MR. DAVID GREGORY: Our issues this Sunday: warring parties. Democrats and Republicans at odds over the economy, national security, abortion and health care. This morning, whether President Obama’s agenda is the blueprint for lasting Democratic rule or an example of overreach that will allow Republicans to chart the course back to power. With us for their first Sunday morning showdown as party chairs, the Democratic National Committee’s Tim Kaine and the Republican National Committee’s Michael Steele square off on the many issues that divide their two parties.

Then the torture debate and the House speaker’s pointed charge.

(Videotape)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): So yes, I’m saying that they are misleading–that the CIA was misleading the Congress.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: What Speaker Pelosi knew about the use of waterboarding and whether she did anything to try to stop it. Our roundtable weighs in on that and much more after a busy week in Washington: the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein; the Council on Foreign Relations’ Richard Haass, author of new book “War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars”; Newsweek’s Jon Meacham; and The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan.

But first, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele.

Welcome both of you back to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. MICHAEL STEELE: It’s great to be with you.

GOV. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Thanks, David.

MR. GREGORY: There’s a lot to talk about. Let’s begin with the issue of abortion, the divide between left and right in this country, and it is playing out today on Notre Dame University’s campus; the president there to receive an honorary degree, to give the commencement address, and he’s created quite a bit of controversy.

MR. STEELE: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: And here’s the backdrop, and it’s very interesting. The Gallup Poll did a survey this week and this is what it found: “A new poll…finds 51 percent of Americans calling themselves `pro-life’ on the issue of abortion, 42 percent `pro-choice.’ It’s the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking the question back in 1995.”

Chairman Steele, both of you as Catholics, should Notre Dame have a pro-abortion rights president get a degree and address the graduates?

MR. STEELE: I think you have two issues here that need to get clearly separated. First off, any institution’s going to be honored to have the president of the United States come and address them. And that’s separate from that institution then placing its imprimatur on the president by conferring a degree, which is what–which is the case here. And that’s where Catholics draw the line. It’s not about the president speaking at the university, it’s the fact that the institution is saying that we confer, you know, our favor on you…

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. STEELE: …and by extension a lot of the values that you represent and hold, because they are tied together in many respects. Those institutions don’t hand those degrees out that readily. So it is, it is a very strong sticking point and I think a lot of Catholics and a lot of pro-life Americans are very concerned about that. And I think it’s inappropriate. And the president should speak, but the degree should not be conferred.

MR. GREGORY: Chairman Steele.

GOV. KAINE: Well, David, look, I’m a Catholic. I’ve got two brothers who are Notre Dame grads and feel very close to that community. I’m very happy that they’ve invited the president and that they are honoring him with a degree today because I think that his career merits it, and I think most Catholics agree. The issue on abortion is really this, the president has really made it pretty plain: Our party stands for let’s reduce unintended pregnancies, let’s reduce abortions, but we don’t have to criminalize the choices that women make or that their doctors make to do so. So the president has got a very open dialogue going now with folks who want to come up with other strategies to reduce abortion. Better health care access for women, you know, appropriate education of youngsters, better adoption policies.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. KAINE: Those things can reduce abortion.

MR. GREGORY: What should the president say today, though, to address this controversy…

GOV. KAINE: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: …at a time when this culture debate is going to rear its head again as we get to the Supreme Court?

GOV. KAINE: I think what he should say is that let’s beware of those who want to make it into a polarized culture debate and talk about ways for Americans to find common ground. And that’s what the president has done, and I think that’s what he will share today at Notre Dame.

MR. GREGORY: You know, it’s interesting, because this is an issue where some on the left have been critical of the president, saying that he hasn’t pushed hard enough. This is how The New York Times reported it on Friday: “[Obama] has actually dialed back some earlier ambitions. In 2007, he promised Planned Parenthood that…[he would] sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which effectively codifies Roe v. Wade. Now he says the bill is `not my highest legislative priority.’” Is he backtracking?

GOV. KAINE: He’s looking forward to bringing people together. Because again, abortion is like a lot of other issues. It gets pitted as, you know, one polarized side against the other. But American people, I think, recognize that we would want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. You just don’t have to criminalize women’s health care choices…

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. KAINE: …to do so. And that’s where the president is drawing people together.

MR. GREGORY: Chairman Steele, there are Republicans like Newt Gingrich, who’s out there saying this is the most pro-abortion of any American president.

MR. STEELE: True.

MR. GREGORY: Do you see it that way? True?

MR. STEELE: I absolutely see it that way.

MR. GREGORY: Based on what?

MR. STEELE: Based on the fact–based on his past record in, in the state legislature, the bill that he sponsors–sponsored there with respect to partial-birth abortion and late-term abortions. The first steps of his administration were to undo the executive order that would ban federal funding of abortion and abortion-related information overseas. I mean, this president is really talking out both sides of his mouth on this issue. On the one instance he’s telling Planned Parenthood, “I got your back, I’m going to be there,” but then on the other instance he’s coming into an institution like Notre Dame and he’s going to play this, you know, “we can all get along on this issue.” The reality of it is the majority of Americans now–and a lot of those numbers are reflected by young people who are coming around on this issue. The science is now proving that life has greater value than, than the Supreme Court thought it did in 1973. And I think that–you’re with two pro-life chairman here. I think that this issue’s going to be a big part of the debate going forward, and the administration had better be careful here because you cannot get away from the morality, morality that’s involved with this issue.

GOV. KAINE: David, I, I just have to say on this, it’s not talking out of both sides of your mouth to try to bring Americans together, and that’s what this president is doing. As far as Newt Gingrich’s statement, a great group in the Democratic Party, Dems For Life, has been very happy with the way this president has included them both in the platform drafting process and now in discussions about finding common ground on strategies to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions.

MR. STEELE: Well, I…

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

Let me ask you this: Is the Republican Party open to pro-abortion right candidates in the way that Governor Kaine has survived in the Democratic Party?

MR. STEELE: We’ve, we’ve, we’ve had, we’ve had, we’ve had wonderful pro, pro-choice candidates. Governor Christie Todd Whitman, for example, was a very successful Republican governor.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. STEELE: And I think, I think this is a great opportunity, since the chairman has made this, this opening here, I look forward to working to build a strong pro-life coalition within the Democratic Party since that’s–this is the direction the president wants to go.

MR. GREGORY: All right, let me talk about how this may play out in the Supreme Court, with a new Supreme Court nominee forthcoming from the administration.

MR. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: And the president has talked about wanting a nominee who is empathetic, somebody who knows what it’s like to be poor, to be African-American, to be gay. Chairman Steele, you were on the radio recently and you took a shot on that priority for the president. This is what you said.

MR. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: “I don’t need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law. Crazy nonsense empathetic.” Sounds like–you, you also say to the NRA on Friday, “Sounds like the president’s been watching `Dr. Phil’ too much, that’s who he wants on the Supreme Court.”

MR. STEELE: Yeah. I don’t–look, I need a judge who’s going to take the Constitution, apply the facts, apply the law and come to a reasoned, sound judgment. I don’t need a judge to look at an African-American standing before him and go off on some, you know, liberal tangent about, “Oh, gee, I wonder what his life was like as a child.” I’m concerned about getting fair adjudication and jurisprudence under the law. And, and the reality of it is this: This is an opportunity for the president to, to break this cycle that we’ve been in, this back and forth between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to judicial nominations. The Constitution must stand for something, it must mean something, and I think this is the appropriate time for this president to show that it has value and importance other than being empathetic.

MR. GREGORY: Chairman Kaine, Jeff Sessions, Senator Sessions, who’s the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, says you got to get a judge on there instead of, say, a politician who’s going to think that they can start interpreting the law and making law. What do you say?

GOV. KAINE: Well, let me wrap it in with the empathy comment. You know, I, I think this is a fundamental philosophical difference between the parties, David. And, you know, I would say to Chairman Steele, you know, the party of no shouldn’t now become the party of no empathy. What the president said was, “I want somebody who has the empathy to be able to understand when, when he is–when he or she is writing an opinion, how is it going to play out in the lives of people sitting in their kitchens trying to work on the economy?”

MR. STEELE: But that’s not the role…

GOV. KAINE: “How is it going to play out in state legislators who have to follow what the court writes, or in a court that has to interpret it?” Empathy is the ability to understand how an opinion written in an closed chamber actually gets played out in real people’s lives. That’s what this president wants.

