Chris Matthews Interviews Zell Miller

MATTHEWS: Joe Scarborough, thank you.

Let me go now to the—go right now. We‘re going to joined right now as we speak, and stop speaking, with Zell Miller, the man who made the speech.

Senator, thank you. You have...

(BOOING)

MATTHEWS: Well, don‘t listen to them. Don‘t listen to those people.

We want to hear from you, Senator.

Senator, let me ask you.

MATTHEWS: I want to ask you about the most powerful line in your speech. And it had so many.

“No pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.”

Do you believe that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy really only believe in defending America with spitballs?

MILLER: Well, I certainly don‘t believe they want to defend America by putting the kind of armor and the kind of equipment that we have got to have out there for our troops. I mean, nothing could be clearer than that, than what John Kerry did when he voted against that $87 billion in appropriations, that would have provided protective armor for our troops and armored vehicles.

MATTHEWS: All right, let me ask you. Senator, you are the expert. Many times, as a conservative Republican, you have had to come out on the floor and obey party whips and vote against big appropriations passed by the Democrats when they were in power.

You weren‘t against feeding poor people. You weren‘t against Social Security. You weren‘t against a lot of programs that, because of the nature of parliamentary procedure and combat, you had to vote against the whole package. Didn‘t you many times vote against whole packages of spending, when you would have gladly gone for a smaller package?

MILLER: Well, I didn‘t make speeches about them and I didn‘t put them in my platform.

Right here is what John Kerry put out as far as his U.S. Senate platform, was, he was talking about he wanted to cancel the M.X. missile, the B-1 bomber, the anti-satellite system. This is not voting for something that was in a big bill.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Which of those systems was effective in either Afghanistan

or Iraq? The M.X. certainly wasn‘t, thank God, nor was the other

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Look, this is front and—wait, this is front and back, and it‘s two pages. I have got more documentation here than they have got in the New York Public Library and the Library of Congress.

MATTHEWS: OK.

MILLER: I knew you was going to be coming with all of that stuff.

And I knew that these people from the Kerry campaign would be coming with all this kind of stuff.

That‘s just baloney. Look at the record. A man‘s record is what he is.

MATTHEWS: I agree.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: A man‘s campaign rhetoric—what?

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, Senator, do you mean to say—I know there‘s rhetoric in campaigns. I just want to know, do you mean to say that you really believe that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy do not believe in defending the country?

MILLER: Well, look at their votes.

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you to bottom-line it for me.

MILLER: Wait a minute. I said I didn‘t question their patriotism.

MATTHEWS: No. Do you believe that they don‘t believe in defending the country?

MILLER: I question their judgment.

What?

MATTHEWS: Do you believe they want to defend the country?

MILLER: Look, I applaud what John Kerry did as far as volunteering to go to Vietnam. I applaud what he did when he volunteered for combat. I admire that, and I respect that. And I acknowledge that. I have said that many, many times.

MATTHEWS: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: But I think his record is atrocious.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you, when Democrats come out, as they often do, liberal Democrats, and attack conservatives, and say they want to starve little kids, they want to get rid of education, they want to kill the old people...

MILLER: I am not saying that. Wait a minute.

MATTHEWS: That kind of rhetoric is not educational, is it?

MILLER: Wait a minute.

Now, this is your program. And I am a guest on your program.

MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.

MILLER: And so I want to try to be as nice as I possibly can to you. I wish I was over there, where I could get a little closer up into your face.

MILLER: But I don‘t have to stand here and listen to that kind of stuff. I didn‘t say anything about not feeding poor kids. What are you doing?

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m saying that when you said tonight—I just want you to...

MILLER: Well, you are saying a bunch of baloney that didn‘t have

anything to do with what I said up there on the

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: No, no.

MATTHEWS: OK. Do you believe now—do you believe, Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?

MILLER: That was a metaphor, wasn‘t it? Do you know what a metaphor is?

MATTHEWS: Well, what do you mean by a metaphor?

