When Russert grilled Edwards

With the news of Tim Russert's death, there has been much talk about how he put politicians on the spot during interviews.

One such occasion was in May 2002, when Russert interviewed then-U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

By some accounts, Edwards did not fare well. Conservative columnist Robert Novak said at the time that Edwards "withered under Tim Russert's grilling."

It was more than a year before Edwards appeared again on the show - some said it was because he received such poor reviews the first time. But Edwards, by most accounts, fared better the second time around.

David Axelrod, Edwards' media strategist at the time, said Edwards' second interview with Russert was "a benchmark of his evolution as a candidate."

The transcript of the 2002 interview after the jump.

–––––

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Senator John Edwards, welcome.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, (D-NC): Glad to be with you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Ariel Sharon's coming to the United States tonight. What would President Edwards say to him?

SEN. EDWARDS: First of all, I'd listen to him, I'd hear what he has to say. I understand that he's coming to talk about the situation in Israel. My belief is that the very existence of Israel is being threatened today. I think we have to think about the long-term goals of what we want to accomplish. First of all, we want to make sure Israel's secure, we want to make sure the region is stable. And then I would listen to what the prime minister had to say. I mean, his people have been under attack, under terrorist attack. They live under the threat of terrorism every single day. I understand that one of the things he intends to talk about is some evidence that he believes he has that Arafat is directly related to, directly connected to the terrorism and the suicide bombings. And I'd want to see that evidence and see what his case is.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you urge him to stop building settlements on the West Bank?

SEN. EDWARDS: I think that our role in this is to stay engaged, to offer ideas, to try to bring the parties together to try to reduce the level of violence in the region. I don't think our responsibility is to make demands on a sovereign nation, particularly an old, deep, passionate ally like Israel. And I think that, as I said earlier, the very existence of Israel is being threatened. So the answer is we have to find some way to move toward what I think everyone recognizes is the long-term goal here, and I think the establishment of this international conference is a good idea. It moves us in the right direction.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Sharon should negotiate with Arafat?

SEN. EDWARDS: I think that's a decision he needs to make. You know, as I said, he has evidence he's going to talk to us about, that he believes shows that Arafat is complicit, has some responsibility for what's happened. If, in fact, Arafat has blood on his hands and has direct responsibility for what's happened, I can understand why Israel and the prime minister do not want to sit across the table from him. And I think that's a decision that Israel will have to make. And also, it's something that will have to be negotiated as we establish the contours of what's going to happen in this conference.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it was appropriate for President Bush to tell Ariel Sharon to stop the military incursion?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. From my perspective, I think it's a mistake for us to make demands. And I think it's fine for us to talk to the prime minister. We have a long and important relationship with Israel. I think it's fine for us to suggest things, but--and I also see some inconsistency between us saying to Israel--we're making demands on Israel to stop when, in fact, when we were attacked, we went half a world away--correctly, in my judgment--half a world away to go after the people who were responsible for it. Now, I think that, I think that I did not agree with that kind of demand.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the United Nations should send observers into Jenin to see if there had been a massacre, as had been suggested or reported?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, the problem is that, you know, I think the way the suggestion was made by the United Nations--the constitution, how they wanted to conduct the investigation of what happened in Jenin--I don't think they handled it well. And I think, actually, Israel probably made the right decision to reject it.

MR. RUSSERT: What kind of marks would you give President Bush in handling the Middle East?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I think he's doing better now. I don't know in terms of A, B, C. I think for a long period of time, he was disengaged. We've known for over a long period of time that it's a complicated situation there, and it's going to require American involvement over--sustained involvement over a long period of time.

I also have another concern, which is not only related to the Middle East, but it's connected to the Middle East, which is--and you asked General Powell about it just a few minutes ago. It's clearly been--General Powell, who's an extraordinary public servant, somebody that the American people have great respect for, is having a very hard time doing his job. And that's because he's being undermined by other people within the administration who appear to disagree with him.

It is so important, Tim, for us to speak with one voice and to be consistent in order for the rest of the world to see us as credible. But we have on the same day, the president, for example, suggesting he's supporting Prime Minister Sharon's military action. That later the same day, our administration votes for a U.N. resolution asking him to pull back. Secretary Powell says that they should withdraw from the settlements, while other administration people are saying to the newspapers that they don't support that kind of action.

This is one of those things where I think leadership from the president is needed. Now, if you have--it makes perfect sense, and Secretary Powell said this just a minute ago, that smart, strong people within the administration, people who rise to that level, have strong opinions and strong feelings and they're real forces. That's good. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's the responsibility of the president when there are differences to bring them together, reach consensus and establish policy. And there's been a lot of fits and starts and inconsistency.

MR. RUSSERT: But specifically, if you did not urge Ariel Sharon to stop his military incursion, did not urge Israel to give up some settlements, how would you ever achieve a long-term peace in the Middle East if you simply stepped back and embraced Israel 100 percent?

SEN. EDWARDS: Now, I'm not suggesting that we step back and embrace Israel 100 percent. But the reality is that these parties, with our help, with our involvement, with our continuing to pressure moderate Arab states in the area to be involved, to be engaged, to provide support--I mean, there's a lot of dispute and a lot of discussion, you know, about what's happening on the street in the Arab world. Everyone knows that one of the most critical things in order for us to sort of lower the resentment, lower the feelings that people on the street in the Arab world have about our country is to try to resolve what's happening between Israel and Palestine. I think the bottom line is America needs to be there, we need to be involved, we need to support Israel. But we got to find some way to bring these people to the table and make progress.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Afghanistan, and put on the board again your comments in Florida that I asked Secretary Powell about: "The rest of the country is going right back to chaos, right back to where it was under the Taliban." Words are important. Do you believe Afghanistan is going back to right where it was under the Taliban?

SEN. EDWARDS: I believe if we don't do something about it, there's an enormous potential for that happening, because this is what's occurring. General Powell mentioned a national army. We're two years from having a national army. There's an interim government there. We've gone over there, we've fought the war, we got rid of the Taliban. And right now, we have a 4,500 international peacekeeping force, small in size, located just to the area around Kabul. And everyone knows--I mean, I sit on the Intelligence Committee, Tim. Everyone knows there are huge parts of Afghanistan that are not secure, not in control.

MR. RUSSERT: So what would you do, send thousands of more American troops?

SEN. EDWARDS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: What would you do?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. What I would do is show leadership. I would go to our allies and say, "This peacekeeping force--we fought the war. We did it. You are our allies. This peacekeeping force needs to be expanded." We need to go to our allies, show leadership, ask them to expand the peacekeeping force not only in size, but in scope. Because if we don't do something about this, Tim, we've got warlords out there. There are also drug lords. And it's important to remember as we fight the war on drugs--which we do every single day in this country--that Afghanistan is an enormous source for heroin for all the world, including our country.

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary Powell said that he has not found anyone in Europe, anywhere, who's willing to expand their troop presence in Afghanistan.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, of course. If you go to them and say, "Is this something you would think about? Is this something you would do?" as opposed to showing leadership and going in and saying, "This is something we need to do. We need to not lose the victory that we've been able to obtain in Afghanistan. And in order to do it, we need your help. You said you are our allies. We think this is important. This is American policy. We think that the peacekeeping force needs to be expanded," if we showed that kind of leadership, I believe we could get our allies to do something about it.

MR. RUSSERT: And if they said, "President Edwards, you put 2,000 more American troops in and we'll match you 2,000," and get four more countries to do that, would you do that?

SEN. EDWARDS: I wouldn't do that, but what I would do is, I think it makes some sense--you know, what America is great at, that some of these other nations are not nearly as good at, is providing logistical support, intelligence communications. I think we could provide some of that kind of help, not combat troops, but that kind of help.

