Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Free-for-All Friday
Aired July 13, 2001 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not up to me to tell him how to handle things. That's something he has to deal with, and I feel for him and his family.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have signs seen members rebound from worse situations than this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Beijing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel deeply regret that the IOC make the decision to give to Chinese.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The ring has always been like contract type token. I think he that should get a ring back.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, definitely not. If it's a gift, it's given.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Get ready to jump in, it's "free-for-all Friday"!
Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE'S "free-for- all-Friday" the 13th. So, you feeling lucky? By now you know the routine, so let's meet our guests today. In Modesto, California, from Congressman Gary Condit's district, Dave Thomas, a libertarian talk show host on KFIV.
Dave, thanks for joining us. Welcome to the show.
DAVE THOMAS, KFIV TALK SHOW HOST: Good afternoon. Thank you very much.
BATTISTA: In Washington, D.C., Joe Madison is with us, a radio talk show host. Joe can be heard on WOL.
Joe, good to see you again.
JOE MADISON, RADIO ONE TALK SHOW HOST: Good to be here. Thanks.
BATTISTA: Blanquita Cullum is a talk show host for Radio America. She's also president of the National Association of Radio Talk Shows.
BQ?
BLANQUITA CULLUM, RADIO AMERICA TALK SHOW HOST: How are you? It sounds like you've got a good crowd out there.
BATTISTA: Yes, we do. I'll tell you, I feel like Arsenio Hall or something.
All right, and Alan Amberg is the founder and former host of Lesbigay Radio in Chicago. The first thing we -- Alan, good to see you.
The first thing we want to talk about today is Georgia Congressman Bob Barr's call for Representative Gary Condit's resignation.
Dave, let me start with you, he's your guy out there. What do you think, or what are the people saying out there?
THOMAS: Well, the mood has changed dramatically since the affidavit and Gary's admission that he had an adulterous affair with Chandra Levy. The air is out of the balloon. Most of my listeners are very unhappy. They feel betrayed, and many people are calling for his resignation.
BATTISTA: Joe, what are they saying in D.C.?
MADISON, Dead man walking.
(LAUGHTER)
MADISON: That's about it. I mean, this is a story of dumber -- "Dumb and Dumber." I mean, these are some of the most dumbest characters that I've ever seen, from the congressman to maybe even the aunt. I guess what I'm trying to say is there's nothing right about this. The only people I really feel sorry for are the parents. As a parent of three daughters, I would be going out of my mind, pulling what hair I had out, and I'm just telling you I feel so for the parents. I really do.
BATTISTA: You know, I think some people might think it's a bit premature, until he is really accused or convicted of something illegal and maybe we should just let the folks out in Modesto and that district decide.
MADISON: They don't have to wait for that, though. You don't have to wait for that. I think, again, polls are probably being taken as we speak, and he is, he's dead man walking. I mean, that's probably it. His career is probably over.
BATTISTA: Not going to recover, Blanquita, no?
CULLUM: Well, I mean, you know, we've seen some lu-lu's here recover in Washington, D.C.
BATTISTA: I know. That's why I wouldn't be so quick to say that.
CULLUM: I mean, this is like tales of the mysterious. He could very well happen, but the thing that I think is interesting, you do only have some predictable few people that will come out and say to say he should resign, because everybody else is acting like he's the great unwashed. They don't want to be seen as his friend, they don't want to have him say hello in the hall. They will be gracious, but they will act like they've never talked to him on a personal level before because, frankly, nobody wants them, meaning the other members of the Congress, to have the press look under their beds and in their closets. This could be them.
So this is that kind of thing, you know, where they kind of want to say, well, we'll let the constituents answer that. Even the members of California delegation are trying to have hands-off, because they really do not want to have anything to do with this.
BATTISTA: Alan?
ALAN AMBERG, FOUNDER, LESBIGAY RADIO: Well, we don't know enough yet, but my concern is that I would hate to see this turn into something like the O.J. Simpson case again. I mean, yes, what's going on is, well, distasteful to say the least and possibly tragic. But it's still not worthy of the amount of national attention that it's getting. We do have real problems in this country and I think we already learned, when President Clinton was under impeachment, that just about nobody in Washington seems able to keep their fly shut.
And you know, Bobbie, they say that we gay men have a problem. What's with these guys in Congress?