MILLER: Wait a minute. He certainly does not want to defend the country with the B-1 bomber or the B-2 bomber or the Harrier jet or the Apache helicopter or all those other things that I mentioned. And there were even more of them in here.

You‘ve got to quit taking these Democratic talking points and using what they are saying to you.

MATTHEWS: No, I am using your talking points and asking you if you really believe them.

MILLER: Well, use John Kerry‘s talking points from the—from what he has had to say on the floor of the Senate, where he talked about them being occupiers, where he put out this whenever he was running for the U.S. Senate about what he wanted to cancel. Cancel to me means to do away with.

MATTHEWS: Well, what did you mean by the following.

MILLER: I think we ought to cancel this interview.

MATTHEWS: Well, I don‘t mean...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, that would be my loss, Senator. That would be my loss.

Let me ask you about this, because I think you have a view on the role of reporters in the world. You have said and it has often been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. Was there not...

MILLER: Do you believe that?

MATTHEWS: Well, of course it‘s true.

MILLER: Do you believe that?

MATTHEWS: But it‘s a statement that nobody would have challenged. Why did you make it? It seems like no one would deny what you said. So what‘s your point?

MILLER: Well, it evidently got a rise out of you.

MATTHEWS: Well, I think it‘s a

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Because you are a reporter.

MATTHEWS: That‘s right.

MILLER: You didn‘t have anything to do with freedom of the press.

MATTHEWS: Well, you could argue it was not nurses who defended the freedom of nursing. Why did you single out freedom of the press to say it was the soldiers that defended it and not the reporters? We all know that. Why did you say it?

MILLER: Well, because I thought it needed to be said at this particular time, because I wanted to come on...

MATTHEWS: Because you could get an applause line against the media at a conservative convention.

MILLER: No, I said it because it was—you‘re hopeless. I wish I was over there.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: In fact, I wish that we lived in—I wish we lived in the

day

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘ve got to warn you, we are in a tough part of town over here.

MATTHEWS: But I do recommend you come over, because I like you.

Let me tell you this.

MILLER: Chris.

MATTHEWS: If a Republican Senator broke ranks and—all right, I‘m sorry.

A Republican Senator broke ranks and came over and spoke for the Democrats, would you respect him?

MILLER: Yes, of course I would.

MATTHEWS: Why?

MILLER: I have seen that happen from time to time. Look, I believe...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What does Jim Jeffords say to you?

MILLER: Wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Jim Jeffords switched parties after getting elected.

MILLER: If you‘re going to ask a question...

MATTHEWS: Well, it‘s a tough question. It takes a few words.

MILLER: Get out of my face.

MILLER: If you are going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Senator, please.

MILLER: You know, I wish we...

MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.

Don‘t ask me—don‘t pull that...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Can you can come over? I need you, Senator. Please come over.

MILLER: Wait a minute. Don‘t pull that kind of stuff on me, like you did that young lady when you had her there, browbeating her to death. I am not her. I am not her.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, she was suggesting that John Kerry purposely shot himself to win a medal. And I was trying to correct the record.

MILLER: You get in my face, I am going to get back in your face.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: The only reason you are doing it is because you are standing way over there in Herald Square.

MATTHEWS: Senator, Senator, can I speak softly to you? I would really like you to...

MILLER: What? No, no, no, because you won‘t give me a chance to answer. You ask these questions and then you just talk over what I am trying to answer, just like you did that woman the other day.

MATTHEWS: Well, Senator...

MILLER: I don‘t know why I even came on this program.

MATTHEWS: Well, I am glad you did.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this about John Kerry‘s war record.

MILLER: Well, are you going to shut up after you ask me?

MILLER: Or are you going to give me a chance to answer it?

MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.

MATTHEWS: I am going to give you a chance to answer.

You used very strong words tonight about the Democratic candidate, much stronger than you are using with me. And they will be remembered a lot longer than anything you say to me now. So I am not really worried about what you say now, except that this country was promised unity after the last election by the president that you are supporting. And he urged the country to come together. Do you think you helped that cause tonight?