MR. STEELE: I’m sorry. I, I am sorry.

GOV. KAINE: And I’m surprised at the other guys would have a problem with that.

MR. STEELE: You know, the, the party of no is no to judges that are going to sit there and try to come up with some feel-good legislation, effectively, to feel sorry for me, a judge is there to look at he facts and apply the law and come up with the appropriate resolution. through their opinion. That’s not the role of a judge. A judge is not there He’s–I don’t have time for the judge to feel good or bad about an issue.

GOV. KAINE: But that’s not what the president ever said. He’s, he’s not…

MR. STEELE: He said he’s empathetic. Go look up the definition.

GOV. KAINE: Right. I, I, I have. And…

MR. STEELE: The definition is empathetic is, like, concerned about one’s feelings.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

MR. STEELE: I don’t a judge to be concerned about my feelings.

GOV. KAINE: Well, if you guys are against empathy, just stand on that platform.

MR. STEELE: I’m not–it’s not–look, it’s not about…

GOV. KAINE: Empathy is something we think’s a great value.

MR. STEELE: Come on, Chairman, you know it’s not about being against empathy, it’s about applying the rule of law and having jurisprudence that you can trust, not a judge who may have a bad day or be overly sensitive to my condition.

MR. GREGORY: Let me move away from the issue of social issues and let’s talk about national security and where it divides these two parties. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in some hot water this week. She’s taken on the CIA, saying she was never actually briefed about the use of interrogation techniques like waterboarding. She accuses them of misleading the Congress. They have pushed back saying that wasn’t the case. Why does this matter, Chairman Kaine, in the overall debate over “torture”?

GOV. KAINE: You know, David, great question, because I think the real issue is thank goodness we have a president and a Congress who are stating clearly torture is no longer an instrument of foreign policy of this nation. That’s what really matters, that we’ve turned the page, we’ve said that torture is not an instrument of foreign policy. So what was…

MR. GREGORY: But Democrats don’t want to turn page, Chairman.

GOV. KAINE: Well…

MR. GREGORY: They want accountability for Bush administration figures. And there are those on the right who say wait a minute…

GOV. KAINE: Well…

MR. GREGORY: …what about the House speaker who was in a position to push back and evidently didn’t?

GOV. KAINE: There are some who would like to get into what happened in meetings five, six years ago. The president has made pretty plain…

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. KAINE: …we’ve got to move forward. We have to move forward. Their accountability is important, but the most important thing is getting this right. And so he declared, in a very direct way, torture is no longer going to be used. And I think the American people are rallying around that, you know. So–and as, look, as I followed this situation with the speaker, she said she was briefed that the CIA was getting legal advice about what to do. She was not briefed about the, the tactics being used and thought they were going to come back to her on that, and nobody from the CIA has contradicted her on that.

MR. GREGORY: Well, they have said that they–their contemporaneous accounts indicate that she was indeed briefed on the use of waterboarding.

GOV. KAINE: I, I, I think they, they will say, if you go and look at Panetta’s letter and others, that she was, that she was briefed about the fact that legal advice was being sought, that legal permission had been granted, but the actual fact that it had been used previous to that briefing I do not thing was disclosed to her.

MR. GREGORY: Do Democrats have faith still in the House speaker’s leadership?

GOV. KAINE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: Her job is secure?

GOV. KAINE: It is.

MR. STEELE: Well, I, I–thank goodness for Nancy Pelosi. And I’m so, I was so edified by that press conference the other day where she really expressed in as long as, Tom, she could take, eight different views on this one issue. And I think the reality here is that Nancy Pelosi has stepped in it big time, and she’s not put the Democratic Party in a position where, where the question for me is does the president support Nancy Pelosi’s versions of what happened or his CIA director’s version of what happened? And then the next question is you’ve got, you know, Steny Hoyer himself who’s calling for a closer examination of what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. And I, you know, and I know Steny very well, and he’s a capable, qualified leader in the House. And he, if, if he sees some concern here, then there must be some rot somewhere in the explanation.

GOV. KAINE: (Unintelligible)

MR. GREGORY: Should there be a wider–should there be a truth commission? Should there be an investigation?

MR. STEELE: I think, I think you’ve heard a lot of Republicans call for that. And if this is, if this is a door that the Democrats and, and their leadership, since they have the House and the Senate and the presidency and they want to expose all of this…

GOV. KAINE: Mm-hmm.

MR. STEELE: …then let’s put it all on the table and let’s take a closer look at it.

GOV. KAINE: Michael, can’t, can’t we agree, sitting right here, it’s a great thing that this nation has stated that we’re not going to use torture as an instrument of foreign policy? Can’t we agree on that?

MR. STEELE: I, I, I think that, I think that’s perfectly fine. But that’s not the point. The point is that you have the speaker of the House who said that she, she wasn’t told, she didn’t have a clue. And, in, in fact, the evidence contradicts that.

GOV. KAINE: But, but I’m glad we have agreed now that turning the page and stating that torture is an instrument of foreign policy is a good thing.

MR. STEELE: You can, you can turn…

MR. GREGORY: Well, do you…

MR. STEELE: Well, you can turn the page all you want to that. That fact is still sitting there…

MR. GREGORY: Do you believe…

MR. STEELE: …that your party’s going to have to address.

MR. GREGORY: Do you believe interrogators under the Bush administration’s watch engaged in torture?

MR. STEELE: I think what, what was engaged in at that time was what the, the intelligence community, what the administration, the Department of Defense, the secretary of state all agreed were forms of getting information that were at that time…

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. STEELE: …you know, deemed appropriate. Now, if since that time if there’s, if there’s another opinion that’s been formed by this administration or others, then that’s the direction of the course.

MR. GREGORY: Do you, do you think it was torture?

MR. STEELE: Well, my, my opinion on it doesn’t matter. My personal opinion is look, I want the information.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. STEELE: We’ll get it however we can get it.

MR. GREGORY: But you do, you have an opinion?

MR. STEELE: I have a personal opinion, yes.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think it was torture?

MR. STEELE: That’s my–I’m not, that’s not appropriate here.

MR. GREGORY: You’re not going to say.

MR. STEELE: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: One of, one of the more outspoken members of this debate was the former vice president, Vice President Cheney, who has spoken out in was no violation of the law. But there’s a political matter here as well, and this was the Washington Post headline this week: “As defense of Bush administration policies and said there was no torture, there Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince.” Chairman Steele, did you wince when the vice president was out talking about all of this?

MR. STEELE: No. You know, no, not at all. You know, I–look, I look at–you know, I found, you know, Cheney, I find Pelosi, all–everybody has an opinion, everybody has something to say. The difference is the Vice President Cheney is no longer vice president of the United States, he’s a private citizen who expressed his, his thoughts.

MR. GREGORY: Well, wait a second.

MR. STEELE: But let me, let me…

MR. GREGORY: The Democrats are saying he is in fact the voice of the Republican cause.

MR. STEELE: But there are–we have a lot of voices in, in the Republican Party, just as the Democrats have a lot of voices, starting with the president, the chairman, Al Franken and so many others. So the reality of it from my perspective is no, there was no wincing here.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. STEELE: The vice president expressed his views on this. I think he has some understanding, since he has been in, in that mix for a while. And, and it, it doesn’t matter, ultimately, what the vice president thinks. What matters is what this administration is going to do…

GOV. KAINE: Well…

MR. STEELE: …with respect to, you know, detainees that they come in, you know, bold and brash, let’s open up the, open up Guantanamo, let’s shut it down, and no clue where to put people.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. STEELE: And I understand…

GREGORY: Let me…

MR. STEELE: Let me make this point. Jim Moran, your own, your own congressman, has offered to bring the detainees to Virginia. So are you prepared to go to the people of Virginia…

GOV. KAINE: I think you’re overstating that.

MR. STEELE: No, that’s….

GOV. KAINE: But I want to go back to something. He said it doesn’t matter what the vice president thinks.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

GOV. KAINE: I beg to differ. Again, fundamental philosophical differences. When the immediately past sitting vice president of the United States says that Rush Limbaugh is a better representative of where the Republican Party needs to be than Colin Powell, he is laying out a pretty stark picture…

MR. STEELE: No he’s not.

GOV. KAINE: …of where the party is.

MR. STEELE: No he’s not. And, Chairman…

GOV. KAINE: And so we push back against that.