(LAUGHTER)
CULLUM: Oh, come on, but that's half the fun.
(APPLAUSE)
CULLUM: I mean, Washington rivals Hollywood. I mean, we look like we're stodgy here in Washington, but we're a lot juicier than you guys on the West Coast.
AMBERG: Actually, Blanquita, I'm from Washington, D.C., and as we're about to find out with the press conference later in today's show, you know, there are people who would have you believe that all of this is the fault of the homosexual agenda, that we have weakened the moral fiber of America.
CULLUM: So what did you do with Chandra Levy? What did you do with Chandra Levy? If it's your fault, you guys admit it now...
AMBERG: But you know what, it's all going to be our fault, by the time it's up. It's our fault that straight men have affairs, it's our fault that deadbeat dads...
CULLUM: So you want to plead victim...
AMBERG: Well, no, indeed not.
CULLUM: Are you pleading victim early?
THOMAS: I think you folks are missing something.
MADISON: A whole lot.
BATTISTA: Yes, hold on a second. Let me get Dave back in here. Go ahead.
THOMAS: I think you folks are missing something. You know, it's one thing for you to talk about congressmen and their affairs and that sort of thing. Here the individuals concerned are our neighbors. They're -- went to school with our kids. We look at Chandra's photo, this could be our child.
There's a whole lot less -- the tone is far more somber here in Modesto and in the 18th Congressional District. And I understand, you know, I understand that there's a lot of jokes and bumper stickers and all that sort of good thing, but it's a whole lot different here. And we do have a great deal of feeling for the Levys.
CULLUM: And also, when you look at Condit, I mean, look, Condit is a Democrat. Condit did vote like a Republican. Condit, from all points of view before this happened was looked at as a pretty good guy, so it's...
THOMAS: This is not true.
CULLUM: ... so it's a shock.
THOMAS: This is not true. He does not vote like a Republican.
BATTISTA: Well, he has kind of a split -- he has sort of a split record on that, Dave.
CULLUM: He was like a Blue Dog Democrat. And what I'm saying to you though, Dave, more than anything, is before this happened, Condit was...
THOMAS: I can't hear.
CULLUM: ... looked upon like pretty OK guy, and so he didn't have any scandal before. So I think it was a shock to everybody.
MADISON: But this is not about Condit. Again, I say to you this is about a missing young girl who came here as an intern. And I guess what bothers me more than anything else...
(APPLAUSE)
THOMAS: Why is she missing?
MADISON: Well, we didn't know why she's missing. We don't know. I mean, the point is, you know what? We really don't know a lot, because first of all there isn't even a crime. CULLUM: Well, there is...
MADISON: No, there's no crime.
CULLUM: But we have -- no, but what I'm saying to you is bigger than that. I think that -- listen to me, Joe.
MADISON: OK.
CULLUM: One, I think you're right. Of course it's about that young woman. We're all upset about it. But it is also about a member of Congress who was too concerned about his own 6:00 to come out and be able to help early on, and the parents...
MADISON: And that's between...
CULLUM: And I think that's appalling to most people, because people really do want to think that members of Congress care.
MADISON: And that's why I said it's dead man walking. I mean, it's dumb and dumber.
CULLUM: I agree with you.
BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience, see how they feel about this. Up here to Mary.
MARY: I think he should resign, and not because of the affair, but because of he's lied and he's misled the police. He stonewalled the police, which has jeopardized the investigation.
AMBERG: And when has that stopped any of our politicians, Mary?
MARY: Pardon me?
AMBERG: And when has that stopped any of our politicians?
MARY: That's true.
AMBERG: What a shame, that American politicians don't have the Japanese ethnic.
MARY: Bill Clinton prove that.
CULLUM: Well, there have been a lot of Japanese premiers, if you've noticed, they fired many of their prime ministers or their heads of state...
BATTISTA: I think, Alan, there is a certain arrogance of power.
AMBERG: There is the ethnic, at least in Japan, that when people bring dishonor, they step aside or step down. And none of our people are willing to do that. I mean, in the old days, the Japanese even committed suicide if they'd done something bad. Be nice if they brought that back.
THOMAS: Wait a minute, I thought you said we didn't know enough? I thought you just said we didn't know enough.
