Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Suzanne Terrell can Defeat Mary Landrieu (Transcript Nov. 17 Meet the Press with Tim Russert
NBC NEWS ^ | Nov. 18, 2002 | Interviewer, Tim Russert

Posted on 11/18/2002 6:36:27 AM PST by elenchus

[RUSSERT PRESSES LANDRIEU ON TAXES:]

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Landrieu, would you vote to make George Bush’s tax cut permanent?

SEN. LANDRIEU: I will vote to make $1.3 billion of that tax cut permanent, and if we can make all of it permanent, Tim, I will. But let me say something about my opponent’s campaign. That is the first positive commercial she ran the entire campaign. Our own Republican governor said, “Her campaign was a cesspool.” Her opponent said that they won’t even support her because of the negative distortions of my record. And one thing on taxes I’d like to say is, as you know, and as the record reflects, I have voted to reduce taxes. I have voted for the president’s tax cut and will support if we can afford to make permanent the president’s tax cut.

MR. RUSSERT: What parts won’t you make permanent?

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, I would like to make all parts permanent, but in addition, I would like to make sure...

MR. RUSSERT: But you cap it at $1.3 trillion.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, I would like to also make sure that we have the money to fund our military operations, both here at home and abroad, and that we don’t dip into the Social Security Trust Fund.

MR. RUSSERT: But if there was an up-or-down vote on it, should we make the president’s tax permanent, would you vote yes or no?

SEN. LANDRIEU: I have supported extending the president’s tax cut, yes, but I will tell you that that goes into effect, as you know, in 10 years. What we need to do, and what I think Democrats and Republicans want to do, is get this economy stimulated now. Those tax cuts, as popular as they sound and are, don’t even go into effect until the next 10 years, the bulk of them. The rebates have gone into effect this 10 years.

MR. RUSSERT: So would you vote for it, yes or no?

SEN. LANDRIEU: I will vote to extend the tax cut if we can afford to do it, if our military doesn’t need the money or Social Security, but what Ms. Terrell...

MR. RUSSERT: In your mind, can we afford it as we speak today?

SEN. LANDRIEU: We can if we get this economy going again. And that’s one of the differences between...

MR. RUSSERT: But if we don’t get the economy going as of today, can we afford it?

SEN. LANDRIEU: Let me say this. I don’t know what we can afford right now based on the fact that we don’t know, Tim, what this war on terrorism is going to cost. We have a war here at home to fight against terrorism on our home ground with our first responders on the front lines, and we have a war in Afghanistan to finish. We have a war in Iraq. We have terrorist cells all over the world. And so I think even the president would tell you there is great uncertainty out there. The most responsible...

MR. RUSSERT: But he’s going to push for an up-or-down vote.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well...

MR. RUSSERT: You sound like you have grave reservations.

SEN. LANDRIEU: ...the most responsible thing that we can do is try to cut as much taxes as we can but also leave room to support our military. Let me tell you one thing. This senator is not going to leave our guys in the middle of Afghanistan without the weapons they need or the support they need. I’ve supported an increase in the military budget and will continue to do so. It’s very, very expensive.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: 2002; defeat; louisiana; majority; marylandrieu; meetthepress; nov17; senate; suzanneterrell; timrussert; transcript
This interchange between Russert and Landrieu has the potential to produce the same sort of earthshaking change we saw in the Florida gubernatorial race, where the Democrat candidate's failure to provide satisfactory answers about tax consequences of his proposals revealed that his policies would necessitate enormous tax increases. Jeb Bush won in a massive landslide.

Terrell can achieve the same if she presses on the weakness which Russert exposed in Landrieu: that Landrieu will not unequivocally support making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Her weasel words, equivocation and outright disgraceful evasions and attempts to change the subject to a defense of our soldiers in the Middle East are quite transparent in the transcript. See how she shamelessly tries to shift from her unwillingness to commit to make the tax cuts permanent to her concern that tax cuts will jeopardize soldiers in battle.

What a patriot Landrieu is!

Terrell should be informed that this is her most potent weapon: if she exploits this fundamental weakness and exposes Landrieu's duplicity and evasion on taxes, her victory will be all but guaranteed.

Perhaps the best thing Terrell could do is develop a commercial showing what a double-talking quibbling weasel Landrieu is by doing nothing more than reproducing Landrieu's exchange with Russert. Armed with this, Terrell's victory would be virtually guaranteed.

1 posted on 11/18/2002 6:36:27 AM PST by elenchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: elenchus
Nobody does the "Louisiana Crawfish" better than Landrieu.

I am impressed.

2 posted on 11/18/2002 6:49:50 AM PST by ZOOKER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
Yep, she can't answer questions and give straight answers. That would be a big part of my campaign if I were running against her.
3 posted on 11/18/2002 7:04:42 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
What's the deal with your link to the full story? All I get is an ad for Chris "the mouth" Matthews. Are you trying to increase his audiance from two to three viewers? Good luck.
4 posted on 11/18/2002 7:10:37 AM PST by PolishProud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PolishProud
Sorry for the incorrect link.