MR. STEELE: …you’re, you’re not going to get to parse that that way, no.

GOV. KAINE: We, we celebrate the Republican leaders like Jon Huntsman, for example, who, who…

MR. GREGORY: Let–right. We’re going to get to that. You raised this issue of what the vice president said last Sunday. Let’s just show that tape and have you both react to it.

GOV. KAINE: Sure.

(Videotape, May 10, 2009)

MR. BOB SCHIEFFER: Rush Limbaugh said the other day that the party’d probably be better off if Colin Powell left and just became a Democrat.

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: Mm-hmm.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Colin Powell said Republicans’d be better off if they didn’t have Rush Limbaugh speaking for them. Where do you come down?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.

MR. SCHIEFFER: And you said you’d take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I would.

MR. SCHIEFFER: All right.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Politically.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Chairman…

MR. STEELE: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: …do you agree?

MR. STEELE: Look, I take both of them. I want them both.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. STEELE: I’m, I’m in the building…

MR. GREGORY: So you disagree, that there’s room for both.

MR. STEELE: It’s not, it’s not a question of–the man expressed his opinion. You know, that’s his, that’s his view.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. STEELE: As the chairman of the party, I want Rush Limbaugh, I want, I want, you know, Colin Powell, and I’ll even take Tim Kaine. I mean, he’s pro-life, he’s pro-business, you know, he’s pro-Second Amendment. You’ll, you’ll fit…

GOV. KAINE: My father-in-law was a Republican governor, but I’m a proud Democrat.

MR. STEELE: You’ll fit right in.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. STEELE: My point is I’m in the process of working with leaders across this country to multiply and, and add to this party, not subtract and divide.

MR. GREGORY: Right. So does Dick Cheney out there, does it hurt that effort? Would you like him to tone it down that rhetoric?

MR. STEELE: No it doesn’t. No, no. Dick–I, I’m not in the business of suppressing someone’s opinion and their thoughts. He gave a legitimate interview, he shared his opinion. My opinion as chairman of the party is that I want them both and we can accommodate everybody. You all come, the table’s open, sit down, let’s get to work.

GOV. KAINE: Michael, then I’m, I’m just going to ask you this; then don’t go after the Republican senators who voted with President Obama on the recovery act.

MR. STEELE: Well, no…

GOV. KAINE: You said you might go after him in the primaries…

MR. STEELE: Wait a minute.

GOV. KAINE: …and that pushed Arlen Specter away.

MR. STEELE: You’ve taken…

GOV. KAINE: Embrace those senators, don’t go after them.

MR. STEELE: Arlen–first off, Arlen Specter voted himself out of the party. He pushed himself away. In 1966, when he couldn’t get himself elected as a Democrat, he became a Republican. And in 2009, when he couldn’t get re-elected as a Republican, he became a Democrat. So that takes care of that.

MR. GREGORY: Look, I want, I want to bring up Charlie Crist, because this is an interesting point.

MR. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

GOV. KAINE: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: Here he was earlier this year effectively campaigning with President Obama on the stimulus plan, Charlie Crist supporting it. He’s now denying funds to anybody who supported the stimulus plan. running for the Senate. You have said, Chairman Steele, that you are open to

MR. STEELE: As–that is not…

MR. GREGORY: Will you do in the case of Charlie Crist?

MR. STEELE: Let’s, let’s set the record straight here. That is not what I said. What I said was that I would follow the lead of the state party leadership and, and, and making their determinations with respect to primaries and, and the outcomes thereof. Charlie Crist is going to be in a primary for this office. If he wins the primary, I look forward to supporting him if the, if the party’s behind him. And that’s all I said.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. STEELE: And I think, I think that…

MR. GREGORY: Why would the senatorial committee already announce support for him?

MR. STEELE: Because the senatorial committee is, is in a different business. They’re looking to build the Senate, the Senate numbers…

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. STEELE: …and the membership. They don’t have, they don’t have to deal with the state party chairmen and the party leadership and the grassroots the same way the national party chairmanship does.

MR. GREGORY: But…

MR. STEELE: And our general rule is we don’t get into primaries. We, we, we trust the judgment of primary voters and we trust the leadership to make those political decisions that they need to make with respect to the candidates who’ll be running.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think, as head is–head of the Republican Party, that you need more voices like Governor Crist?

MR. STEELE: I need voices period. I need, I need the Republican base, I need Republican activists to stand up and talk about what this administration is doing on the economy, what it’s going to do to us on health care and the actions it’s taken thus far in the Middle East and around the world. So, you know, I’m not, I’m not, I’m not…

MR. GREGORY: But why make support for the stimulus a litmus test then?

MR. STEELE: The support for the stimulus was not a litmus test in, in the, in the way that you’re meaning it. The, the key thing here to keep in mind is that was a core principle for Republicans across this country with respect to our views on spending and, and government interference in, in the market. And so that was, that was a line, it was a clear line that the House Republicans did not cross. Three members of the Senate did. That was a choice that they made. And as I said at the time, they will account to their voters in their respective primaries when that, when that comes.

MR. GREGORY: Final point on this before I want to turn to some Democratic criticisms of the administration. You have the prospect of real consolidation the Senate with Specter flipping… MR. STEELE: That was scary, isn’t it? of Democratic power. You have it in

MR. GREGORY: You have the executive and you have, with Specter coming over, the legislative. How do Republicans overcome that?

MR. STEELE: Well, Specter seems to be having a little bit of problem. I just want to, I just want to know what the deal was that, that got him to the other side. I mean, this is a very sweetheart deal. He jumped to the front of the line, you’re hearing the grumbling behind the scenes. I mean, clearly Governor Rendell…

GOV. KAINE: The deal was we have a big…

MR. GREGORY: Whoa, let’s…(unintelligible). How do you overcome this consolidation of power?

MR. STEELE: Clearly–well, but–well, the way you overcome it is to expose it, expose what it means, expose the fact that when–if, if the Senate gets to 60 that there will be very little that can be done to stop, you know, the wholesale, you know, use of the government in the lives of business, in the lives of, of families. And I think what we need to do is, is talk very clearly about what this means to, to the average person out there, to have one power, one power, one political power control it all. This country has been built on and certainly in the law 25 years worked with this balance. And right now the Democrats are positioning themselves to tip that balance when they lock it down, and I’m standing in, in the way of that as best I can.

GOV. KAINE: And…

MR. GREGORY: Chairman Kaine, we’ve talked about some of the internal dissention in the Republican Party.

GOV. KAINE: Yep.

MR. GREGORY: Let’s talk about the Democrats right now…

GOV. KAINE: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: …and look at what happened just this week. The president reversed himself on the issue of releasing those detainee abuse photos, he’s reversed himself on the issue of military commissions, now siding with the Bush administration approach with some key differences in how those commissions will move forward.

GOV. KAINE: Those differences are very important.

MR. GREGORY: They are, I understand that. During the campaign he said that “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the government’s–the military’s prohibition against gays and lesbians in the military would be overturned. He hasn’t done that yet. Is he walking back from some of the key campaigns that he…

GOV. KAINE: No.

MR. GREGORY: …promises he made in the course of the campaign?

GOV. KAINE: Absolutely not. Let me take them in order. On the photos, the president wrestled with a very fundamental question, which is now that certain photos are out, are more photos going to help us in our national security or not? And he reached the conclusion that they would put American lives at risk who are in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places in the world, and so that there was not a good reason to release more photos and in fact it would hurt our security interests. I think we want a president who’s going to look at that data every day and try to make the best decision for the national security, and that was this decision.

On the military tribunals, when he was in the Senate he was a harsh critic of the way these military commissions were operated by the Bush administration. But he did support military commission bills reforming the process, and that’s what he’s announced today. It’s not contrary to what he said earlier. He said the way we’re going it is wrong, we have to put fundamental reforms in place to make sure that detainees are brought to trial quickly, the right evidence is used, and that’s what’ll happen.

And then finally, on “don’t ask, don’t tell” the president has said, and I share this, this is a policy that needs to change. It is a policy that was enacted by Congress, and so working with Congress to find a way to change it is something he’s committed to doing with Secretary Gates. But he, he has the same…

MR. GREGORY: Why hasn’t he done it? Why…

GOV. KAINE: Well, he’s only been, he’s only been in for three-plus months. He’s had a little bit to deal with.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. KAINE: A couple of wars, toughest economy since 1930s.