MR. RUSSERT: The economic growth in this country for this quarter was 5.8 percent. Last quarter was 1.7. Dramatic increase. Is that proof or demonstration that the Bush economic plan is working?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. No. At the same time unemployment is the highest rate it's been for the last eight years. What we know works, Tim, is fiscal discipline, fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, low interest rates. What we want to do in this country is we want to create an environment for prosperity. I believe deeply in prosperity. You know, you and I come from similar backgrounds, and our parents dreamed that we would be able to do the things that we've been able to do, but in order for that to happen, in order for that to happen, there has to be an economic climate that allows it to happen.

The engine of economic growth in this country is not the government. There's no question about that; it's private business. But what the government can do is it can provide an environment that encourages investment, that encourages entrepreneurship, that encourages innovation. Those are the kind of things that we need to be doing, and in my judgment they're not doing, because we've gotten off the path of fiscal discipline, off the path of fiscal responsibility. We've gone from a $5 trillion projected surplus to a $1 trillion projected surplus. These things have consequences and what happens is those consequences build on themselves over time so it becomes worse and worse over time. But, but it's fixable. It's correctable.

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned fiscal discipline three times. Both parties said, "We will not touch the Social Security surplus. There will be the lockbox"--now the immortal lockbox--and yet, this is the headline from The Washington Post.

SEN. EDWARDS: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: "Senate Democrats, who have frequently criticized President Bush for using excess Social Security receipts to fund other programs, yesterday unveiled a budget plan that would tap Social Security every year for the rest of the decade."

And then this: "Earnest pledges not to spend excess Social Security and Medicare receipts have been largely abandoned. Efforts to reduce the deficits are put off to next year and beyond. ... Senate Democrats said they want to return to the practice of using surplus Social Security receipts to pay down the debt. But their plan defers until next year--after this year's [congressional elections]--any decisions on how to cut spending or raise taxes by $400 billion over five years to achieve that goal."

Specifically, what program would you cut? What taxes would you raise to avoid tapping into the Social Security surplus?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, what we've done is we've implemented a tax cut, a huge tax cut, that I opposed. I thought it--and the circumstances have changed since that tax cut was passed. I mean, since the tax cut was passed--and I opposed it at the time. I think I thought it was fiscally irresponsible and was slanted toward the wrong group of Americans--but move that aside...

MR. RUSSERT: You voted for it one time, and in a final passage you voted against it.

SEN. EDWARDS: No. I voted for a framework, but I never voted for the tax cut. I opposed the tax cut, and I think it was an irresponsible tax cut. But what's happened since that time, Tim, is we've had 9/11, we've had the war on terrorism and all the spending associated with that. And in addition to that we've gone through a clear economic downturn, so circumstances have changed. We have got to find a way to get back to the path of fiscal discipline. Now what does that mean? I think it means that if we could keep this tax cut--people are talking now in the Congress about making the tax cut permanent. I oppose making the tax cut permanent. The amount of money that it'll take to make this tax cut permanent is enough to--twice as much, actually, as will be necessary to keep Social Security solvent for the next 75 years. Over the back half of the tax cut, which comes into play starting in the year 2004, about half of it goes to the top 1 percent of the richest Americans, so...

MR. RUSSERT: But in order to stop taking money from the Social Security surplus and eliminate the deficit--it's now back up to $100 billion a year--what programs would you cut, what tax would you raise?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, what I would do about the tax--what I would do, first of all, is I'd vote against making the tax cut permanent, number one. Number two, the Bush White House says that we shouldn't even consider or be talking about doing anything about any part of the tax cut. They not only want to make it permanent, they want to not even discuss the possibility of doing something to at least put off the tax cut for the richest Americans in order to do what's necessary to save Social Security. I think that's a mistake. I think this is the kind of thing that, Tim, you know as well as I do it does no good for Democrats to have one position and the Republicans to have another position. This is one of those things that's going to take a bipartisan effort to work together. But we have to be willing to put on the table what we've done over the course of the last two years, given the way circumstances have changed. They've changed. They've changed dramatically. And about half of what's happened with the surplus and the loss of surplus is a direct result of the tax cut.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you a plan that's been proposed by a colleague of yours, Senator Ted Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and this is interesting. He said 80 percent of taxpayers, those who make up to $72,000, get to keep the entire tax cut, 100 percent. They will lose none of it. The next 15 percent, those who make between $72,000 and $147,000 would keep 99 percent of the tax cut. They lose about 17 bucks. The next 4 percent who make between $147,000 and $373,000 would keep 87 percent of the tax cut. They lose about $432. And the top 1 percent of income earners in the country, those who make $373,000 or more, would only keep 19 percent of the tax cut. They'd lose about $42,000. Could you support that plan?

