moving company brings all the voting machines to a warehouse for processing. All the votes are processed at that time.

So, I don’t know how Mary Ann Marsh can know how many votes there are for any candidate. The most she can know is how many early voters there were.

Exit polling, notoriously unreliable, is even harder with early voting, too many places, too many days…


“But that’s the name they give it.” {3:33 in the first video}

She actually said this in her speech on the House Floor this morning. Can she really be that dumb?

H/T: Quintas Arias

Barney Frank gave up his last one minute for the Speaker.

Thank you very much Madame Speaker for recognizing me and also to the distinguished chairman for his extraordinary leadership which I’ll address in a moment.

Madame Speaker, when was the last time that anyone ever asked you for seven hundred billion dollars? It’s a staggering figure. And many questions have arisen from that request. We have been hearing, I think, a very informed debate on all sides of this issue here today. I’m proud of the debate. 

Seven hundred billion dollars. A staggering number. But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses. Four years in a row, budget surpluses on a trajectory of 5.6 trillion dollars in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years he had turned that around and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility combined with an “anything goes” economic policy has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation. No supervision.  No discipline. And if you fail you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.  Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.

Democrats believe in a free market.  We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create, uh, many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported by the Republicans – some in the Republican party, not all – it has created not just, not jobs, not create capital, it has created chaos. And it’s that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to came to see us, just about a week and a half ago. Seems like an eternity doesn’t it? So much has happened and the news was so bad. They described a very, very dismal situation. A dismal situation describing the state of our economy, the fragility of our financial institutions, and the instability of our markets, our equity markets, our credit markets, our bond markets.

And here we were listening to people who knew of what they spoke.  Secretary of the Treasury brings long credentials and knowledge of the markets. More fearful though, to me, more scary was the, were the statements of Chairman Bernanke, because Chairman Bernanke is probably one of the foremost authorities in America on the subject of The Great Depression. I don’t know what was so great about the depression, but that’s the name they give it. And we heard the Secretary and the Chairman tell us that this was a once in a hundred years phenomenon, this fiscal crisis was so drastic. Certainly once in the fifty years, probably once in a hundred years. And how did it sneak up on us so silently? Almost on little cat’s feet. That they would come in on that day and, and they didn’t actually ask for the money, that much money, that night. 

It took two days until we heard, saw, the legislation that they were proposing to help calm the markets. And that was on that day that we learned of a seven hundred billion dollar request. It wasn’t just the money that was alarming, it was the nature of the legislation. It gave the Secretary of the Treasury czar like powers, unlimited powers, latitude to do all kinds of things and specifically prohibited judicial review or review of any other Federal administrative agency to review their actions. 

Another aspect of it that was alarming is it gave the Secretary [some digital interference] these infusions of cash to be used at the discretion [end of video one]

[digital interference] almost arrogant and insulting. The American people responded almost immediately. Overwhelmingly they said they know that something needs to be done, say 78 percent of the American people says Congress must act. 58 some percent said but not to accept the Bush proposal. And so here we are today a week later and a couple of days later and coming to the floor with a product that, not a bill that I would have written, one that has major disappointments with me, beginning with the fact that it does not have bankruptcy in this bill and we will continue to persist and work to achieve that.  

It’s interesting though to me that when they describe this, the magnitude of the challenge and the precipice that we were on and how we had to act quickly and we had to act boldly and and we had to act now that it never ocurred to them that the set, consequences of this market were being felt well in advance by the American people. Unemployment is up and therefore we need unemployment insurance. The jobs are lacking and therefore we need a stimulus package. So how can, on the one hand could this be so urgent at the moment and yet so unnecessary for us to address the effects of this poor economy on the households of Americans across our country. We’ll come back to that in a moment.

Working together, we, um,  put together some standards and I am really proud of what Barney Frank did in this regard. The first night, that night, that Thursday night, when we got the very, very dismal news he immediately said if we’re going to do this – Spencer Bachus was in this as well – if we’re going to do this, we must have equity for the American people. We’re putting up $700 million we want the American people to get some of the up-side. So equity – fairness for the American people. Secondly, if they were describing the root of the problem as the mortgage backed securities, Barney insisted that we would have forebearance on foreclosure of those if we’re now going to own that paper that we would then have forbearance to help responsible homeowners stay in their home.  In addition to that we have to have strong, strong, oversight. We didn’t even have to see the $700 billion or the full extent of their bill to know that we needed equity and up-sides for the taxpayer, forbearance for the homeowner, oversight of the government on what they were doing, and something that the American people understand full well. An end to the golden parachutes and a review and reform of the compensation for CEO’s. 