The original transcript is available at:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/836275.asp
5 posted on 11/18/2002 7:18:37 AM PST by elenchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
There was a Terrell for Senate plane buzzing the stadium during Saturday's LSU-Alabama game. I was under the impression that for security reasons this was illegal, but even if it's not, I thought it was very poor judgment on the part of whoever authorized this stunt. I'm surprised the media hasn't run with it already.
6 posted on 11/18/2002 7:50:57 AM PST by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
Man, the transcript reads better than Terrell's commercial.

MS. TERRELL: Well, I think what we’re talking about is making the temporary taxes permanent, temporary tax reductions permanent reductions,

The commercial is even more confusing. I think I know what the point is, but it ain't real clear. "Making taxes permanent" doesn't sound as clear as "making taxcuts permanent."

7 posted on 11/18/2002 8:24:45 AM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kms61
I think it's rather good expenditure of campaign money...those folks should be fertile ground. why bad taste?
8 posted on 11/18/2002 8:38:59 AM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Keith
Not bad taste, bad judgement. In today's security climate, a small plane buzzing around a stadium with 92,000 people is a BAD idea. Have we forgotten 911 so soon?
9 posted on 11/18/2002 9:01:54 AM PST by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kms61
The only "bomb" those fans had to worry about was the one LSU laid against Bama.
10 posted on 11/18/2002 9:05:19 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
I hate it when the RATS use the "I support the troops" ploy to weasel out of every argument they ever have! If they really (ever) supported the military, they would a)stop making it a social engineering project, b)let the troops train without the tree huggers interfering and worrying about damn woodpeckers, c)let the Marines dig a foxhole!
11 posted on 11/18/2002 9:25:34 AM PST by SAMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kms61
Try grabbing on to the banner and ... don't let go!!!
12 posted on 11/18/2002 10:47:40 AM PST by elenchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kms61
There was a Terrell for Senate plane buzzing the stadium during Saturday's LSU-Alabama game.

When? We were there for Pregame, and didn't see any plane.

13 posted on 11/18/2002 10:49:29 AM PST by geaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
Landrieu has her facts completely jumbled. The tax cuts do NOT take effect "in 10 years." They EXPIRE in 10 years. She didn't get much else right, either.

Michael

14 posted on 11/18/2002 10:51:51 AM PST by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geaux
Don't know how you could've missed it. It was there most of the night with a blinking sign scrolling across the bottom of the wings, "Support President Bush, Vote Suzie Terrell."
15 posted on 11/18/2002 10:52:40 AM PST by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
So much for homeland security, eh?
16 posted on 11/18/2002 10:54:20 AM PST by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
The tax bill is back loaded, most of the tax relief
involved do not take effect until later, this is what she was talking about.
17 posted on 11/18/2002 11:21:01 AM PST by oldcomputerguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: oldcomputerguy
"The tax bill is back loaded, most of the tax relief involved do not take effect until later, this is what she was talking about."

I know that, but she said it in a completely incorrect way. Tax relief builds and builds - and then ENDS in 10 years. Plus, from her answers, it was obvious she didn't have a grip on the details AT ALL.

Michael

18 posted on 11/18/2002 11:23:33 AM PST by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kms61
Do you want to stake the future of the country on the loyalty of Chafee and McCain?
19 posted on 11/18/2002 11:30:21 AM PST by elenchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
Terell would be well advised to rethink her stand on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Her Governor says he feels that the state already has a "higher" standard than the fed mandates. He is probably correct.

The demographic data breakdown that NCLB requires, can be easily accomplished at any time, by using good software at the state level. Looks like "academic achievement" is most important to this Governor. She would be wise to AGREE with him because lots of voting parents do. An offer to work with him in reaching "an alternative to the same destination" might be wise.

20 posted on 11/18/2002 11:53:09 AM PST by codder too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elenchus
Your point being? I just said that it was poor judgment by whoever did this...and it may not have been Terrell's campaign. It could well have been some independent expenditure. Regardless, people do stupid things, and that includes Republicans. This was stupid and IMHO showed either a lack of understanding or disregard of the seriousness of the homeland security situation. Whoever thought this was a good idea to be called on it, and I'm not going to hold my tongue just because they happen to be a Terrell supporter or staffer.
21 posted on 11/18/2002 11:54:50 AM PST by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
Thats funny, I knew what she was talking about and what
she meant.
22 posted on 11/18/2002 12:53:57 PM PST by oldcomputerguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: oldcomputerguy
"Thats funny, I knew what she was talking about and what she meant."

That's because you're a hip political news junkie like we all are around here. But to a succor mom with 6 kids and 80 distractions while the TV is on, what she had to say made no sense at all. And while you may have KNOWN what she meant, she did not SAY what she herself meant. She stammered out the OPPOSITE of what she meant.

She also didn't answer the questions. She just gave another variation on the what the meaning of "is" is.

Michael

23 posted on 11/18/2002 1:21:33 PM PST by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
Well after listening to the two of them, I plan to vote
no in December.
24 posted on 11/19/2002 8:33:50 AM PST by oldcomputerguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson