IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

PoliticsNation, Thursday, October 27th, 2011

Read the transcript from the Thursday show

Guestw: Ed Rendell, Rick Lazio, Barney Frank, Joshua Snyder, Chris Hayes,
Andrew Gillum

works. The economy picks up some steam. New evidence shows stimulus
spending works as the president presses his case for action now.


Congress to do its job. So where they won`t act, I will.


SHARPTON: But Speaker Boehner is almost laughing?




SHARPTON: The real joke is a Congress with a nine percent approval
rating. Tonight the chairman, Barney Frank, on Republicans slow walking
the economy. And Ed Rendell and Rick Lazio debates the GOP going fat free
on jobs.

Investigation- voter I.D. laws, are they happening now because of




SHARPTON: And everybody is laughing about Herman Cain, except these
guys. Is the joke really on them? Chris Hayes on the GOP raising Cain.


BOEHNER: It`s almost laughable.



Welcome to POLITICSNATION. I`m Al Sharpton. Tonight`s lead,
Republicans have hit a new low even by my standards. Today Speaker John
Boehner lashed out at the president for bypassing this do nothing Congress
in order to help students and homeowners.


BOEHNER: This idea that you`re just going to go around the Congress
is just -- it`s almost laughable.


SHARPTON: Laughable? Helping the middle classes laughable? But he
didn`t stop there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying that the president with his
approach today, from what you know of it, is acting around his
constitutional parameters and violating those parameters?

BOEHNER: I`ve got great concerns that he may be.


SHARPTON: Let me get this straight. You have great concerns that the
president is violating the constitution because he`s helping students and
homeowners? This is why Americans are taking to the streets all over the
country. They`re fed up, fed up with the fact that some in Washington are
working against them. And what`s worse is that while Americans are dealing
with crushing debt and unemployment, all they hear are false promises.


BOEHNER: Listen, the president says we can`t wait to take action on
jobs, and I agree.

REP. ERIC CANTOR, (R-VA) MAJORITY LEADER: The president has been
traveling around the country saying that we can`t wait, and we believe that
as well.


SHARPTON: We have an agreement, we can`t wait. So what`s the
Republican solution? Today the house GOP pushed a series of bills that
they call the "forgotten 15." It`s their way of getting Americans back to
work. But I`m a little skeptical of these 15 jobs plans. Eight of them
try to deregulate and the other five are aimed at oil drilling. That`s
your idea of a serious jobs plan, Speaker Boehner? I think you said it


BOEHNER: It`s just -- it`s almost laughable.


SHARPTON: But I`m not laughing, and neither are the American people.
Joining me now is Congressman Barney Frank, Democrat from Massachusetts.
He`s the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. Mr.
Chairman, thanks for joining me this evening.


SHARPTON: Let me ask you this. House Republicans keep saying they
have ideas for jobs. Are they credible?

FRANK: No. They are literally doing the opposite of what virtually
every economist except for a handful on the right think, which is at this
point you should not be further retrenching government spending. Yes, over
the long term we want to reduce the deficit, and I have way to do it.
They`re opposed, for instance, by ending the war in Afghanistan, which they
want to keep going.

But the near term is -- one example. In every month for the last
year, the private sector has gained jobs, though generally not enough to
meet what we need. And the public sector has lost jobs. Firefighters,
public works employees, teachers, cops have been laid off.

So again there`s an overwhelming consensus that the short term - and
this comes from Bush appointees like Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve --
you need to do some things that stimulate. They go in the opposite

But it is interesting. I heard you say that stimulus works. It turns
out they are converts in part to the notion that government spending
creates jobs. According to them when the government helps build roads,
that doesn`t create jobs or speed up environmental cleanup or hire some
people or keep some cops and firefighters on. But apparently it`s the only
way to create jobs, according to them -- weapons and bases. They are now
trying to keep military spending at an all-time high. In fact, the
Republican position is cut Medicare, so we can keep having troops in west
Germany and Japan. And they`re now very hypocritically announcing if we
cut the military, it will boost unemployment. So it`s a very special form

SHARPTON: So if it`s military or defense, it`s job creation, and if
you bother that, it`s raising unemployment. But if you`re dealing with
infrastructure, bridges, tunnels, schools, that`s not jobs?