MR. GREGORY: So this is not a top priority for him.

GOV. KAINE: This is a very important priority, but it is something that’s going to need Congressional support so he’s working with the military leaders on this. And there’s a whole host of other issues that the president has said, “I’m getting to. I can’t get to them yet, but I’m going to get to them.” And that’s what happens with every president.

MR. STEELE: But it’s not a, but it’s not as important as overturning the project labor agreements that would allow small businesses to actually effectively compete on, on contracts, on federal contracts which they can no longer do because they’re not unionized. It’s, it was, it was certainly not as important as, you know, reversing the, the executive order banning abortions overseas and it certainly was not as important as defunding the opportunity scholarships here in the District of Columbia where, where low-income African-American students are now looking this fall, they’re being cut off from their opportunity to get an education. Many of those opportunity scholars attended my high school, attend my high school, John, John Carroll, here in D.C. Now the president’s come back and go, “Oh, we’ll just let those go through.” But what about the long line of, of low-income African-American students in this very city who won’t have the same education that he and I both had as we were coming through at a, at a tough time as well? So I think, I think the priorities of this administration are a little bit misplaced when it comes to a whole host of things.

MR. GREGORY: All right, I want to get you both…

MR. STEELE: Particularly with respect to something like that.

MR. GREGORY: I want to get you both to comment quickly on another priority, and that is health care.

Chairman Kaine, what will be the basis of bipartisan reform?

GOV. KAINE: Sure. Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: There’s been some push back this week, warnings to Democrats not to push this too far because there are Democrats who don’t want to pay the steep price tag for it.

GOV. KAINE: If, if this was easy, it would have been done. But the president’s said the status quo is unacceptable, failed policies of the past are not going to solve our problems, we’ve got to move forward and reform. And we have to structure reform around three components: cost reductions for, for citizens, for businesses; but also it’s really important that the health care industry bring down costs, and you saw historic announcement this weeks with health care industry leaders that they’re going to start to reign in costs. That’ll help everybody. Second, choice, that people should have a choice between plans that they’re currently using or other plans that could be devised and put on the table to create more real competition. And finally, access, that the, the specter of 45-plus million Americans without health care access is troubling. We need to come up with a proposal that puts these together. You’re right that Democrats and Republicans have a lot of different views on this. But I’ve actually been heartened, David, by what I’ve seen, the, the fact that there is some dialogue across party lines on this.

MR. GREGORY: Well, let me ask…

GOV. KAINE: And I think, I think Republicans congressional leaders have applauded the president…

MR. GREGORY: Do you think it’s going to happen?

GOV. KAINE: …for reaching out to…

MR. GREGORY: Chairman, do you think it’ll be passed this year?

MR. STEELE: I think–no. I think…

MR. GREGORY: You don’t think it’ll pass.

MR. STEELE: No, no, no. I think what, I think what we’re going to have is the beginning of a very important discussion. I think the governor is absolutely right that there is a building consensus towards something. But there’s some key pieces that still remain. The costs, let’s start with that. We’re talking about an initial down payment of $640-some billion, OK? That’s the down payment, it doesn’t really get you where you need to be. Number two, in all of the noise that I’m hearing on health care, no one’s talking about one additional cost, which is a significant one, and that’s tort reform. The litigation that, that attends the medical industry performing their, their duties is not being addressed. The insurance companies also need to be at this table in a real way. Pharmaceutical companies need to be at the table in a real way. So I’m hoping that we’re going to have a discussion that makes it affordable, that makes it cost effective, makes it portable, and I think the Republican leadership that wants, also wants to see us address tort reform and, and some other issues…

MR. GREGORY: All right.

GOV. KAINE: Michael, if, if…

MR. STEELE: …that are no–that are not on the table right now.

GOV. KAINE: If you want to see those addressed and your party does, too, we will get a deal with year, because you’ve just laid out key components that the president has, has openly dialogued with congressional leadership about.

MR. STEELE: Well, I, I’d love to see the Democrats take a lead on tort reform. That would be really heartening to see.

MR. GREGORY: Part of this is how we define the other side. Do you think that President Obama is a socialist leader?

MR. STEELE: I think President Obama is a leader, and that’s all that matters to me. I don’t get into the name-calling and all the, all the other rhetoric that, that attends these things. My, my focus is on…

MR. GREGORY: Your party has a meeting; the RNC’s going to–wants to rename the Democratic Party, the Democrat Socialist Party.

MR. STEELE: Well, you know, if they do that, they do that. My, my, my role as chairman, however…

MR. STEELE: Right.

MR. GREGORY: …is to have a conversation with the American people without the name-calling, without the noise making, and that’s my focus. And I’ve been very clear that I don’t think that that is an appropriate way to, to express our views on the issues of the day.

MR. GREGORY: But why would they undermine you and move forward on something like that?

MR. STEELE: Well, well, it’s not a question–it’s not undermining me. Look, you know, you have–as the chairman can tell you, you have legitimate activists in both parties who have very strong passions and feelings, and that’s great, and we have a process in which that can be expressed. My responsibility as the chosen leader of the party is to make sure that when we engage in the debates that we do so in a way that the American people can appreciate that we’re moving towards progress and success.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

MR. STEELE: That’s my job.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, a week ago the president had a little fun with you at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner…

MR. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …and this is what he said.

(Videotape, May 9, 2009)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: Michael Steele is in the house tonight; or as he would say, in the heezie. What’s up? Where is Michael? Is–Michael, for the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout. Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset, I’m sorry.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Good natured, for sure.

MR. STEELE: Yeah, yeah.

MR. GREGORY: But I wonder if you felt at some level the president was mocking some of your attempts to have kind of a hipper outreach program…

MR. STEELE: No. No, no.

MR. GREGORY: …to African-Americans, other people of color to come to the Republican Party.

MR. STEELE: No. I–that was, that was just good love between two brothers. And I, and I really appreciate the president throwing me a shout-out. It took me totally by surprise. And so this morning I just want to say “what’s up?” right back at you, so.

MR. GREGORY: Chairman Steele, Chairman Kaine.

GOV. KAINE: Thanks, David.

MR. GREGORY: Lots more to discuss. We’ll leave it here this morning. Thank you both very much.

MR. STEELE: All right.

GOV. KAINE: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: We are back, and joining us live now from Philadelphia, the Senate’s newest Democrat, Arlen Specter.

Senator, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEN. SPECTER: Thank you, David. Nice to be with you.

MR. GREGORY: Thank you. Your decision–or since your decision there’s been some pretty big news. We’ll get to the reasons for your decision in just a moment. But I want to talk about the retirement of Justice Souter and the vacancy to the Supreme Court that President Obama will now fill. You have a fair amount of experience with this as the former Judiciary chairman, and you might return to that post even as a Democrat. So what kind of justice should President Obama be looking for?

SEN. SPECTER: He should be looking for someone with a strong academic and professional background. It would be my hope that he would choose someone with diversity. Women are underrepresented on the court. We don’t have an Hispanic. African-Americans are underrepresented. I would hope that he would look beyond the circuit courts of appeals which now populate the Supreme Court and pick someone with greater world experience and diversity.

MR. GREGORY: That’s important. Are you suggesting that he should not pick a judge, but perhaps a politician or a leader from another discipline in life?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, maybe not a politician. Perhaps a statesman or a stateswoman. But all of the justices now have been on the circuit courts of appeals and they have lives and experiences which are all very similar. And we live in a very diverse country with a lot of different interests, and I think that it’s important to have an Hispanic on the court at some point, important to have more than just one woman on the court and more than one African-American. And it would be good to get people who know something besides wearing a black robe.

MR. GREGORY: Do you have a candidate in mind and have you shared that with the White House?

SEN. SPECTER: I do not. I’m going to respect the Constitution. It’s up to the president to make the selection, and it’s up to me as one of the senators to consider the confirmation question.

MR. GREGORY: You mentioned the import of a woman on the court. Here are a few of the standouts that have been speculated about so far: Elena Kagan, she’s the solicitor general now; Sonia Sotomayor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit; Kathleen Sullivan, director of Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center; and Diane Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Out of that list, do you think there’s a front-runner?

SEN. SPECTER: I don’t know. You’d have to ask President Obama.

