POLITICO Playbook: The most reliable politics newsletter. - POLITICO
DAVID GREGORY This morning, a special hour of MEET THE PRESS. MITT ROMNEY The administration was wrong to stand by statements the map of all of this turmoil with our viewers to show the scale of it across not just the Arab world, But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our. The White House has not reached out to Pelosi's staff to try to schedule a get .. “ Meet the Press”: Special edition on the Climate Crisis: Former New York City. Meet the Press transcript archive Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Kevin Spacey, David Brooks, .. the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. We do have a lot to get to today.
Folkenflik went on to write: Russert's remarks would suggest a form of journalism that does not raise the insolent question from outside polite political discourse—so, if an administration's political foes aren't making an opposing case, it's unlikely to get made.
In the words of one of my former editors, journalists can read the polls just like anybody else. My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them. In Octoberliberal commentators accused Russert of harassing Clinton over the issue of supporting drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants.
Russert held season tickets to both the Washington Nationals and the Washington Wizards  and was elected to the board of directors of the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York in A lifelong fan of the Buffalo Bills football team, Russert often closed Sunday broadcasts during the football season with a statement of encouragement for the franchise. The team released a statement on the day of his death, saying that listening to Russert's "Go Bills" exhortation was part of their Sunday morning game preparation.
While his son was attending Boston Collegehe often ended Meet the Press with a mention of the success of various Boston College sports teams. Russert's father Timothy Joseph Russert, "Big Russ", was a World War II veteran who held down two jobs after the war, emphasized the importance of maintaining strong family valuesthe reverence of faithand never taking a short cut to reach a goal. Russert claimed to have received over 60, letters from people in response to the book, detailing their own experiences with their fathers.
Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons ina collection of some of these letters.
This book also became a best-seller. Cameo television appearance[ edit ] Russert made a cameo appearance in on the critically acclaimed police dramaHomicide: The news website msnbc. In lateMSNBC began attracting liberal and progressive viewers as Keith Olbermann began critiquing and satirizing conservative media commentators during his Countdown With Keith Olbermann program.
ET, a new program that took over Cosby and Carlson's timeslots. On September 24,Abrams announced that he was leaving his general manager position so he could focus on his 9: That's not the case anymore.
They were widely viewed as the face of the channel's political coverage. Both were later removed from their anchor positions. You can, you can find, you know, many, many instances of my indicating my position previous to that time of being effectively pro-choice.
I didn't call myself pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. And, and, and that position changed. It changed at that point. And every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life. Do you believe life begins at conception? I believe, I believe from a, from a, a political perspective that life begins at conception.
I, I don't, I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. You didn't try to change the Massachusetts abortion laws. I'd committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment. But each law that was brought to my desk attempted to expand abortion rights and, in each case, I vetoed that effort. I also promoted abstinence education in our schools.
I vetoed an effortfor instance, to give young women a morning after pill, they call it, who did not have prescriptions -- young, very young girls, without age limitation.
So I took action to preserve the sanctity of life. But I did not violate my word, of course. But when you say you support a human life amendment to ban all abortions across the countrywhat would -- form would that take?
If a woman had an abortionwould she be perceived a criminal? Would a doctor who performed it be perceived a criminal? You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortionand yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure? Well, let's do two parts to that. First of all, my view is that the right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v.
NBC Meet the Press | Listen via Stitcher Radio On Demand
Wade overturned and then return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to deal with, with life and abortion on their own.
But, Governorplay that out. Some states would allow abortionothers wouldn't. So back to your relative. They cross the border into another state What would be the consequences?
Let me get, let me get that. I'll get to the consequences. But I want to point out that the first step, in my view, is that Roe v. And ultimately, as, as an aspirational goal, I would love it if America came to a point where we're not today, where the people of America would, would welcome a society that did not have abortion.
But that's not where we are, and so I'm not promoting or fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states. I am fighting for an overturning of Roe v. They would be like the consequences associated with the bill relating to partial birth abortionwhich, of coursedoes not punish the woman. You, you wouldn't -- I don't think anyone is calling for -- maybe some of them, but no one I know of is calling for punishing the, the mother, punishing the woman.
How about the doctor? But in, in the case of the doctor, the kinds of penalties would be potentially losing a license or having some other kind of restriction. In the case of partial birth abortionas I recall, the penalty is a -- possibly a prison term not to exceed two years.
But generally, of coursethe medical profession would immediately follow the law. That's not going to be an issue. And there would be a, a recognition that, that one's, one's license was at risk if one violated the law. You talked about this issue of stem cell research and embryos and yet you seem to have changed your position on that as well. Here's the way it was reported in the papers back then: In August ofGovernor Romney appeared to express support for expanded federal backing of embryonic work.