FRANK: Well, brother Sharpton, you now have become a Republican
economist with that understanding.


FRANK: Let me add this. Of all the government programs, with the
exception of foreign aid, which is much smaller and has been some very
valuable parts, the greatest percentage of money we spend in the military
is overseas. There are no jobs for Americans in the war in Afghanistan,
except for a few contractors. There are no jobs for those based in west

But you hit it exactly right. They have done a total pivot, because
Romney is attacking the president for doing something overwhelmingly
popular, finally undoing the continuation in Iraq. But the Republican plan
is, first of all, cut taxes more so businesses, by the way, that already
have a great of cash that are telling us the problem is, and this is the
central economy point, there isn`t enough demand. They`re not going to
start producing more if they think they can`t sell it. Well, they won`t be
able to sell it if they don`t get more demand. And if you cut unemployment
compensation and you fire public employees and you don`t put people to work
in the construction trades, then you don`t get the demand.

SHARPTON: And then when you look at the fact that we received this
out this week from the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, that between 1979
and 2007, the top one percent -- the top one percent`s income went up 275
percent, where the middle class only went up 40 percent in the same period
of time, and the bottom only 18 percent -- you talk about class warfare.
This is outrageous.

And then, let me ask you something. I`ve been dying to get you on to
really explain so the average American person that`s watching this can
understand. Dodd/Frank, something you pushed through -- what does it mean
to the average American? Let`s take it out of the beltway language.
Dodd/Frank means what? Because they have declared war on this, but I want
people to understand what they are fighting.

FRANK: First of all it creates an independent consumer bureau, which
Elizabeth Warren helped with. It was her idea. Up to that bill, if you
had a complaint against your bank, the bank regulator decided it and the
bank always won. We set up an independent consumer bureau to give
consumers a place to complain.

We made it illegal the kind of loans they were making to people who
shouldn`t have gotten the loans. We want to help responsible home
ownership. We outlawed those.

We did -- well, derivatives. We had this whole business with these
obscure and arcane derivatives, the AIG got in trouble. We regulated them
for the first time. You now cannot go in and do that. We had problems
with cities that went into these deals that wound up getting taken. And
we`ve now said if you`re going to be an adviser to a city, you have a
fiduciary responsibility, you have to take that city`s interests into
account, not your own financial interests. So there are other things --

SHARPTON: So let me summarize my way. If I were to draw this graph,
which I just did it, because I wanted to be clear on this, Dodd/Frank,
mortgage industry reform, who would be against that? Establishing consumer
protection bureau, who could oppose protecting consumers? Addresses
systematic threats to financial industry, establishes investor protections.
Nobody could be against that. Let me show you who`s been against that. I
just want you to watch this, brother Frank.


RICK PERRY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You have Obamacare. You have
Dodd/Frank, section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which I would repeal all of
those. Those are job killers.

Frank`s committee against Dodd/Frank, which is the housing and jobs
destruction act.

RON PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Dodd/Frank obviously is a

immediately. It is a disastrous bill.

uncertainty associated with regulations is not yet written, you don`t know
what they`re going to be. This is more uncertainty piled on uncertainty.


SHARPTON: Your bill has become a unifying theme of the Republican
primaries. It`s unbelievable, but when Americans hear what your Bill has,
it`s like why would they want to repeal this?

FRANK: Al, let me make an important distinction, and you`re right.
You know, when they put down the seltzer bottles and rubber chickens in
those debate and try to talk about substance, they do get into our bill.
But here`s the distinction. In the Republican presidential primary debates
they were against it. But I just saw propaganda from the Republican
National Committee talking about the issues they want to use in the general
election. They want to repeal health care and want to fight the
environment. They don`t mention financial reform. That is being against
financial reform, straightening out Wall Street, protecting investors,
blocking these razzle-dazzle maneuvers, that sells within the Republican
primary. But even the Republicans understand it`s not what you want to do
in the general election.

And Michele Bachmann, who was quoted there, the great scholar, filed a
bill to repeal the whole thing, and it`s hasn`t even been taken up in the
committee she serves on. It`s one thing if you`re trying to appeal to the
very right wing constituency that is the Republican primary electorate, but
they have at least enough sense to know this is not something you talk
about in the general election.