MR. GREGORY: All right. The president said the other day, and he said this repeatedly, that he wants an empathetic justice on the Supreme Court. Empathetic. Is that code to you for an activist judge?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, we look to the court to interpret the Constitution and the statutes passed by Congress and not to make laws. There is no doubt that the standards and values in our country have shifted, as Cardozo said in the Palko case years ago. There was a time when equal protection meant that the Senate galleries were segregated, and we know how foolish that would be in modern day life. So there’s no doubt that there are changes with the times. But if you talk about empathy, you may be talking about something which is, which is broader. But we’ll have to test the nominee on that. Listen, the job of the United States Senate is to ask firm, really tough questions to find out whether the nominee has an open mind, whether the nominee respects the supremacy of the Constitution, whether the nominee will look to Congress to establish public policy. And there are going to be some empathetic factors, but basically we’re a nation with a rule of law.

MR. GREGORY: You’re a Democrat now, and so I ask you whether, in light of that switch, do you regret your support in the past for some of the more conservative members of this court: Alito, Roberts, Clarence Thomas?

SEN. SPECTER: I do, I do not. Remember, I was a leading voice opposite–opposing Judge Bork, a Republican. Got a lot of brickbats for that. Not a month passes by today without my hearing about Judge Bork. He was a leading Republican candidate. So I’ve not hesitated to oppose Republicans, a Republican when I thought he was out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

MR. GREGORY: All right, let me ask you about this switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party. Back in April of this year on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” you said this: “So I’m trying to bring back those voters to the Republican Party. We need balance and I’m trying to get people to register Republican. We need a second party. Look here, our country is built on checks and balances. The only check and balance in America today are the 41 Republican Senators who can talk and filibuster, otherwise, the White House, the House of Representatives will be a steamroller.” Well, Senator, you’ve now decided to join that steamroller. What changed?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, well, since that time I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I’m simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate. I’m not going to do that.

Now, with respect to the steamroller, I have shown repeatedly my independence, willing to cross party lines when I thought the interests of the American people in Pennsylvania were required it. Take one example: There’s a bill on employees choice known as Card Check, which would take away the secret ballot and impose mandatory arbitration. I said when I made the switch I’m still against that bill. Democrats are all for it, Republicans are all against it and I’m the critical vote. And if see that there are other issues where I feel as a matter of conscience, I will continue a filibuster against legislation.

MR. GREGORY: Are there other issues right now that you can name where you don’t see eye to eye with this president?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I’m not going to start to explore a long range of issues. I, I’m not going to do that to…

MR. GREGORY: All right. Well…

SEN. SPECTER: You don’t, you, you don’t have enough time, David.

MR. GREGORY: Well, hey, we can make time. We’re going to get to a few issues in a couple of minutes, but I want to stick to this point, what you’re saying, this was politics. This was a cold, hard political reality check. This is what David Broder wrote in his column in the Washington Post, and it was pretty pointed. Look at the headline: “Specter the Defector. The one consistency in the history of Arlen Specter has been his willingness to do whatever will best protect and advance the career of Arlen Specter. … So, once again, Specter is likely to reap political rewards from his maneuvering. But the Democrats should be open-eyed about what they are gaining from his return to his original political home. Specter’s history shouts the lesson that he will stick with you only as long as it serves his own interests–and not a day longer.” You’re about to stand for re-election as a Democrat. Do you think that reputation hurts you?

SEN. SPECTER: I think it’s a, a misreading. I do not think it is true. I can pick up any of the issues and tell you what my reasons were, and I think I have very strong reasons for all of them. There’s more than being re-elected here. There’s the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent. When I came to the Senate, you had a roomful of moderate Republicans, Hines and Weicker and Stafford and Chafee and Danforth and on and on. And in recent times I have diverged materially from the Republican line. And the critical factor, David, as most–many people know, was the stimulus package.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEN. SPECTER: I bucked the Republican line, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and I, and that created a schism. My approval rating dropped 30 points with Republicans as a result of that vote, so that as the pictures has evolved I felt a lot more comfortable as a matter of principle with Democrats than with Republicans.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

SEN. SPECTER: Let me mention…

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEN. SPECTER: …one other important point, and that is my work in the Senate on medical research. I’ve been a major–maybe the major spear carrier for the National Institutes of Health. And I’m trying to get more federal funding. I’ve opened up a Web site, specterforthecure.com. If we had pursued the war on cancer which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today. This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine. And The New York Times today has a column, when you compare my work on medical research it makes party allegiance look pretty small.

MR. GREGORY: I want to move on, though, to the question of what it took for the Democrats to get you. What were you offered? What inducements have you been given to switch parties?

SEN. SPECTER: None.

MR. GREGORY: None.

SEN. SPECTER: None.

MR. GREGORY: You won’t retain your seniority, as you move over, on, on key committees?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, that is, that is, that is true. But…

MR. GREGORY: That’s not an inducement, Senator?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, no, that’s an entitlement. I’ve earned, I’ve earned the seniority. I was elected in 1980. And I think that’s, that’s not a bribe or a gift or something extraordinary. I will be treated by the Democrats as if I’d been elected as a Democrat.

MR. GREGORY: What about how you stand for election? Has the Democratic Party–Leader Reid, Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania and the president himself–seen to it, have they seen to it that you will not face a primary challenger?

SEN. SPECTER: They have not. Flatly not.

MR. GREGORY: But the president said he’s going to campaign for you.

SEN. SPECTER: Well…

MR. GREGORY: Who’s going to step up against you when the president’s declared his intention in the primary?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, well, that’s a different question. You asked me if they’ve cleared the field, and they have not. There, there are two candidates in the field and there are others on the sidelines; one other, specifically, who’s talking about running. I didn’t ask them to clear the field. The reality is you can’t tell other people what to do. I’m prepared to run in a contested primary. But I don’t want to run against a stacked deck like I would have had to against the Republican primary electorate.

MR. GREGORY: You know that Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security and governor of Pennsylvania, is thinking about getting into the Republican primary race. Do you think he could win what you couldn’t?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I think former Governor Ridge is a very able fellow, and I have a lot of respect for him.

MR. GREGORY: One potential challenger is Congressman Joe Sestak, and he was interviewed in the Los Angeles Times talking about exactly what kind of Democrat you would be. And this is what he said: “[Sestak] said that Specter would have to answer a series of questions in the coming weeks, such as why Democratic voters should view him as a leader in their party when he failed to prevent the GOP from moving to the hard right. `What are you running for, Arlen?’ Sestak asked. `How are you going to use your leadership to shape the Democratic Party? Is it to the way we believe Pennsylvania should be helped? And the platform we should follow? Are you a Democrat, an independent or a Republican?’” You always talked about core conservative values when you ran for president. What are your core political beliefs now?

SEN. SPECTER: My core views are freedom, a woman’s right to choose, consistently voted for increasing the minimum wage, for expanding unemployment compensation, for the nuclear test ban treaty, where I broke with Republicans. I got into politics, David, as the result of the inspiration of my father, who was a Russian immigrant, who was a veteran in World War I. The government broke the promise to pay World War I veterans a bonus. And Harry Specter was a little guy. And you take a look at my record in the Senate, or my record in public life generally, I’ve always been for the little guy. I say in a sense that I, I’m on my way–I was on my way to Washington to get my father’s bonus. I haven’t gotten it yet, so I’m running for re-election. But I’ve helped the veterans. I’ve broken with the party on, on funding for veterans. I’ve broken with the party on voting for Social Security increases. My record has been issue-oriented, one at a time. And I think as a matter of principle–listen, the stimulus vote was a mighty big test. It cost me dearly with the Republicans. And I stood with the Democrats because I thought it was right. I thought otherwise this country might have been on the verge of a 1929 Depression. And I new it was politically problemsome, perhaps disastrous. I represent the people of Pennsylvania, not any political party.

MR. GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president you said, “I will be a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda.” Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that’s health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government-run public plan to complete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

SEN. SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with a 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose cloture on, on key issues. But I…

MR. GREGORY: All right, just to be clear, Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal Jonathan Weisman and Greg Hitt reported that when you met with the president you said, “I’m a loyal Democrat,” and, according to people familiar with the White House, “I support your agenda.” So that’s wrong? You didn’t say those things?

SEN. SPECTER: I did not say I’m a loyal Democrat. You know, I read once another mistake in the newspaper, some newspaper.

MR. GREGORY: Let me–I just want to turn, then, to the issue of health care. You would not support a public plan?

SEN. SPECTER: That’s what I said…

MR. GREGORY: OK.

SEN. SPECTER: …and that’s what I meant.

MR. GREGORY: Do you support taxing the value of, the value of employer-provided health care for workers?

SEN. SPECTER: No, I’d be very reluctant to do that. Health care provided by employers, which is deductible for them and not added on as income to the recipient, has been the mainstay of health coverage for millions of Americans, and I’d be very reluctant to abandon that.

MR. GREGORY: So the health care reform you would like to see is what?

SEN. SPECTER: I would, I would like to see all Americans covered. I’ve joined with the Wyden-Bennett plan, has 14 co-sponsors. I would like to see health care which emphasizes exercise and diet and, and makes premiums lower on that basis. I would like to see health care which had very tough prosecution against Medicare and Medicaid fraud, put people in jail as opposed to fines, which are licenses to steal. I would emphasize National Institute of Health research. What better way to reduce the cost of health care than to, than to have–prevent illness? I would support advanced directives, where we find so much of medical care is paid for the in the last few hours or few days or a person’s life. Not to tell people what to do on their care at that time, but have them, have them think about it. I support programs which improves technology, as the stimulus package has $19 billion. I’ve been in this field for a long time and have a lot of ideas, participated in the president’s task force, and I’m ready to put my shoulder to the wheel to get legislation adopted. But I’m going to take a look at it piece by piece. I’m not committed.

MR. GREGORY: Finally, Senator Specter, what is the future of the Republican Party, the party you have now left behind?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, it would be hope, David, that there would be a, a wake-up call. It would be my hope that there would be a strong two-party system. That’s what I’ve worked for for a long time, trying to bring back the Republican Party in the city of Philadelphia, trying to bring back the Republican Party nationally. And I have campaigned for Republican candidates and moderates. It would be my hope that the party would turn away from the Club for Growth. Let me be very specific here. The Club for Growth has undertaken campaigns to defeat moderate Republicans in the primaries, knowing that they would lose in the general election. I give you a long list. But take one case which was slightly different on procedure, and that was Linc Chafee. Club for Growth beat Linc Chafee, made him spend all his money in the primary. Had Linc Chafee been elected in 2006, the Republican Party would’ve controlled the Senate in 2007 and ’8 and would’ve confirmed 34 Republican judges which were left on the table unconfirmed. And I think that my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe had it right in her New York Times op-ed piece that you have to have a big tent.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEN. SPECTER: You can’t–listen, I voted 10,000 times. I don’t expect people to agree with all my votes. I don’t agree with all of them at this time. But can you imagine picking one vote out of 10,000 and having the party say to me, in effect, “We don’t want you as our candidate”? So there has to be room for people who are, who are moderates.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEN. SPECTER: It has to be Reagan’s big tent again.

MR. GREGORY: All right, Senator Arlen Specter, thank you very much for appearing this morning.

SEN. SPECTER: Great being with you, David. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr. President, as we used to say in the Senate, I hope you’ll excuse a point of personal privilege here. I — Arlen Specter has been my friend and my confidant and my partner, and I his partner, in scores and scores of major, major pieces of legislation and issues for a long time. And beyond that, Mr. President, he’s been there for me every time things have been tough for me, and I hope I have been there for him.

And it gives me great pleasure, great pleasure, Mr. President, to now officially be in the same caucus with Arlen Specter. We’ve ridden the train for so many years, we’ve visited each other’s homes, our families, that it is — it’s just, as, again, a point of personal privilege, it’s just a delight to have no separation.

Mr. President, I’m even more pleased that Arlen’s independence, integrity and piercing intellect will now be sitting in a Democratic caucus. I think it will be a real added value. Anyone who thinks that Arlen is going to cash in his independence politically has another thing coming, but I think our caucus and our party will be better for it, and as a consequence, I think we’ll be able to serve the country even better than we have.

And the people of Pennsylvania are going to continue to benefit from his fierce — and I emphasize and I need not tell you, Mr. President — his fierce commitment to the people of Pennsylvania and to this country.

So, Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a man of immense personal courage and unmatched integrity, my friend, Arlen Specter.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and thank you, Mr. President, for your support and encouragement.

I was unwilling to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, but I am pleased to run in the primary on the Democratic ticket and am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers in a general election.

I have not represented the Republican Party; I have represented the people of Pennsylvania. And I will continue to do just that. As I said yesterday, I will not be an automatic 60th vote. There have been positions, which I talked about yesterday and will not re-enumerate, where I stand in a different position from the traditional position of the Democrats, and I will continue that independence.

I do think, Mr. President, that I can be of assistance. You have projected an administration that I feel very comfortable with. I felt comfortable, frankly, in talking to my Republican colleagues yesterday, which I did, to have them hear from me personally what my thinking was and my reasons for what I was undertaking to do. And that wasn’t an easy conversation, but I felt comfortable with it.

And I think I can be of assistance to you, Mr. President, in my views on centrist government. There are a lot of big issues which we’re tackling now that I’ve been deeply involved in — issues which go beyond my own personal interests. And I do want to serve in a sixth term; I make no bones about that. But I’ve been deeply involved in health care reform, and global warming, climate control, and immigration, and will continue to be so. And I am mindful of the deficit and the national debt as we balance a lot of competing interests.

One matter that especially concerns me is medical research. I think it is scandalous that we have not done more to harness the scientific know-how in America, with the gross national product we have, to do more to cure the maladies of the world. And I’ve taken the lead with Senator Tom Harkin on a bipartisan basis in increasing NIH funding, and I think that has saved or prolonged lives, including mine. And that’s a big reason why I’m so anxious to stay in the Senate and carry that work forward.

But most of all, I’m appreciative of what Senator Biden has said. We have talked over every problem under the sun and under the moon. We’ve ridden that train together again and again, and we’ve supported that train. We’ve helped finance it. And I appreciate what you have in the stimulus package, Mr. President.

When I talked to the President yesterday, I said, I haven’t seen you in the elevator lately. His office used to be right down the hall from mine on the 7th floor of the Hart Building, and he hadn’t come back lately, so I said I was calling him up just to — just to chit-chat. And I got to know the President to some extent in the Senate — I talked to him already, but that’s — Joe taught me how to do that.

Just one personal comment. The President approached me when he was Senator Obama, before the Democratic primary. And he said, “Tell me, Arlen, if a Jewish kid from Kansas can carry Pennsylvania, how can a black kid from Kansas carry Pennsylvania?” And I gave him some advice, and he became — (laughter) — he became President of the United States of America.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s how it worked. Thank you so much, Arlen. Thank you.

Well, let me start off by just saying I’m thrilled to have Arlen in the Democratic caucus. I have told him that he will have my full support in the Democratic primary. Joe Biden has said the same thing. We are confident that Arlen Specter is going to get a 6th term in the Senate and the American people are going to be better off for it.

I’d like to say a few more things about Arlen, but before I do, I’d like to briefly address the ongoing challenge posed by the H1N1 flu virus.

We are closely and continuously monitoring the emerging cases of this virus throughout the United States. Overnight we also received confirmation that an infant in Texas has died as a result of this virus. And my thoughts and prayers and deepest condolences go out to the family, as well as those who are ill and recovering from this flu.

This is obviously a serious situation — serious enough to take the utmost precautions. Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Sebelius and our entire team are in close contact with state and local authorities around the nation. But I would also urge health agencies in local communities to be vigilant about identifying suspected cases of this virus in your areas and reporting them to the appropriate state and federal authorities in a timely way. We need your assistance.

It’s also the recommendation of our public health officials that schools with confirmed or suspected cases of H1N1 should strongly consider temporarily closing so that we can be as safe as possible. If the situation becomes more serious and we have to take more extensive steps, then parents should also think about contingencies if schools in their areas do temporarily shut down, figuring out and planning what their child care situation would be.

If we ended up having a school closure, a child was sick, just sending a child from the school to a day care center is not a good solution. So we would have to think through, and each parent, I think, would have to think through what options would be available to them in the event that this became more serious.

Yesterday, I also requested from Congress an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding. This funding will ensure that we have adequate supplies of vaccines and the equipment to handle a potential outbreak. It will ensure that these vaccines and equipment get to where they need to go around the country. And it will provide for sufficient planning and preparation at the state and local levels.