SEN. EDWARDS: I don't support that plan, but what I would support is making the tax cut permanent for about 90 percent of Americans, the people who, in my judgment, needed a tax cut, get a real benefit from it, and I think what we ought to be talking about, Tim, is what are we going to do about the top layer of the tax cut, given the fact that in order to pay for that tax cut we're taking money out of Social Security, benefits that all Americans enjoy.

And I might add, Tim, for those people who do well in this country, I think that actually the most responsible thing to do and the best thing to do for them is not to give them this tax cut, is to create an economic environment where their investments do well, where their investments grow. The wealthiest people in this country...

MR. RUSSERT: So why not rescind the tax cut the way Senator Kennedy is proposing and then you would have money to balance the budget and not tap into Social Security? Why not just step up and do it?

SEN. EDWARDS: At the end of the day it may be necessary to do something about part of the tax cut, but I think if we do something about part of the tax cut, we need to be very clear about what it's being used for. It needs to be used for Social Security, not for other discretionary spending. It needs to be very targeted to do what needs to be done for Social Security.

MR. RUSSERT: How about using $180 billion in increased farm subsidies for farmers?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well...

MR. RUSSERT: Why would you spend that much more money? Why would you give new subsidies to farmers for $180 billion over the next 10 years when we're having economic discipline problems we're talking about?

SEN. EDWARDS: Here's why. Because the biggest reason we're having these fiscal discipline problems is because of the tax cut. In my mind, it is not the right thing to do to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans and to pay for it on the backs of farmers. I mean, I think these things are all related, Tim. They're not independent of one another, and when we enact a big tax cut, as I indicated earlier, half of which goes to the richest Americans over the next few years, and we're paying for that out of Social Security recipients. Are we going to pay for it also on the backs of farmers, working people who are having a terrible time making ends meet? I just don't think that's the right thing to do.

MR. RUSSERT: So if you're going to pay for the farm bill and not tap into Social Security surplus, you're going to have to rescind the tax cut under your arithmetic?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I think first of all we need to not make it permanent. That's the easy decision. Second, we need to come together all of us, the administration, the members of Congress, and find a way to do something to get us back on the path. One of the things that ought to be on the table during that discussion is doing something about the part of the tax cuts that goes to the richest Americans. For the rest of the people we ought to make it permanent.

MR. RUSSERT: Al Gore won the popular vote in the year 2000. Lost the Electoral College. Do you believe that Al Gore and Joe Lieberman deserve a rematch in 2004?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, Al Gore is somebody that I have enormous respect for, Tim. As you know, we had discussions about the vice presidential nomination during his campaign. I think he's a good man. I think he cares deeply about the country and has lots of ideas for this country. I think if he decides, he and his family decide that it's best for them and best for the country for him to be a candidate for the presidency, I think he'll be a very strong candidate.

MR. RUSSERT: But you'll still run?

SEN. EDWARDS: Here's my view. What I decide to do about this will not be dependent on what any of these other folks do. My decision will be based on what I think--if I believe that I have a vision for where this country needs to go and a perspective that needs to be in the political debate, in the national debate, that's what would control my decision.

MR. RUSSERT: Can a Democrat be elected without carrying a Southern state?

SEN. EDWARDS: The answer is: Yes, it can be done. It's difficult. Obviously, the Democrats who've run from the South, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and who were able to compete in Southern states are stronger because of that.

MR. RUSSERT: New Yorker, front page, says, "The Next Bill Clinton," with a picture of you. Are you the next Bill Clinton?

SEN. EDWARDS: I'm having enough trouble being the present John Edwards. I don't believe I could be the next Bill Clinton.