I`ll make a prediction. Whatever one of them wins the nomination,
that is going to be the end of his or her discussion of repealing the bill,
because it does -- I say one other thing for people. If you really want
to read denunciations of what happens when you regulate the financial
industry and put in some safety protection, people have two choices. They
can read the Republicans today or go back to the `30s and read what they
said about the New Deal and Securities and Exchange Commission. And they
made the same arguments under Franklin Roosevelt. They were wrong then and
they are also wrong now.

SHARPTON: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you something. They may not want
to bring it up when they win the nomination, whoever that is in the
general, but I have the "play" button, and they`re going to watch the tape
all the way through November.

FRANK: You`re right.

SHARPTON: Mr. Chairman, thanks for your time this evening.

FRANK: Thank you, Al.

SHARPTON: Ahead, signs the economy is gaining steam, signs that
President Obama`s fighting is working.

Plus, more evidence shows a coordinated Republican effort to suppress
African-American voters.

And Republicans, meet your front-runner.




SHARPTON: We go inside the chaos that is Herman Cain`s campaign.
You`re watching POLITICSNATION on MSNBC.


SHARPTON: Welcome back. Some signs of life today from the economy.
Despite GOP efforts to stall the recovery, things are beginning to pick up.
The economy grew by 2.5 percent between July and September, way up from the
beginning of the year. It`s a sign that a real recovery is happening
slowly but surely.

Under President Bush, the economy tanked. President Obama has turned
it around. Month by month, quarter by quarter, the economy has now finally
reached the size it was before Bush`s recession began four years ago.

But we need more. That`s why this week`s Democrats will once again
try to pass a key part of the president`s jobs act, investing $60 billion
to rebuild roads and bridges paid for by a surtax on millionaires.
President Obama has been selling this plan all week.


OBAMA: All these construction workers that got laid off after the
bubble burst, how about putting them back to work rebuilding our roads and
our bridges and our schools all across the country?


OBAMA: We`re putting construction workers back to work rebuilding our
roads and our bridges.

If we want business to come here, we have to invest in new roads and
bridges and airports and wireless infrastructure, and a smart grid.


SHARPTON: It`s a great idea, about you we know how Republicans will


jobs package, and what we call stimulus two.

BOEHNER: More stimulus spending, short-term gimmicks, higher taxes,
more regulations.

CANTOR: Every time he goes to identify a bridge or another project
that is yet not funded and is in disrepair, he`s going to remind people
that it`s his stimulus that was unable to deliver.


SHARPTON: Joining me is NBC political news analyst and former
Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, and former Republican congressman Rick
Lazio, from Governor, is something happening
here? Are we beginning to see some slow movement toward recovery here?

clear, the growth in this quarter is good, 2.5, not good enough, but good.
But we`re still in the midst of a jobless recovery, which mean the jobs
bill that has been outlined, much of which has been supported by
Republicans in the past, needs to be passed.

Mr. Cantor is dead wrong. In Pennsylvania, the original stimulus
Bill, we got over a billion for roads and bridges, we repaired over 700
bridges with that money, 700 bridges. Now, Mr. Cantor, that`s not chopped

SHARPTON: No, it`s not.

Rick, let me ask you, when you look at the fact that according to a
recent poll, 80 percent, 80 percent people want to see money spent on
infrastructure. And then something happened Sunday that was really rare.
We saw big labor and big business agree. Let me show you something that
was said by Richard Trumka of AFL-CIO, and Tom Donahue of the Chamber of
Commerce when they came together on a Sunday morning show. You`re talking
about having church on Sunday. This was real gospel to the American


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can`t be competitive in a global economy unless
we have infrastructure that allows us to be competitive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re in agreement of the need to bring along a
major improvement in our infrastructure. You can tell based on the
healthier infrastructure what your GDP is going to be. And you are on
target -- no growth, no jobs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is really a no-brainer.