Every American should know that the federal government is prepared to do whatever is necessary to control the impact of this virus. But there are also steps that Americans can take individually. They’re the same steps that you would take to prevent any other flu: Keep your hands washed, cover your mouth when you cough, stay home from work if you are sick, keep your children home from school if they are sick.

I’ll continue to get constant updates on the situation from the responsible agencies, and we will continue to offer regular updates to the American people about the steps they need to take and the steps that we are taking. And I can assure you that we will be vigilant in monitoring the progress of this flu, and I will make every judgment based on the best science available.

Now, part of the reason we have such an outstanding array of scientists and researchers is because of the tireless efforts of the gentleman standing to my right. Having courageously battled multiple life-threatening diseases of his own — and let me tell you, Arlen Specter is one tough hombre — he has become a champion for public health in this country.

He’s most recently responsible for the increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health so that it can continue to discover the cures and treatments that will save countless lives.

And that brings me to why we’re here today. Today I have the honor of standing next to the newest Democrat from the state of Pennsylvania. I know the decision Senator Specter made yesterday wasn’t easy. It required long and careful consideration, and it required courage. But I know that it also reflects an independence that has been the hallmark of Arlen Specter’s career since the days he arrived in Washington. He has never been in the Senate to fight for any particular party, but rather for the men and women of Pennsylvania who sent him here.

This is also why I don’t expect that Senator Specter will agree with every decision I make and support every single one of those policies. I don’t accept — I don’t expect Arlen to be a rubber stamp. I don’t expect any member of Congress to be a rubber stamp. In fact, I’d like to think that Arlen’s decision reflects a recognition that this administration is open to many different ideas and many different points of view; that we seek cooperation and common ground; and that in these 100 days we’ve begun to move this nation in the right direction.

As I told Senator Specter yesterday, he has my full support, my full commitment to work with him on those areas where we do agree — areas like health care, education, expanding America’s manufacturing base, and medical research. I look forward to working with the Senator on these and other issues in the coming weeks and months. I’m eager to receive his counsel and advice, especially when he disagrees. And I have great respect and admiration for the decision that he has made.

Senator Specter often tells the story about his father, Harry Specter, who came to this country from Russia nearly a century ago. He fought in World War I and was seriously wounded in action. Later, he became one of the thousands of veterans who never received the bonus that our government promised in return for the brave service that they had rendered to our nation. Many of these veterans would later march on Washington because of that broken promise, and some were shot at by their own government because they were voicing dissent.

Arlen Specter has said that his career in public service has been one long journey to get his father’s bonus. And until he does, he plans to keep on running. It’s a metaphor that’s particularly apt today as he begins the next chapter in his proud effort to fight for all those men and women who need and deserve a voice in Washington.

And so I’m grateful that he is here. And I’m also grateful that Joe Biden paid him a little attention on the train. (Laughter.) Thank you much, everybody.

SPECTER: As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy the Democratic Party. When the stimulus package came up for a vote, I felt that it was indispensable to vote aye in order to avoid the possibility of a 1929-type depression. In the course of the last several months since the stimulus vote, I have traveled the state and surveyed the sentiments of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, observed other public opinion polls and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak.

I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate — not prepared to have that record decided by that jury, the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.

But I’m prepared today take on all comers — all comers in a general election. And, therefore, I have decided to be a candidate for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary. This is a painful decision. I know that I’m disappointing many of my friends and colleagues but, frankly, I have been disappointed by some of the responses. So the disappointment runs in both directions.

I do not undertake this because of the absence of other challenging or interesting things that I could undertake outside the Senate. But I do this because there are many projects that I want to move ahead for Pennsylvania with my continuing seniority in the United States Senate. And one of the key interests I have is medical research and want to continue my work in that field.

I think it is fair and accurate to say with the increases in funding for National Institutes of Health, which I have spearheaded, have saved or prolonged many lives including my own. One item that I want to emphasize that I will not be changing my own personal independence or my own approach to individual issues. I will not be an automatic 60th vote.

SPECTER: I note that some of the news stories since my statement was released this morning are taking a look at the 60th vote. And I will not be an automatic 60th vote. And I would illustrate that by my position on employee’s choice, also known as card check. I think it is a bad deal. I’m opposed to it and would not vote to invoke cloture. But that’s only indicative of my view in that respect.

I have always agreed with John Kennedy that sometimes a party asks too much. And if the Democratic Party asks too much, I will not hesitate to disagree and vote my independent thinking and what I consider as a matter of conscience to be in the interest of the state and nation.

OK.

Interested in full access to CQ TranscriptsWire, including
transcripts of major congressional hearings? Request a Free Trial

QUESTION: Senator, are you (inaudible) your personal (inaudible) ahead of (inaudible)?

SPECTER: No. I’m putting principle at the top of the list. The principles that I subscribe to are my independence, which I will retain regardless of party label. I believe that I have a great deal to offer in terms of continuing service. I’m full of vim, vigor, and vitality.

There are lots of things I want to do. I would headline with medical research. Just today, I introduced legislation to bridge the gap between scientific discoveries at the National Institutes of Health and bring (inaudible) to the bedside. And I have been at the forefront of issues on civil rights and executive power. And I’ve been in the middle of the immigration issue. Very active on Mid East foreign issues — Iran, Syria.

So I think I have a lot to contribute. And I would not suffer from lack of interesting and important things to do if I were a private citizen.

QUESTION: Senator, how did your Republican colleagues (inaudible) and have you spoken to President Obama?

SPECTER: Which one of your questions do you want answered because you only got one?

QUESTION: Well, one and a follow on?

SPECTER: Oh, well, that’s all right then.

(LAUGHTER)

The answer to your second question is yes. And the answer to your first question is it was a polite session when I talked to the members. Senator Cochran said at least he wouldn’t have to go to Erie any more to campaign for me.

(LAUGHTER)

And everybody that I passed on the way out was friendly and with friendly handshakes. I don’t take that to mean that there aren’t some people who are disappointed, but I think people respect my sincerity and respect what I have done in the Senate and respect what I intend to continue to do.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) reelection given your seniority? Do you expect to chair a committee in the next Congress? Do you have any guarantees or any arrangements that you would have chairmanship?

SPECTER: In discussing that issue with Senator Reid, the fair approach which we both agreed to was to be where I would be had I been a Democrat coming into the Senate with my election in 1980. So you can take a look at the charts and figure out exactly where I’d be.

QUESTION: Can you give us some insights into the conversations (inaudible) when you made this decision and how you (inaudible)? Was it (inaudible) recently (inaudible) sounded like (inaudible) are a Republican (inaudible)?

SPECTER: The decision has been reached gradually as I have traveled the state in the last several months. And, specifically, I got my own poll results back last Friday — late last week and consulted with my campaign managers and had a long discussion with Joan and my son, Shane (ph), over the weekend. And I came to a decision over this past weekend.

QUESTION: Have the Democrats been lobbying you? Has Senator Reid (inaudible)?

SPECTER: What did you say about…

QUESTION: Have the Democratic leaders been lobby you? Have they been pushing (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Yes, I have had overtures from many of the Democratic leaders on a continuing basis. The overtures have been going on for the last five years when the — they saw my voting record and saw the approach that I was taking to government.

And I have steadfastly rejected it on the ground that I think it is very important to have a two-party system and a moderate wing of the two-party system. And I have nothing but complements for Senator McConnell and said so in my written statement — and Senator Cornyn — and have said so for the entire caucus. The entire caucus has been first — first rate.

But when you take a look at the Pennsylvania Republican electorate, several hundred thousand Republicans shifted last year. And it has a bleak picture. We do not have a dominant voice there. But we find, I think regrettably, that the extremes of both parties are taking over.

A senator like Joe Lieberman can’t win a primary in Connecticut. I had a 1 percent primary for 2004. And, to repeat, the word that I use is “bleak.”

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you said (inaudible) what about now (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Same thing. QUESTION: So does that mean you’re (inaudible)?

SPECTER: No. Senator Leahy is senior to me in tenure. He was elected in 1974. I would be behind Senator Leahy.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

SPECTER: I’d be beside Senator Leahy again.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, I came in ahead of Senator Harkin. He was elected in 1984.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) so you’re going to be the chairman of the (inaudible)?

SPECTER: We haven’t worked that out yet.

QUESTION: Senator Specter, as you were going through this decision and you thought about the (inaudible) party (inaudible) there’s no — there’s (inaudible). I’m wondering what role health care plays in your decision — health care issues (inaudible). Of all the issues (inaudible).