MILLER: I think I helped the cause of trying to tell the American people why John Kerry is unfit for the presidency and why we need to keep George W. Bush in as the president, because it‘s the way that we can keep this nation more secure and my family more safe.

MATTHEWS: Did I ask you about your role in the Democratic Party, because you have caused such a hit tonight, because you are a man of the Democratic Party? Long before this election, you had to watch as a Southern conservative the nomination by your party of people like George McGovern, Fritz Mondale, Jimmy Carter, liberal after liberal after liberal, including Mike Dukakis, perhaps the most liberal of them all. What caused you to cross the aisle tonight?

MILLER: By coming to Washington and seeing firsthand what a mess it is and how far out the Senate Democrats are.

They are off the chart as far as being with the mainstream of America. I think the straw that broke the camel‘s back was the homeland security measure, when, time after time, John Kerry and the Democrats put collective bargaining above homeland security. That did it for me.

MATTHEWS: Well, that did it for Max Cleland as well, didn‘t it?

MILLER: It surely did. And probably Jean Carnahan.

And nobody is to blame, except—well, they are to blame because they voted that way. But who is really to blame is Tom Daschle for insisting that they do it 11 times over a four-months period. It was dumb.

MATTHEWS: And, well, you could argue that it was politically dumb of Max Cleland to support the labor unions in Georgia against what looked like the national interests. My question is, is it good for America to impugn that vote as a vote against the security of this country?

MILLER: That vote was not impugned. He did not get defeated because of that ad that you like to talk about. You can‘t vote with Tom Daschle 85 percent of the time and be expected to be able to be reelected in Georgia. You know that much about Georgia and the South.

MATTHEWS: Well, sir, I also know the—and I completely agree with the need to get reelected as a statesman. Jefferson said the first order of a statesman was to get elected.

I am just wondering if you think tonight‘s speech and advertisements that show people like Max Cleland standing next to Saddam Hussein are helping bring this country together?

MILLER: That didn‘t have anything to do with Max Cleland‘s defeat.

We have already—we have already beat that dog to death.

MATTHEWS: Well, maybe the war did that, too.

But thank you very much for coming here tonight. I hope we can have a more civil conversation in closer terms. I would love you to come tonight. In fact, you can meet with Joe Scarborough, who will probably be nicer to you.

MATTHEWS: But we will both try to get the truth out of the conversation.

And I feel bad that you are upset with me, Senator. I have never had this kind of a fight with you before.

MILLER: I know it.

MATTHEWS: I think you misheard me. But please come over tomorrow night. We‘ve got a convention ending.

And, by the way, you will help our ratings tremendously if you come over tomorrow night, because everybody thinks you are going to beat me up.

MATTHEWS: But since somebody tried to do that last night, I don‘t think it‘s going to be a surprise.

WATTS: Hey, Chris, can I say

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: J.C. Watts wants to talk to you, Senator.

MILLER: All right.

WATTS: Hey, Senator, this is J.C. Watts.

MILLER: Hey, J.C.

WATTS: You can put your feet under my dinner table any day of the week.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: Thank you. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Well, I guess everybody loves the senator.

MILLER: Good to be with you.

MATTHEWS: Hey, it‘s great having you on. Let‘s be friends. Let‘s be friends.

MILLER: See you later.

MATTHEWS: Thank you.

Well, that was unexpected turn of events.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I simply wanted him to say again in the vernacular what he said on that stage. And I think we all agreed here, didn‘t we? Stick by me here.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Didn‘t we all agree those were strong words?

WATTS: Well, I think they were strong words.

But, Chris, I think you got a good feel of the political process, but let me tell you, when the senator—you really were trying to have the Senator answer what you were—there was no hidden agenda in what you were asking.

MATTHEWS: No, but I do know that you know parliamentary procedure better than I do.

WATTS: Right. Right.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You often vote directly against a large appropriation when you clearly would have voted for a smaller one. It‘s the way the game is played.

WATTS: But let me tell you something.

When we have this movie , this filmmaker, that says worse things about the president of the United States than he says about Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden or the terrorists, and then the Senator has to come on any show...

MATTHEWS: Right.

WATTS: ... or talk to any reporter and go through that, he kind of feels like there is a double standard. I‘m not saying that there is.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: Because I know exactly what you were asking him there.

MITCHELL: He was asking him just about his words from the speech. We

didn‘t

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: No, you didn‘t.

But I am saying, the senator understands all these other things that are out there in the echo chamber about what is being said about the president, what is being said about him.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: One of the things in the speech was, John Kerry wants to refight yesterday‘s war.

Now, John Kerry isn‘t the one right now attacking himself on Vietnam. I mean, this sort of—this speech—and I think, Chris, appropriately was questioning him as to whether he was throwing up straw men. In the senator‘s defense, Chris, I think, with all the noise of the buses that are taking the delegates that are now leaving...

MATTHEWS: I love that sound.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: Well, that sound makes it very hard if you‘re over in the hall.

MATTHEWS: Can I make noncontroversial statements like, I love the sound of buses?

(LAUGHTER)

MEACHAM: I don‘t know. I don‘t know.

(CROSSTALK)

MEACHAM: Only if they are hybrid buses.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: I think he may have misunderstood the analogy you were drawing.

MATTHEWS: I think he couldn‘t hear me.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I was trying to defend conservatives tonight, which probably they don‘t need defending.

But, oftentimes, there are debates over Social Security. And every time a Republican, for example, tries to reform Social Security, somebody from the left says, you are trying to destroy Social Security, when they are simply trying to reform it. Every time somebody tries to cut back on school lunches or Head Start or any kind of Social Security, they are accused of being killers of old ladies and killers of kids.

I tried to explain to him that the rhetoric of complete destruction of other side‘s point of view is not helpful.

MITCHELL: Right. I don‘t think he understood that.

(CROSSTALK)

MEACHAM: You made history tonight, because this was the first presidential—the first presidential politics issuing a challenge for a duel since Andrew Jackson wanted to hang John C. Calhoun.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Well, no, no. I did not invite him to a duel.

MEACHAM: No, he did. He did.

MITCHELL: He did.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

MEACHAM: He said he wished we lived in an age when you could duel.

And Andrew Jackson carried two bullets in him his whole life and wanted to

hang

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: I want to sell the popcorn and Coke.

MATTHEWS: Well, I do

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: I want to sell popcorn and Coke at that door.

(LAUGHTER)

MEACHAM: I‘ll do it.

MATTHEWS: I think he wanted to have a conversation in closer quarters. Sort of a Joe Lieberman-Dick Cheney sit-down schmooze, I think he wanted.

Hey, look, we got to come back. We‘ve got—well, we‘re going to come back. We‘re going to have pollster Frank Luntz to settle the situation here and his focus group of Ohio voters—maybe they decided between the other arguments tonight—anyway, to see what they are saying about the speeches tonight by Senator Zell Miller and Vice President Dick Cheney.

We‘re going to have some news for you tonight. What do people out there think about what we all heard tonight?

You‘re watching HARDBALL. What a name for the show tonight. Live coverage of the Republican National Convention on MSNBC.

MEACHAM: That was great.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: The senior senator from Georgia visited us tonight.

There‘s still time, Senator (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I mean that seriously. I think it‘s great to have the nerve to come back and meet so—I think there was a miscommunication.

Just to clear this up, I was trying to point out that, having worked on Capitol Hill for so many years, I know that these are debates that occur. And they seem so black and white. And what happens is, you establish, you take a position against a defend spending bill, for example, and you end up losing 80-20, and you make your point for maybe your local press. And you also may be trying to negotiate some amendment which fails. And if you are a conservative, you try to cut down on the ag bill, perhaps, or the school lunch program or something, and you will say, I don‘t want to spend $100 billion.

I‘ll spend maybe 80, so you vote against the $100 billion‘s final passage. So you end up looking like Scrooge if you are conservative, and you end up looking like Bella Abzug if you‘re a Democrat, a real old-time lefty liberal. So it does give you kind of an unclear picture. I tried to draw that out of him.

I think when he goes back and starts reading what I said, instead of checking on the latest blog site, he will learn a lot more about what‘s going on here.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Just a thought there, Senator.

But it seems to me, while looking at—Norah is just laughing at my predicament. You are enjoying this so much.

NORAH O‘DONNELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: I have just shown up here.

MATTHEWS: Norah O‘Donnell, Norah O‘Donnell.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: I have been in the heartland with the president.

MATTHEWS: Tell us something that we don‘t know. Tell me about the president‘s ride in here.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Coming in with the president. We saw you fly in at JFK.

What kind of mood is there on that plane?

O‘DONNELL: I think they feel good.

I mean, obviously, they planned this to be a late convention, so they could get a late bounce heading into the final 60 days. They feel good. The polls show that John Kerry has lost a lot of his—any bounce that he had or any momentum that he had, so they feel good about that.

But I was struck in listening to Zell Miller and Cheney tonight, this is a campaign that doesn‘t just want to win. They want to destroy opposition, and they want a mandate. And while that hasn‘t been something that they talked about or really can talk about at this point, it‘s something that they, before this whole campaign started, before the Democrats had picked someone, this is a president who didn‘t come into office with a mandate. They tried to create a mandate through legislative action and try to get some...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Excuse me.

What was John McCain‘s role the other night when he came in rolling through the convention hall, saying we‘ve got to learn how to argue with each other without questioning each other‘s legitimacy, patriotism; we‘ve got to be calmer and treat each other as friends and that whole mood? Who was he preaching to? The Democrats.

(LAUGHTER)

O‘DONNELL: There are clearly two different messages.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

O‘DONNELL: There were messages of moderation and the message of meat today, where they were throwing the meat out.

And I think part of this whole thing we talk about, the media says, well, they are putting a more softer side on this, a more compassionate side and all that kind of stuff. That‘s important. But if you look at where we have gone with the president, the places we have traveled with the president, they are not so concerned about swing voters. Why? Because there‘s this many swing voters left. There aren‘t that many there.

MATTHEWS: They‘re trying to shake loose the Democrats.

O‘DONNELL: They are going to places where there are already strong Republican turnout.

MATTHEWS: Right.

O‘DONNELL: That they won 2-1, they are trying to get it 2.5-1. They are trying to crank up those people and bring them to the polls.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Tell me again. Tell me again. I want you to finish the thought. Tell me again why they‘re going to Scranton tomorrow night, right from here.

MITCHELL: Because they—they‘re competitive in Pennsylvania.

MATTHEWS: But what do you know on the plane?

O‘DONNELL: Well...

MATTHEWS: That‘s a Democratic area.

O‘DONNELL: It is a Democratic area. It also happens to have more bars in Scranton than anywhere else in the country.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Well, if your name wasn‘t O‘Donnell, I would say that was an ethnic slur, because it‘s an entirely Irish town. But it has a lot of bars.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: Those are conservative Democrats. You know, that‘s the Bob Casey area. Those are conservative Democrats who are winnable for this president among people who are concerned about national defense if, as Norah says, they can persuade...

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: For them, it‘s also is that—is that they are reachable people. And it‘s also somewhat of a tactical move for them to say, they are going to the same place that John Kerry went to. It‘s this tit for tat. They follow him around sometimes to places he went, and they get a lot of coverage for doing that.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: One teeny little thing.

Talking about Pennsylvania, the AFL-CIO endorsed Arlen Specter today.

MATTHEWS: Right.

MITCHELL: So that means that labor is going to have divided loyalties. That is important.

MATTHEWS: True. And he earned that rating, because he‘s about 100 percent COPE rating in voting.

WATTS: And let me ask, Chris, are we having identity crisis of

reporting? Now, the first two nights, we were talking, oh, this is

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

MITCHELL: That was Monday. That was Tuesday.

WATTS: We had Arnold Schwarzenegger. We had John McCain. And these guys really don‘t represent the party. And now, man, they‘re red meat guys and it‘s too tough.

MEACHAM: You‘re not suggesting that this convention was choreographed to make several different points on different nights, are you, Congressman?

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: We‘ve got a 380 here tonight. The first two nights, we were talking about, oh, there‘s John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani.

(CROSSTALK)

MEACHAM: I think Norah‘s point is exactly right and sheds a light on a very important political difference that‘s happened in the last 50 years, which is that Republicans are street fighters.

They wear Brooks Brothers suits and they have better cotton in their shirts, but, damn it, they are better at it in actual hand-to-hand combat. And the Democrats, for all sorts of very important governance reasons, to go to what you and Andrew Jackson Jr. were talking about with Senator Miller.

(LAUGHTER)

MEACHAM: And what John Kerry, who makes very intellectually honest, but often politically difficult statements, they see complexity where the Republicans don‘t mind, and they are going to hammer it and hammer it and hammer it.

MITCHELL: Jon, who did George W. Bush work side by side with in the 1988 election? Lee Atwater.

MEACHAM: Atwater, right.

MATTHEWS: Right.

MITCHELL: That‘s exactly who

(CROSSTALK)

MEACHAM: And there‘s no Carville of this campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: And let me tell you something.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: In this business, you better have some alley cats on your team. This is a physical kind of—this is a physical business.

MITCHELL: Well, they‘ve got them.

MEACHAM: Oklahoma alley cats.

MATTHEWS: We saw some tonight.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Excuse me.

We are joined right now by pollster Frank Luntz. He‘s in Cincinnati, Ohio, with a group of Ohio voters who watched tonight‘s speeches, both of them.

Frank, your ruling by your group?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: Chris, it‘s been a very interesting reaction.

Even though the focus of tonight was supposed to be Dick Cheney, actually, it was Senator Miller who had an even more favorable reaction from them.

In fact, let‘s do a show of hands. How many of you thought that Zell Miller‘s speech was stronger than Dick Cheney‘s?

LUNTZ: I want you to give me a word or phrase to describer Zell Miller‘s speech.

Kim (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fantastic. Very upbeat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Energetic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Surprising.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Focused on the family.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Powerful, but one-sided.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dynamic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Intellectual.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On target.

LUNTZ: Now, you all are swing voters. And you said to me to get in here that you‘ve not decided who you vote for.

Zell Miller‘s speech was very partisan and very strong. And yet most of you had a favorable reaction to it. Why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was a Democrat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Democrat.

LUNTZ: He‘s a Democrat. And what does that mean to you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he was sharing some of the impressions that the Republicans have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he seemed like the person next door.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That‘s how strongly he feels about these current issues.

LUNTZ: So the fact that he is a Democrat gives him more credibility?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And a Marine, ex-Marine.

(CROSSTALK)

LUNTZ: And why does that matter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because he‘s more in tune with what‘s going on in the issues and how all that is going on behind the scenes and where he is, being from the Democratic Party and being a military guy.

LUNTZ: You didn‘t feel that he was overboard?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I don‘t think he was. I think he was dead on, but it was so much more convincing coming from a Democrat.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he was totally overboard, because his whole focus was on terrorism and why we should all be afraid.

Now, we asked you to use these dials. Let me borrow one.

Chris, they used these dials to indicate whether or not they agreed with what they were hearing. Zell Miller focused a lot on what John Kerry had voted for and what he had voted against.

In the segment that you are about to see, the red lines represent Republicans. The green independents and Democrats. The higher that you see the lines climb over here, the better the response. Watch the reaction when Zell Miller talks about John Kerry‘s voting record on defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILLER: I could go on and on and on. Against the Patriot missile that shot down Saddam Hussein‘s Scud missiles over Israel, against the Aegis air defense cruiser, against the Strategic Defense Initiative, against the Trident, missile, against, against, against.