They voted to provide surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization processes being used for research and experimentation. That's what I said I support. Do you still support that? I, I have the same position -- let me describe it, because there are two parts to it. One is what I think should be legal in our society, and the other is, where should we devote federal funds. With regards to what should be legal in our society, as you, as you know, embryonic and stem cell research generally is a very broad term, and so we have, of coursethe adult sources of embryonic cells, we have so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and then we have new development of, of stem cells through cloning or through embryo farming.
And from a legal standpoint, I would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells and I would outlaw embryo farming. I would allowon a private basis, the use of surplus embryosso-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and likewise the existing lines.
So from a legal -- and I faced that in Massachusetts. In terms of funding, I think the best source of our funding application should be in what are known as alternative methods.
And this just recent. I've been, as you know, fighting for this for some time. But this recently saw a major breakthrough with direct reprogramming of, of human adult cells to become stem cells that can be very potent cells applied to help cure disease and, and serious conditions. Now, interestingly, Hillary Clinton voted for these alternative method technologies when she was first faced with it. But then as she became a presidential candidateshe was one of 28 to vote against alternative methods.
She put politics ahead of people. And the, the source of great cures in this country is going to come from this, this, this alternative methods of creating stem cells without having to create new embryosbut instead focusing on taking adult cells, turning them into stem cells just as we've seen with this great breakthroughs by Asian and American scientists.
But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed The term support is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose. You wouldn't outlaw it. I would, I would not outlaw it. I would allowI would allow private laboratories and private institutions -- as we currently do, and as the president does as well -- to use these so-called surplus or embryos to be discarded.
Let me note as well, Timin that regard, that, that I think before we, we move too far down that road that we establish a provision for parents to have authority over their own embryos and to have adoption procedures so that they might be able to provide these embryosas some call them, snowflake babies to allow them to be adopted by others and to be implanted and become human beings.
That's the, that's the course I'd prefer. But I would not outlaw the use of these, of these surplus embryos if the parents so directed. And, at the same time, for federal dollars I would focus it on the, the alternative methods.
Let me turn to gun control. Romneywho once described himself as a supporter of strong gun lawsis distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his ' 94 " Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this.
There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time.
And, and that position is that I don't line up percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. You're still for the Brady Bill? I supported the assault weapon ban. I assigned -- and I -- let me, let me describe it.
But you're still for it. Let's describe what it is. I signed -- I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusettswhich was a big plus.
And so both the pro-gun and the anti- gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?
Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms How about the Brady Bill? The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of coursetechnology has changed over time. But the idea of a waiting period.
Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. I support background checks to, to -- for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill. The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original.
The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people's backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don't want to cause a waiting period that's not necessary based upon today's technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street.
And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA.
But do we line up on every issue? Immigration, an issue that is very important in this country and to the Republican primary voters. The Boston Globe interviewed you two years ago, and there's a tape of that conversation where you expressed support for the policies of George Bush and John McCain on immigration. Let's watch and listen. I think an amnesty program is what, which is all the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens, Unidentified Man: What the president has proposed, Man: They require people signing up for a, a, well, registering and receiving, if you will, a number, a registration number, then working here for six years and paying taxes And, and those are things that are being, being considered, and I, I think that that's -- that those are reasonable proposals.
The Lowell Sunyour home -- one of your hometown, state home papers, said this. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country. Now let's, now let's look at those very carefully, OK, and you're, you're a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston GlobeI described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs.
I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support -- and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support.
And, of coursethe Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don't recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sunthat those people who had come here illegally and are in this country -- the 12 million or so that are here illegally -- should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally.
And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate. But they shouldn't have to go home? Well, whether they go home -- they should go home eventually.
POLITICO Playbook: Did Trump blow the shutdown?
There's a set per -- in my view they should be -- they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residencywell, thy would be a different matter.
But for the great majority, they'll be going home. The children they had born here are U. Well, that's a choice, of coursethe parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they've brought a child to this country or they've had a child in this countrythat's, that's wonderful that they're growing their families, but that doesn't mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely.
We're fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think's awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It's not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws.
And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there's an employment verification system to identify who's here legally and who's not. And then for the 12 million who've come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway. Your views have been complicated by your own situation.
This was The Boston Globe back in December of ' But, for a decade, the governor has used a landscaping company that relies heavily on workers like these, illegal Guatemalan immigrants, to maintain the ground surrounding his pink Colonial house.
A year later, The Boston Globe came back and the same company and illegal immigrants doing the same work. Did you report that company to authorities saying -- a year ago -- saying they're using illegal immigrants?