SPECTER: Well, I’ve been involved in a lot of significant issues like supreme court nominations, nine of them, like executive power, warrantless wire taps, and interrogation techniques, and like stem cells and NIH funding. And I could go on and on and on.

And it is an accumulation of factors, but as I said in the statement, the stimulus vote was a schism. And I used some language from domestic relations law, irreconcilable conflict.

Yes?

QUESTION: How are you going to vote on the Don Johnson (inaudible)?

SPECTER: I’m opposed to the nominee for assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, Don Johnson.

QUESTION: Do you (inaudible) Obama (inaudible) vice president’s office (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Did I talk to either the president or the vice president? The vice president, in a public event in Philadelphia, when he came up to talk about the stimulus package several months ago, said to — in a news conference that he urged me to become a Democrat. And then Governor Rendell, who was there, urged me to become a Democrat.

And Governor Rendell said if I became a Democrat, he would help me raise money. And I responded if I became a Democrat, I wouldn’t need him to help me raise money. I’ve changed my mind about that, though.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Republican Party (inaudible)?

SPECTER: What…

QUESTION: What did you say about the (inaudible) why do you think they were reporting that (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, the party has shifted very far to the — to the right. It was pretty far to the right in 2004. But you take away a couple hundred thousand Republicans, and they want to vote in a Democratic primary, they’re dissatisfied with the party is a pretty obvious conclusion.

So if you do the numbers and you add to that the stimulus vote, that’s where I end up saying the prospects are bleak.

QUESTION: Senator, why has the Republican Party become the party of (inaudible)? How did this happen?

SPECTER: Because most of the people do not participate in the political process. That is a very important question and maybe an important answer. If the electorate as a whole participated in the political process and in the primary process, Joe Lieberman would win the primary in Connecticut hands down. And I’d do the same thing in Pennsylvania.

There are plenty of people who agree with Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter , but they’re non-participators.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

SPECTER: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand your question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

SPECTER: When the did I talk to the leaders? I talked to Senator Reid last night about 6:00 and I talked to Senator McConnell a little after 6:00.

Carl?

QUESTION: Do you (inaudible) from the president, Senator Reid, or the Democratic Party (inaudible) primary? SPECTER: Yes, on all counts. The president — I called this morning, and he said he would support me, and to Pennsylvania and campaign for me.

QUESTION: And you’re assuming the Democrat…

SPECTER: And Senator Reid said that he would do the same. And I talked to Governor Rendell this morning, and he suggested a meeting among Democratic leadership in Washington tomorrow to formally endorse my candidacy.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

SPECTER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: Do you feel at all (inaudible)?

SPECTER: What about Republicans here? Well, first I have to find out how many of you here are Republicans. Will you raise your hands?

(LAUGHTER)

That’s what I thought. You take the Fifth.

(LAUGHTER)

To give you a serious answer to your question, Republicans didn’t rally to Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland. He was beaten by the Club For Growth on the far right. They lost the general election.

Republicans didn’t rally to the banner of Joe Schwartz in Michigan and he was beaten by a conservative in the Club For Growth. They lost the general election.

Republicans didn’t rally to Heather Wilson in New Mexico last year and she was beaten in a primary and lost in the general election.

The Club For Growth challenged Linc Chafee. Remember Linc Chafee? They made him spend all his money in the primary and he lost the general. And had Linc Chafee been elected in 2006, the Republicans would have controlled the Senate in 2007 and ‘08 and I would have been chairman of the committee.

SPECTER: And President Bush nominated 13 circuit judges. They were all left on the table for President Obama. And President Bush nominated 21 district court judges, and they were all left on the table for President Obama. Now take the social conservatives in America and how they prize circuit judges. Remember what we went through for Judge Southwith (ph) last year to go a circuit judge confirmed?

And one of the my opponent’s principle advisers said, “We don’t care about stage two. Stage one, we want to beat Arlen Specter . We’ll worry about stage two later.” They don’t make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don’t understand it, but that’s what they said.

And for the people who are Republicans that just sit by and allow them to continue to dominate the party after they beat Chafee, cost us the Republican control of the Senate and cost us 34 federal judges, there ought to be a rebellion. There ought to be an uprising.

So thanks for asking the question about what are the Republicans like here.

Yes?

QUESTION: Do you think that this makes the (inaudible) reconciliation (inaudible) of the table or that it will change the way health care…

SPECTER: Oh, I’m opposed to reconciliation to be used for health care or any other substantive legislative issue. I think it would undermine an important institutional prerogative of the Senate to require 60 votes on these complicated matters. I thought that when I — whether I would be a Republican or a Democrat.

QUESTION: Does that mean you won’t (inaudible)?

SPECTER: What’s that?

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, let me take a look at it before I answer that question to try to know what I’m talk about. Let me think about that.

Yes, sir. You chased me down the hall. You deserve more privacy than this.

(LAUGHTER)

One of many.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) curious you said you made this decision after (inaudible) with respect (inaudible) basically a (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, it’s a combination of factors. If you take a look at my voting record on a wide variety of issues, on voting on Pell grants, you take a look at my position on executive authority, you take a look at my position on stem cells, or my position on NIH funding generally, it is a large number of figures.

I have to make a calculation as to whether it’s possible, realistic to fight for the moderate wing of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. And I do not think it’s realistic. It’s bleak.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) time (inaudible) knowing that (inaudible) set out to do (inaudible) challenges (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, when you count off people who have disagreed with my votes, you can include virtually everybody. I voted 10,000 times. I don’t expect everybody to agree with all my votes. I don’t agree with them all myself at this point.

(LAUGHTER)

But you can pick out votes and they’d all — people would all disagree with me. There were two votes I cast about 20 years ago were I alienated the entire electorate with those two votes. I’m not going to tell you what they were. Why should I give fodder to that?

(LAUGHTER)

But the Harrisburg Patriot had a Sunday article two days old now, so who knows whether it’s still operative saying I alienated the Republicans with the — with the stimulus package and alienated all the Democrats with the employee’s choice. You can’t win an election in Pennsylvania without labor.

And I’m going to vote the way I see it. And I’m going to take my chances.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) possibility (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, it is something I’d like to retain. I can’t deal with the numbers. You know who the people are and who is going to run for reelection and who’s going to do what remain to be seen.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) talk about this letter (inaudible) what will be your approach to (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, I am willing to listen to any judicial nominee. When we had the concern over Hamilton, it was a question of whether we had adequate time to prepare. And I will counsel the chairman to provide adequate time to prepare. That’s what I would do.

QUESTION: Do you (inaudible)?

SPECTER: No. No.

QUESTION: Senator, what (inaudible) Republican (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Butting heads with my fellow Democrats.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, it all depends on whether those fellow Democrats or wrong and stubborn.

(LAUGHTER)

And if they are, I will bump heads with them. And if they’re reasonable, that is agree with me, copasetic.

QUESTION: Are you going to be (inaudible) about (inaudible) executive power (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any commitments from the majority leader to move anything (inaudible)?

SPECTER: No. I didn’t get into talking to him about issues. That would have been a long, perhaps, unpleasant conversation.

(LAUGHTER)

So I avoided that. Any of you (inaudible) read the New York Review of Books? You read the New York Review of Books? If you do, I’ll call on you. I have an article in the New York Review of Books on executive power. It just came out on Thursday. I haven’t found anybody yet who read it, but…

Yes, sir? QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

SPECTER: What’s that?

QUESTION: Are you (inaudible)?

SPECTER: Well, give me a week to think about it. I don’t have to decide that until next Tuesday at noon.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) your party (inaudible)?

SPECTER: I can’t do that until May. Registration is closed in Pennsylvania at the moment. But I intend to change my registration.

Anything else? Thank you all very much.

Source: White House Press Office

• Specter joins Democrats – New York Times

In a statement issued about noon as the Capitol was digesting the stunning turn of events, Mr. Specter said he had concluded that his party had moved too far to the right, a fact demonstrated by the migration of 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans to the Democratic Party.

“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Mr. Specter said, acknowledging that his decision was certain to disappoint colleagues and supporters.

• Sen. Specter will switch parties – Philadelphia Enquirer
• Dems near filibuster-proof majority in Senate – Washington Post
• Wake up call for GOP – Washington Post