Let’s get this straight, we have a situation where on Wall Street people are flying high, they’re making unconscionable amounts of money. They make a lot of money, they privatize the gain, the minute things go tough {snaps fingers} they nationalize the risk. They get a golden parachute as they drive their firm into the ground and the American people have to pick up the tab. Something is very, very wrong with this tip. So just on first blush, that Thursday night, we made it clear, meeting much resistance on the part of the administration, that those four things, equity, forbearance, oversight, and reform of compensation.  Overall, over riding all of this, is the protection of the taxpayer. We need to stabilize the markets, and doing so we need to protect the taxpayer. And that’s why I’m so glad that this bill contains the a suggestion made by Mr. Tenner, that if at the end of the day, say in five years, when we can take a review of the success or whatever of this initiative, that if there is a shortfall, we don’t get our whole $700 billion back that we have invested. That there will be an initiative to have the financial institutions that benefit from this program to make up that shortfall, but not one penny of this should be carried by the American people. 

People ask, and Mr. uh, Mr.  Sprague(?) spoke with great knowledge and eloquence on aspects of the budget. Seven hundred billion dollars. What is the impact, what is the opportunity cost for our country of the investments that we would want to make? Okay, now we have it in place, for the taxpayers to be made whole and that was very important for us. But why on the {snaps fingers} drop of a hat, can they ask us for $700 billion dollars and we couldn’t get any support from the administration on a stimulus package that would also help grow the economy. People tell me all over the world that the biggest emerging market, economic market in the world is rebuilding the infrastructure of America. Roads, bridges, waterways, water systems in addition to waterways, the grid, um, broadband, schools, housing, certain schools. We’re trillions of dollars in deficit, we know what we need to do to do it in a fiscally sound way that creates good paying jobs in America immediately brings money into the Treasury by doing so and again does all of this in an all American way. Good paying jobs here in America. We can’t get the time of day for $25-$35 billion for that which we know guarantees jobs, etc, but $700 billion.

So make no mistake, when this Congress adjourns today to observe Rosh Hashanah and have members go home for a bit, we are doing so at the call of the Chair. Because this subject is not over. This discussion about how we saved our economy. And we must insulate Main Street from Wall Street. And as Congresswoman Waters said, Martin Luther King Drive, in my district, Martin Luther King Drive and Cesar Chavez Road and all of the manifestations of community and small businesses in our community. We must insulate them from that and so we have difficult choices so many of the things that we said on both sides of this issue in terms of this criticism of the bill we have and the bill we had at first and the very size of this I share. You want to go home so I’m not going to list all of my concerns and I have those. It just comes down to one simple thing, they have described a precipice, we are on the brink of doing something that might pull us back from that precipice.

Beckel/Tantaros Fox News Transcript

Bill Hemmer hosted a segment with Bob Beckel and Andrea Tantaros this morning.

Hemmer: Alright. Back to the trail now. Presidential hopeful Barack Obama sharpening his response not on his rival John McCain but rather on the VP nominee Sarah Palin. In an interview on Sunday on ABC the lead headline deals with Obama’s response to Palin saying, quote, “She doesn’t have the experience for the job.” But why then is Barack Obama focusing on Palin as opposed to McCain. Let’s talk about that with Bob Beckel, Democratic consultant and a Fox News contributor and Andrea Tantaros, political analyst and Republican consultant. Good morning to both of you, let’s let it rip.

By the way, everywhere I went for the past 3 days, every single person I came into contact with, they’re talking about Sarah Palin. We’re going to discuss that in a moment here about this political phenomenon.

Bob, should Barack Obama even be addressing Sarah Palin’s qualifications, or would you kind of want to keep that focus on the top of the ticket?

Beckel: Everywhere you went they were talking about it. I didn’t realize, I didn’t have that experience. The answer, look, the reason that, uh, the reason that he’s taking her on, and also McCain, I mean he did both, is that they tried to take the “change” message away from Obama. And what he said was – and he’s exactly right – when Sarah Palin said among the changes we don’t, we don’t like the, you know, the uh, these, uh, uh, the federal money coming in to the State of Alaska, and I was against the bridge to nowhere money. well the fact is she was for it then she was against it but she kept the money. And she also hired lobbyists to get $27 million in earmarks for Willisa [sic]. I think that’s how you pronounce it where’s she’s from.

Hemmer: Wasilla.

Beckel: Wasilla? Wasilla, Walissa. Anyway, a little place in Alaska.

Hemmer: 40 miles north of Anchorage, population 7,000.

Beckel: Ah, 7,000. Okay. Good. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize it was that big. The, uh, and so, I would say this; you know, if she wants to, if they want to try to, try to take that change message and they’re not doing what the change is about then he ought to call them on it. Absolutely.

Hemmer: Andrea?

Tantaros: The reason Bob didn’t hear anyone talking about Sarah Palin is because he didn’t leave his house because he was crying his eyes out over the fact that we did pick Sarah Palin and his team didn’t pick Hillary.

Hemmer: Here we go… {laughs}

Tantaros: Bad mistake. So that’s why Bob didn’t hear about it. Look, this is not a fight that the Democrats want. They do not want to debate their top of the ticket on experience versus our bottom of the ticket. You know, Barack Obama has not authored a single piece of legislation. His motto is ‘when the going gets tough, the tough vote present’. This is so different than Sarah Palin who manages a budget in Alaksa of $6 billion. She has 24,000 employees underneath her, she shares a border with Canada and Russia – nobody else can say that. She’s got a bredth and depth on the energy issue, Obama can’t say that. And effectively, McCain has ripped the change mantra out of Obama’s hands. McCain chose an outsider, Obama chose a Washington insider with Joe Biden.

Beckel: She shares a border with Canada and Russia?

Tantaros: She has to deal with…

Beckel: First of all it’s not a border with Russia number one…

Tantaros: Yes it is.

Beckel: But number two what is that supposed to mean? Does that make her an expert in Soviet affairs? I mean, what does that mean?

Tantaros: Bob, it’s still something that no other governor has to deal with. And Barack Obama has…

Beckel: Has to deal with…

Tantaros: to deal with, dealt with zero foreign policy Bob. Three weeks in Karachi does not mean you’re a foreign policy expert.

Beckel: Does she have the Alaskan National Guard defending herself?

Tantaros: Three weeks in Karachi, that’s what Barack Obama said makes him more experienced than Hillary Clinton and John McCain. That is laughable.

Beckel: More exp… more experienced? You’re suggesting now, you’re really with a straight face suggesting that Sarah Palin is experienced and ready to take over the Presidency of the United States, is that what you’re saying with a straight face?

Tantaros: Well, let’s see, she is the vice president, correct? And Barack Obama is number one on that ticket, so he has got to be ready on day one. Correct? So you’re saying that he has way more experience than her? Is that what you’re arguing against her?

Beckel: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Tantaros: How? What does he have?

Beckel: How?

Tantaros: Give me some legislation.

Beckel: Do you know how big Alaska is? It’s about the size of his state senate district number one.

Tantaros: What budget has he had to manage?

Beckel: Number two, she’s been in office less than two years as Governor of Alaska. Frankly the Governor of Alaska, when you say she has to deal with the Russians, I don’t know what she has to deal with with the Russians about. She deals with the energy company and makes a lot of money off dealing with the energy company.

Tantaros: Exactly. Energy.

Beckel: Look, the other thing is, the other experience she’s had, I’ll give you that, is mayor of Walissa, Wasilla, Wasalla, whatever it is, Alaska

Hemmer: Bob you’ll get it right eventually. We have to cut to chase on this…

Tantaros: Bob, you still haven’t given me any reason why.

Hemmer: You made a comment to one of our producers, the following. Now tell me if it’s true or not. You said, “trust me, this rottweiler will self destruct.”

Tantaros: You wish.

Beckel: That is a, that’s a, you know those things are supposed to be personal, but now that you’ve brought it out – thank you – yeah. The answer is remember when she said the difference between…

Hemmer: This is what you told our producers earlier today right?

Beckel: Right. And…

Hemmer: I’m not taking your words out of context in any way?

Beckel: I thought she said the difference in her speech, the difference between a soccer – uh hockey mom and a rottweiler was…

Hemmer: Pit bull.

Beckel: or maybe it was a mistake, was lipstick, right?

Hemmer: I see.

Beckel: So that’s what I was playing off of.

Hemmer: I understand, it’s not sexist then. But you’re still saying that she will self destruct.

Beckel: I believe that she will, by the time, why? because I don’t think she’s up for handling the national stage. And I think before a month is up you’re going to find that what looks like an exciting choice for the Republican base and the religious right is not going to be all that exciting.

Tantaros: Bob, if that’s the only hope you guys have got, I’d get down on my knees and start praying.

Beckel: We’ve got a lot bigger hope than that, a lot bigger hope than that.

Tantaros: It ain’t gonna happen.  And that pit bull? You’d better watch. She bites.