MR. RUSSERT: How are you different from Bill Clinton?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, we come from very different places. There are similarities. You know, I grew up in a small town in North Carolina. My dad worked in cotton mills all his life. My mom had--her last job was working at the post office. And I was the first person in my family to go to college. But I didn't spend most of my life in politics. I spent most of my time representing people who were in very difficult places in their lives and trying to give them a shot. And I'm proud of what I did. But most of my life was not spent in politics. As a result, I have a perspective on what needs to happen in this country that's outside Washington, I think, seen through the eyes of regular people. And there are obviously--President Clinton spent a lot of his time in political life before he came to the White House.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have different values than Bill Clinton?

SEN. EDWARDS: I think in terms of what we believe needs to be done for the country, we have a lot of similar views. I think that President Clinton did very good things for this country, in terms of economic growth and giving opportunity to people who otherwise had never had a shot, never had real opportunity. So I think in terms of what we believe needs to be done for the country, there are a lot of similarities.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you some polls. The immortal polls, the latest Zogby poll, Al Gore way ahead, 46 percent. Daschle, Lieberman, Bradley, Gephardt, Kerry, Al Sharpton and there's John Edwards at 1 percent.

SEN. EDWARDS: I'm surprised it's that high.

MR. RUSSERT: Trailing.

SEN. EDWARDS: Within the margin of error there, actually, it's probably negative people who know who I am.

MR. RUSSERT: Elon University from your home state did a poll which I found interesting. And it says, "Only 43 percent of North Carolinans approve of the job Edwards is doing in the Senate," down from 57 percent and enthusiasm for a White House run by Edwards was just 41 percent. The people who know you best. Why are they so lukewarm?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I've seen a lot of polls that are very different than that. But the bottom line is, I think the people of North Carolina know me. They understand what it is I'm doing here in Washington. And I think that what really matters, ultimately, is if I have a connection and have been doing the kind of job I need to do for the folks I represent in North Carolina, they'll be there when the time comes.

MR. RUSSERT: A lot of discussion--you brought it up--your past as a trial lawyer. Roll Call had this article about the money you've raised for your campaign, that you relied almost entirely on trial lawyer friends to underwrite his ambitions. It goes on to cite that 86 percent of the money you have raised comes in fact from lawyers, their employees or family members. A lot of money, $50,000, $100,000 contributions from trial lawyers. Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, couldn't avoid weighing in with this comment. "America won't elect John Edwards president for the same reason we've never elected a used car salesman president. America hates trial lawyers." Is that a burden?

SEN. EDWARDS: No, it's not a burden. I'm proud of what I spent my life doing. I think I fought for regular people and gave them a chance. You know, I--these lawyers who have supported me, they support me because I was a lawyer for 20 years. They're friends of mine. They're people that I know. And they know that I believe in the jury system. I think a jury system is democracy in action, and I think regular people and the little guy deserve a chance in that system. Having said all that, of course, there are ways in which--since I've been in the United States Senate that I've differed from trial lawyers. My responsibility is to represent the people of this country...

MR. RUSSERT: Such as?

SEN. EDWARDS: ...and the people of North Carolina.

MR. RUSSERT: Such as?

SEN. EDWARDS: For example, when Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy and I wrote the patients' bill of rights, we had a cap on one area of damages, the civil penalties part of the bill, which I'm sure the trial lawyers did not like and are not happy about. We had a cap on attorneys' fees, which I'm sure the trial lawyers don't agree with. I feel very strongly that we need real and enforceable penalties for frivolous lawsuits that may be filed in this country. I think that what we've seen happen in Enron, for example, it's not just accountants who are involved, lawyers were involved in many stages of that process. And we need to find ways to make sure that that doesn't happen again. And that one of the reasons we have high prescription drug costs in this country, Tim, is because of patent litigation abuse, which, of course, lawyers are involved in. My responsibility is to do what's right for the country.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Senator John Edwards, thank you for joining us this morning.

SEN. EDWARDS: Glad to be with you, Tim.