SHARPTON: Rick, does that mean that there`s hope the Republicans will
vote yes on this infrastructure bill next week?

infrastructure is going to be an important component of America`s growth
for the next couple decades. I know Governor Rendell has been involved in
transportation infrastructure and a lot of innovation involving public-
private partnership. We ought to be pursuing that. That is an important

What I hesitate about is calling this all stimulus. We ought to be
making smart investments for the long run, projects of regional
significance that make sense where we`re getting good return. You have the
high-speed rail plan in California. So far about $10 billion allocated and
not much being done right there. I`m not sure that`s a wise investment.

SHARPTON: But again, my question, does this mean in your opinion that
Republicans will vote for the infrastructure bill next week?

LAZIO: My view is I think they`re going to stand against it because
they`re going to say two things. Until we get some agreement on a global
basis, on dealing with our budget problem, which is enormous, where are we
going with entitlements?

If you were to say to Republicans, I think we have got a pathway to
reduce and restrain entitlements so that they`re sustainable over the long
run, I think you`ll find many more Republicans who would be open and
amenable to investing in things like smart infrastructure.

But if you say every time you have a new spending program, we`re going
to raise tacking on the same people, the top 10 percent that are already
paying 70 percent of the taxes, where under current law they`re already
going to look at increases when the Bush tax cuts lapse, and number two
when the health care bill gets phased in, we`ll be faced it more taxes, at
what point when people are paying 55 percent or 60 percent of taxes is it
just too much for a growing economy?

SHARPTON: Well, governor, but isn`t it a fallacy to say, quote,
"stimulus doesn`t work"? And secondly, how can we tell the people that are
suffering that are unemployed, that are going through this, to wait on some
global solution? Can`t we bring relief while we move toward -- I don`t
discount at all we have to deal with the deficit, but why do we have to
deal with people who are unemployed, running out of unemployment
hurricanes, running out of all kinds of things they need to survive? Why
do they have to suffer while the Republicans are waiting on this partisan
kind of concession to them?

RENDELL: Well, you`re absolutely right, Al. Like at Simpson-Bowles.
They`re playing political games. I don`t fault Rick. I think Rick`s point
is right. We have to do something about everything. His point about long-
term investment and infrastructure is absolutely right. But in the short
term we need to do something to stimulate growth.

I`m happy to show this to Representative Cantor. In Pennsylvania, as
I said, we`ve got $1 billion for roads and bridges in the first stimulus.
We tracked it. Jobs produced on the construction site, jobs back at the
factory -- 24,600 jobs from that stimulus.

SHARPTON: Rick, you and I have different views, but also respect each
other. You`ve always been a straight shooter. Isn`t a lot of this
politics? When you have Karl Rove saying, quote, "pointing out that
Obama`s stimulus is not a serious solution," knowing that it is clearly a
serious solution, whether you agree or not, it certainly moves the dial in
terms of jobs and development.

LAZIO: Sure.

SHARPTON: Aren`t they really just playing politics at the expense of
a lot of people that are suffering right now?

LAZIO: I`m not sure they`re playing politics, but it`s a silly
argument to say that a stimulus package creates no jobs. Of course it`s
going to create jobs.

SHARPTON: You hear that, Karl? Rick Lazio said it`s silly to say
that. Rick Lazio said it`s silly.

RENDELL: But let me say this also. When they president rolled out
his first stimulus package, which was an $800 billion stimulus package in
the context of a $15 trillion economy and said that this was going to keep
unemployment below eight percent and that`s how they defined success and
then unemployment went up to over nine percent, then you`ve got to say a
lot of those projects that they focused on, including a lot of
transportation projects, were taking a lot longer to get in the ground,
shovel ready, as he was the one to admit than should have been the case.

If we really want money in people`s markets more quickly as a
stimulus, we probably should have focused more on tax relief, which is what
Republicans would say, and other ways in which to get that money quickly to
people, because you know, when you do a transportation project, including
this proposal, you`ve got to do an RFP, you`ve got to prepare the RFP.
You`ve got to send it out, which takes months for people to respond, you`ve
got to decide on the RFP, then you`ve got people that can contest it.

SHARPTON: But you need the bill, governor?

RENDELL: Sure you need the bill. That argument makes no sense.
First of all, you can speed up the process. We did it in Pennsylvania,
number one. Number two, Rick forgets of the original stimulus, there were
$350 billion of tax cuts. So if tax cuts were the answer, the Republicans
would have loved the first stimulus and it should have worked even better
than it did, because that was 40 percent tax cuts.