AUDIENCE: Against, against, against!

MILLER: This is the man who wants to be the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces?

(BOOING)

MILLER: U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LUNTZ: Spitballs, U.S. armed with spitballs. I listened. You laughed at that.

(LAUGHTER)

LUNTZ: Your reaction.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I did laugh at it because from what he was describing, Kerry is not going to support the military, that if we were attacked, that‘s about all we would have left.

LUNTZ: Kim?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree. Spitballs. There‘s no support of the military. It‘s very expensive to purchase all of these items, and John Kerry voted against expanding our horizons in the military fields.

LUNTZ: But, Barbara (ph), you don‘t agree.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I don‘t.

LUNTZ: Why not?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it‘s ludicrous to refer to something so significant as spitballs. I think that Kerry is somebody who actually was in an operation, who actually fought and who actually had experience in the military, and I have not been able to personally find anything where it is that he was against anything in terms of the U.S. military.

LUNTZ: Now, you also heard from Vice President Cheney. And he talked about John Kerry‘s record and where John Kerry stands on some of the issues. And, in particular, he focused on 9/11 and the reaction to terrorism. And, again, you had a very dramatic response to what the vice president had to say.

Let‘s take a look and then we will talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn‘t appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a more sensitive war on terror.

(LAUGHTER)

CHENEY: As though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

CHENEY: He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LUNTZ: That‘s a remarkable response. That‘s a response from almost all of you.

I know that you weren‘t supportive of the speech, but I even think you agree with that statement.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, we were attacked, but I just don‘t necessarily agree with the people we went after following 9/11.

LUNTZ: Douglas (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was pretty poignant. I think we have to do something. It‘s a fight in our backyard or theirs.

LUNTZ: Now, explain to me, when he attacks Kerry using the phrase fighting a sensitive war on terror, how do you react to that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don‘t think you could be sensitive with terrorists. You have got to be firm. You have got to show what you are going to do when something happens.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But the whole term sensitivity was taken out of context. I don‘t think that that is what was intended in Kerry‘s speech about that.

LUNTZ: You are the youngest person in this room. This is your first time voting for president.

LUNTZ: Yes.

LUNTZ: When the vice president talks about Kerry talking about sensitive, your reaction to that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that Kerry has consistently proving with his voting for the military and voting not for certain weapons, I think he has been consistent about being sensitive to a war on terror. And, in this day and age, we have to be very powerful and we have to be very strong against terrorists.

LUNTZ: For you, sensitive is a negative term.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sensitive—I think the way he used it, the way Dick Cheney used it, the vice president, was very, very much necessary.

LUNTZ: Patricia, agree or disagree?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree. I think it was very poignantly put.

LUNTZ: There‘s one other segment that I want to show you all. And it also relates to the principle of prevention. And, again, you had a very sharp reaction. Let‘s take a look and you will explain why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: We are faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, and we cannot wait until the next attack.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

CHENEY: We must do everything we can to prevent it, and that includes the use of military force.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LUNTZ: Again, you had a very sharp reaction, even up to the point of military force. But then some of the Democrats and independents started to react a little bit more negatively to it.

John (ph), your reaction to that clip.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree that you have to have a military force of some sort, but I think the question is, how are you going to use it? That really wasn‘t addressed here.

LUNTZ: Did Dick Cheney go too far?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

LUNTZ: Why not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, because I, remember many years back, if someone had stood up to Hitler back in the ‘30s, 70 million people wouldn‘t have been killed in that Second World War.

LUNTZ: Daniel (ph), did Dick Cheney go too far?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I don‘t think so. I think that he took a good position on being strong and being decisive about it. And that‘s what I want to see. I don‘t want to see a bunch of wobbling.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was very focused.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don‘t think he went too far. He was defending their position. How could he—he had to say that or he would have been waffling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, but he is not trying to appease everybody.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don‘t think he‘s trying to appease anybody.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is trying to defend preemptive strike.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I think that we set a very, very dangerous precedent doing that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do, too.