Look, the bottom line is, if our Pennsylvania experience and every
experience $1 billion on infrastructure, 25,000 jobs, we would have been
producing nearly two million new jobs.

SHARPTON: Rick, you have the last word.

RENDELL: First of all, in terms of historical context, we`ve had 10
recessions since World War II. This has been the most anemic recovery of
all 10. If we had been growing about the average rate of the last 10
recession, we would have had about 12 million more jobs than we have right
now. Number two, as Republicans say, they don`t like some of these
measures because they`re temporary, because people make judgments over the
longer term.


SHARPTON: But don`t put everybody`s life on hold while you do it.

Let`s continue this another time. Ed Rendell, Rick Lazio, thanks so

Ahead, it was one of the most stunning moments of the GOP race so far.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie
about who I was, because I`m a gay soldier. Do you intend to circumvent
the progress that`s been made for gays and lesbians in the military?



SHARPTON: That soldier`s husband responds to the boos tonight.


SHARPTON: Welcome back. One of the most stunning moments in the
republican presidential campaign came last month. Take a look.


STEPHEN HILL, SOLDIER IN IRAQ: In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I
had to lie about who I was, because I`m a gay soldier. Do you intend to
circumvent the progress that`s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in
the military?


SHARPTON: Booing a U.S. serviceman. That`s soldier Captain Stephen
Hill and his husband Joshua Snyder are fighting for equal rights. Snyder
joined gay and lesbian service members today, filing a lawsuit challenging
the constitutionality of the federal ban on gay marriage.

Joining me now is Joshua Snyder, the husband of Captain Hill, one of
the plaintiffs in this case. Thanks for being here, Joshua.


SHARPTON: First, I want to go back to the moment at the debate that
we just saw. What was your reaction when they booed Steve?

SNYDER: Um, we didn`t really notice the booing. It was kind of we
were overtaken by the whole moment. We kind of really got more of a
reaction to the response from his service members as well as friends. A
lot of support.

SHARPTON: Let me show you what President Obama said about the booing.


PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: We don`t believe in the kind
of smallness that says it`s OK for a stage full of political leaders, one
of whom could end up being the president of the United States, being silent
when an American soldier is booed. You want to be commander in chief, you
can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the
United States, even when it`s not politically convenient.


SHARPTON: Now, that`s how President responded. What a lot of us were
struck by is that you may not have heard the booing, and your husband, but
the candidates on that stage, the republican candidates heard it and none
of them said anything. That spoke volumes to us in their silence.

SNYDER: It would have been nice to get some support, but you know
what? We got the question out there and we got the response from the

SHARPTON: Now, getting the question out there. You were part of a
lawsuit filed today. A lot of people don`t understand it, even with Don`t
Ask, Don`t Tell, things that are not covered is what you are trying to deal
with in this lawsuit. Let me show this screen to the American public.
Benefits that are not provided to same-sex military couples. And we must
remember now, these are people that are in the service in many dangerous
places around the country. But they`re surviving spouse, does not get
benefits, burial rights at national cemeteries, health benefits, moral and
welfare programs, access to military bases. So most people did not know
that none of this is protected, just with Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell.

SNYDER: Correct.

SHARPTON: Your lawsuit is to make sure that you get simple, basic
things like I`ve just outlined, spouse benefits, rights to national
cemeteries. Am I right? You just want to be treated like any other human
couple that put themselves in danger`s way for the country.

SNYDER: Exactly, Stephen is over there doing the same thing as any
other soldier, and we`re legally married, and we just want the same rights.

SHARPTON: So, if you`re legally married, whatever people`s views are
not you`re legally married, you`re saying then treat me like I`m legally
married, don`t say I`m legally married, but then take away all of the
rights that I would have that any other married couple would have for
someone that`s putting their life on the line for this country?

SNYDER: Exactly.

SHARPTON: Well, Josh Snyder, thank you so much for being here
tonight, and thank you for your reaction to what happened. Thank you very

SNYDER: Thank you, Reverend Sharpton. Thank you.

SHARPTON: Ahead, Herman Cain inside his campaign, and the chaos
behind the scenes.


SHARPTON: Welcome back to the show. Cain mania has taken over the
GOP. Republicans, this is your front-runner.



Herman Cain (R), presidential candidate: President of Ubeki-beki-



SHARPTON: The pizza man, the guy who puts out hilariously bizarre ads
with random campaign managers smoking cigarettes, the guy with no knowledge
of foreign countries. Wow. So how did he get here? Mr. Front-runner,
meet Mr. Microscope, an explosive piece in "New York Times" today takes us
inside the chaos of the Cain campaign. Former staffers spill the dirt on
Cain, being MIA, not planning conference calls, staff meetings, and calling
off appearances at the last minute. And Mr. Nice guy routine, not with the
folks in his campaign. A memo was sent out to the staff that said, quote,
"Do not speak to Cain unless you are spoken to." And some former staffers
couldn`t believe he focused on a book tour smack in the middle of the


CAIN: This is not primarily fundraising stuff here. This is a
primarily book stop. The people who want more information about the book
tour, they can go to that happens to be the name of
the book.


SHARPTON: Folks, we`re getting a look at the real Herman Cain.
Joining me now is Chris Hayes, host of "UP WITH CHRIS HAYES" here on MSNBC.
Chris, thanks for being here tonight.

CHRIS HAYES, HOST, "UP WITH CHRIS HAYES": Great to be here, Reverend.

SHARPTON: You know, the commercial that everyone is laughing about.
I did my own rendition the other night. It was weird, but do you know
there was other weird commercials. They seem to have overlooked the fact
that we are able to find another commercial. I want to show you Herman
Cain`s yellow flowers. This is weird.


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What are you guys? Liberals?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Card carrying.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: In 2012, let`s get real for a change, people. Take
a real look at Herman Cain. I think you`ll like what you see. I stand
with Herman Cain. Because Herman Cain stands with us.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Nice chicken, honey.


SHARPTON: Nice chicken, honey.

HAYES: I have watched that ad -- I`ve watched that ad four or five
times today. I still do not understand what the object of the satire is,
who is being skewered by the ad`s writers. It is delightfully
entertaining, but extremely, extremely baffling, which is a good way of
summing up the Cain campaign thus far.

SHARPTON: But he still has that smile. Weird.

HAYES: He`s got the iconic slow-motion Cain smile.


HAYES: I mean, there`s something about the Cain phenomenon that
speaks to people`s valuing of authenticity or their conception of what is
authentic, and there is a degree to which he has managed to project a
certain authenticity, even if his weirdness, even the weirdness of the
campaigns, even in the sort of going around book tour when he should be
campaigning. That clearly has some kind of traction with the republican
primary voters, right? They`re looking for something that is authentic.
Whatever that conception of authenticity is. And all his weirdness, all
his strangeness, all the things that`s he`s doing that seem completely
outside the norm for what you`re doing, you`re trying to run as President,
I think might work to his benefit in so far as the endear him to a
Republican Primary base that views it as repudiating the kind of culture of
politics that they`re so set against.

SHARPTON: Well, let me say why on all jokes aside, what would you say
is disturbingly true. Because he`s number one in the polls, he`s leading,
and this guy, as laughable as he is to some of us, he is being supported by
a lot of people.

HAYES: Yes, and he has -- I mean -- the way to interpret the Cain --
I think the Cain`s leadership status in the field right now is, A, there`s
a certain percentage of the base that just wants the reddest of red meat
thrown to them reliably, and they want someone who is just going to give
them the Tea Party sound bites that they crave. That is what they`re
looking for and he provides that. Second of all, he does have a sort of
appealing air about them. Are we going back to Washington debate and I
thought to myself, you know, of all these people standing on the stage,
forget about substance, forget about what they believe in, they seems like
a pretty nice guy.

I don`t really necessarily feel that way about Rick Perry when I`m
watching him, but the experience thing is so fascinatingly perverse.
Because you have in the field right now, we had Buddy Roemer, governor of
Louisiana and congressman. We met him on our show last weekend. He was a
governor and a congressman, Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico extremely
popular, those are fringe candidates. They can`t get any traction. Jon
Huntsman, who was the ambassador to China and a governor in Utah totally --
this guy with zero experience is leading the field. It tells you about
what they are looking for.

SHARPTON: No. I know in 2004 when I ran, you cannot put -- you can`t
measure the importance of people liking you or not liking you. You can
have all the policy in the world, and I think that he`s a likable person.

HAYES: Absolutely.

SHARPTON: Now, I think what his opponents have not been able to do is
say, but this is what he will do if he wins the nomination or what he will
do if he wins for president. And so when you get past this cuddly nice,
grandfather pizza guy, this is what it is, and none of them have
successfully brought that out or even really gone after that deal.

HAYES: No, and I think that`s what the "New York Times" article today
was important, because it took aims at the central conceit of the Cain
candidacy which is that because he has private sector success. He`s a good
manager. And the article detail that I thought quite devastatingly, the
fact that he`s a terrible manager, the campaign is a terribly run
enterprise. And that`s the sort of his singular attribute that he has to
suggest himself to the field. I think that`s going to be a problem for
him. And we`ll see. The real question is, does the republican primary
voter want this kind of symbolic figure who is going to wage cultural war
and take on Barack Obama. Or are they going to develop in such a way where
they actually care about the possible abilities and qualifications of the
person they`re voting for.

SHARPTON: And when you look at some of the allegations, and we all
get them in any campaign, about when you look at the fact that they said he
was more interested in the book tour, look at the schedule he did in the
month -- the last month, in October, how many appearances, the 5th of
October, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, 15th, 25th, I mean, you`re a
front-runner for the presidency, and you`re making these many book tour
appearances, so you can`t act like these are sour grapes from campaign
staffers, when the facts kind of say, wait a minute.

HAYES: No. It`s absolutely the case. The fascinating thought is
this, what if it`s the case that in the era of FOX News dominance. It
doesn`t matter if you build an organization these days. I mean, media
matters did ran an analysis, and Herman Cain has gotten the most airtime on
FOX News of any of the candidates in the last month and a half, two months.
So, it`s possible that in a period of time in which one media outlet, FOX
News so thoroughly dominates the way that the primary voters in the
Republican Party get their information, that all that matters to run for
president is getting on FOX News, and not doing the traditional things like
shaking hands in Manchester.

SHARPTON: That`s the problem. And I can tell you as a New Yorker who
grew up eating pizza, you can have a very affable singing pizza man deliver
the pizza to your house, but if you bite hard crust, it will break your

Chris Hayes, thanks for coming down, thanks for joining us. And you
can catch Chris` show on Saturdays at 7:00 a.m. and Sunday mornings at 8:00
a.m. right here on MSNBC.

SHARPTON: Ahead, how did Republicans choose where to implement voter
ID laws to suppress the vote? The answer is important.


SHARPTON: We`ve been telling you about the radical republican effort
to suppress the vote, with a slew of voter ID laws. Now, we`re seeing a
pattern that explains why we`re seeing this. Let`s bring on NBC`s Mara
Schiavocampo who will give us the latest on this. Mara?

Presidential candidate Barack Obama galvanized African-American voters
across the country. For the first time in history, African-American voter
turnout actually exceeded its percentage of the population. And we saw
that turnout especially high or growing in five key swing states. Those
were all states that President Obama wants. And those were Florida, North
Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Michigan. Since then, these states have also
been the focus of many of the photo ID voting laws that had been pursued
this year. Let`s take a look at the map that shows the 41 states where
voter ID laws are either on the books or have been pushed by state
legislatures this year, those also happens to include those five key swing

Now, let`s take a look at some of the specific. Let`s start with
Virginia where African-American voter turnout jumped 20 percent between
2004 and 2008. This year the republican legislature tried to pass a photo
ID law. Moving on to North Carolina. They saw a 15 percent job in
African-American voter turnout between 2000 and 2008. This year, the
republican state legislature passed a photo I.D. law that democratic
Governor Bev Purdue vetoed. And of course, another big swing state, Ohio,
also a 15 percent jump in African-American voter turnout between 2000 and
2008. And this year, the republican House of Representatives passed a
strict photo ID law that was eventually blocked by the state Senate. Rev,
back to you.