LUNTZ: Reactions?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Cheney went too far, though, in saying what he said, because he just painted the one picture of fear. He tried to instill fear in the American public and to make Kerry seem too sensitive.

LUNTZ: Last question. Show of hands very quickly. How many of you are now more likely than when you walked in here to vote for Bush-Cheney because of what you saw tonight? Raise your hands. Three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 out of 17.

Chris, it‘s a pretty good showing. We are over here.

MATTHEWS: OK.

LUNTZ: Chris, it‘s a pretty good showing for Dick Cheney tonight.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much, Frank Luntz.

Well, we saw that applause lines do achieve their goal. And the question is, did they achieve a lasting goal? I know, speaking for myself, I am in love with the cleverly turned phrase and, in fact, if it‘s sort of funny, but it‘s always a little bit out of context. The best humor denies a bit of the information. And that‘s why it‘s so delightful to listen to.

The question is, John, do you think that the applause line readings we just got from Frank are indicative of how people are going to turn their heads on probably the most important election of their lives over the next two months?

MEACHAM: It‘s part of a mosaic.

I think everything is going to be dwarfed by what the president says

tomorrow and then by what happens in the debates. But what clearly is

going on here is that Bush-Cheney is going at the base, at the base, at the

base. And I wonder if we are going to wake up on November 3 and realize,

as Norah was saying, that these eight undecided voters weren‘t what was on

their minds, that it was more about turning out people who already

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Excuse me, the dog that didn‘t bark tonight, you didn‘t hear a really long argument for why we had to go to Iraq or a lot about the war on terrorism.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: And the vice president chose to win—to march on the line where he is most successful. In every poll we read, it says the president is trusted on terrorism. The war in Iraq remains controversial.

O‘DONNELL: Privately, advisers will admit that, if this election were a referendum on the president, they would lose. But they know because it‘s a comparison between two candidates that they have a good shot, though when you were asking about those catchphrases, the simple messages, of course they matter. And, of course, they are the kind of things that people turn at work the next day and say, hey, did you hear what Cheney said last night?

He said that John Kerry is for the softer side of—and is sensitive on the war on terror. I must say that also having been on the road for so long, too, people know the phrases. And they repeat them when the president says them. He actually voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. People know that and they communicate that to their friends.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I wish we had a second vote on the ballot, “Should we have gone to war with Iraq?” and ended this argument. That would a great vote.

We‘ll be right back with more with our panel here at Herald Square at 34th and Broadway,.

You‘re watching HARDBALL‘s live coverage of the Republican National Convention on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Herald Square and HARDBALL‘s very live coverage of the Republican Convention.

We‘re here with the panel. And I‘m going to give you each 45 seconds tonight. I want a policy and political assessment of the two great speeches heard tonight. And throw in a little tonal estimate as well. Were they the right tone?

Andrea.

MITCHELL: I still think that—and especially because of what John McCain apparently said to Tom Brokaw earlier—that the Zell Miller speech may have been too tough. It was really a brim fire—firestone and brim fire—brimstone, rather, speech, when maybe what was called for was a tough policy speech, but one that could be a little bit more accessible to women who haven‘t yet decided.

MATTHEWS: It was an Old Testament speech by a New Testament president.

MITCHELL: Yes. Yes.

WATTS: Let me give you a policy assessment—a political, policy...

MATTHEWS: Make it, sir.

WATTS: The left is tone-deaf about values the way the right is tone-deaf about poor people‘s issues.

MATTHEWS: Was tonight about values?

WATTS: I think it was. I think they framed it.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I think it was about firepower.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: And you know it was about firepower.

WATTS: We‘ve got to have it.

MITCHELL: And spitballs.

MEACHAM: I think this was a corporate merger of two wars, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. They want to talk about war. They don‘t want to talk about where it is.

And I think to link the Reagan bit to the end of it is, when Reagan said in the great speech in 1964, you and I have a rendezvous with destiny, this is our last chance.

MATTHEWS: Right.