SHARPTON: Thanks, Mara. Folks, make no mistake about it. This is a
coordinated attempt to defeat President Obama in 2012.

Let me bring in Andrew Gillum, director of Youth Leadership at People
for the American Way. Andrew, thanks for joining us.

Reverend Sharpton. I hope you`re well.

SHARPTON: I`m well. Your group is breaking a new report on voter
suppression tonight. What you can you tell us about the report?

GILLUM: That`s right. Well, I mean, one of the central tenets we
want to make sure yet tell in this report, is the idea that is being
comulgated by the radical right that there is widespread voter fraud going
on across this country just simply is not true, and is not evidenced. And
the well documented cases that have gone from state to state, in even one
as important as when the Bush administration went into office, they
conducted, the Justice Department conducted a widespread investigation to
weed out voter fraud happening throughout the United States. And you know
what they yielded? Eighty six occasions of voter fraud, and when you delve
deeper in those 86 cases, you come to find out that much of those were
accidental. That 86 cases out of 200 million votes cast in this country.
To me, I`m not sure about you Rev, but to me that does not sound like
widespread voter fraud in my opinion. This is a well coordinated and
highly effective.

SHARPTON: And is well targeted, is well targeted as Mara just showed
us, turnout, key states, key African-American votes. That`s where a lot of
these voter ID laws are in effect, just because I`m paranoid, a friend of
mine always said, just because I`m paranoid doesn`t mean that no one is
following me.

GILLUM: That`s right.

SHARPTON: So clearly when you see the pattern, look at these graphs
here with the MIT study. 2.2 million people -- this is in 2008, did not
cast ballots, because they lacked proper ID. This was before the laws.
2.2. million did not cast ballots they didn`t have ID. Discrimination at
the polls, who was -- ID in 2008.

GILLUM: That`s exactly right.

SHARPTON: African-Americans, 70 percent of those acts, Hispanics 65
percent a little less, whites only 51 percent. So clearly, who was
questioned before the law overwhelmingly African-American. Now you have
the law and it`s in the states where African-Americans have huge turnouts
that made a huge difference in the results.

GILLUM: Well, you don`t need me to draw any more lines than what you
have just drawn. And that is that these laws are not intended to fix a
problem. These laws are intended to fix elections in their favor. And
that`s not what this democratic society is about. We`re supposed to be
opening the doors of democracy. To take that 2.2 million legally
registered voters in 2008, who were unable to vote, and four years of a
federal investigation that yielded 86 cases.

SHARPTON: Amazing.

GILLUM: Eighty six cases in four years compared to 2.2 million people
now being able to vote in 2008.

SHARPTON: We`re going to stay on this, Andrew.

GILLUM: I hope so, sir.

SHARPTON: Andrew Gillum, People for the American Way. Thanks for
your time tonight.

GILLUM: Thank you for having me, Reverend.

SHARPTON: We`ll be right back.


SHARPTON: I`m all for getting kids into the political process, but
Rick Perry donors are taking it a little too far. The "Huffington Post"
reports children of several big Perry donors are also given to his
campaign, even though they live at home with their parents. An oil
executive who Perry appointed to a position has four kids who live at home.
Three of them are students, but they all donated $1,000 to Perry`s
campaign. And then not the only students where deep pockets. The chair of
the Texas parks and wildlife commission is a Perry supporter. His two
college-age sons chipped in $2500 apiece for Perry. But one family of
Perry supporters has really taught their kids to be generous from a young

Texas Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman has a son in college who
contributed to Perry. So did his high school and his daughter who "The
Huffington Post" reports appears to be in middle school, also gave $2500.
That`s a whole lot of allowance money, unless it`s really coming from mommy
and daddy. The truth is, it`s legal for minors to give to political
campaigns as long as it`s their money and it`s given knowingly. Even if
those two conditions are true, wouldn`t these kids rather go to the mall or
the movies than spend money on Rick Perry? Governor Perry, you ought to do
something special for all of these young kids giving to your campaign.
Maybe you ought to take them out for pizza.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now.


Transcription Copyright 2011 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is
granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not
reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or
internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall
user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may
infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or
interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of