CULLUM: Yes, right.
THOMAS: You know, we know plenty. We know plenty about this situation. We have a man far away from home, who's entertaining two mistresses at the same time. His wife comes to Washington, D.C. and one of those mistresses disappears. I would contend that the likelihood of there being a relationship between the fact that he was carrying on an affair with her and that she's now gone, even if it means she used bad judgment, uncharacteristically bad judgment and is gone, I think we should pay a very great deal of attention to that. Generally, we call that a clue.
CULLUM: We can say it's a clue, but we can't make a determination until the facts come up, because that would be irresponsible.
I mean, look, for example, like "The Star" has been saying that she committed suicide, which I think is irresponsible because we can't make those judgments right now. We have to use a little bit better ethic on this.
MADISON: Who determines journalism on what "The Star" says?
CULLUM: Well, "The Star" has broken a lot of big stories. In fact, "The Star" has made some announcements there that for a while, we thought they were breaking more news than "The New York Times," so I'm just saying that we have to be careful.
BATTISTA: The lines have become blurred, Joe, that's for sure.
MADISON: Well, and that's because, I think that journalism from mainstream has gotten extremely lazy and cheap, to be quite candid. They need to send you guys out more...
(BELL RINGING)
BATTISTA: Well, I've got a follow-up question -- that we're not done with this subject yet, though.
Mark, let me get your thoughts quickly before we go to break.
MARK: Former President Clinton did very similar things, walked off almost like a hero. And I think other congressmen and senators feel that they can get away almost with the same thing.
BATTISTA: We'll take a break here. And as we do, we -- as I said, we'll continue with this topic in a few moments.
Later: When a wedding is called off, who gets the engagement ring? We'll tell you how an appeals court in Minnesota ruled on that. That's also our viewer vote question today. Weigh in at CNN.com/TALKBACK, AOL keyword, CNN. While there, check out my note, send us an e-mail or an instant message. Our buddy name is "TALKBACK LIVE." If you aren't on AOL's instant messenger, follow the link on our Web site. We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: A new CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll shows that 65 percent of Americans surveyed think it is likely that Gary Condit was, quote, "Directly involved in the disappearance of Chandra Levy." Twenty percent of the public say they don't think it is likely he was involved; 15 percent have no opinion.
Welcome back. An e-mail from Sue in New York, who says: "I don't think Bob Barr or anyone else should take it upon themselves to ask for Condit's resignation. He may have had affairs which, of course, is not morally correct, but there is nothing as of yet to indicate that he has done anything criminal."
Joe, right before we went to the break there we were talking about the lines blurring between tabloid and mainstream journalism...
MADISON: Yes, and you're right, they are.
BATTISTA: In that case, were you surprised that "The Washington Post" came out with a story the other day about yet another alleged affair that happened seven years ago?
MADISON: You know what I'm really concerned about? I wish the sex patrol would just simply go away...
(APPLAUSE)
MADISON: ... I'm just tired of this foolishness.
No, I wasn't surprised, because you are right, Bobbie; they are blurred. You know, it's interesting when "The Post" tries to keep up with "The National Enquirer." The way I look at it, I read "The Post," I read "The Times," I read about 20, 30 newspapers, actually, a day. I read "The National Enquirer," "The Star," "The Globe" for dessert. The major newspapers are my main meal, those newspapers are my dessert.
And you know what? Quite honestly, they do get information...
(CROSSTALK)
THOMAS: But don't you think if Gary Condit came out and told us his story, that perhaps all this other talk would go away?
MADISON: Absolutely; yes.
(CROSSTALK)
CULLUM: Well, Joe and I actually were talking during the break. And we said, if he had been smart enough he should have met with the parents right up front and said, look, I made a mistake. I did have a relationship with your daughter, I'm terribly upset about this. And if he had led the charge out there to try to be able to find her, you would have looked at him maybe as a flawed hero, but you would have looked at him as a hero.
Now you look at him as this creep. And you think, well, is he dirty or is he wrong? Did he do something bad? He may be completely innocent, but he will always be tainted as a man who didn't have any courage to come out and try to really help her when he could.
AMBERG: Well, Bill Clinton, same thing.
(CROSSTALK)
THOMAS: Now that everything else is out in the open, what is he hiding now? Why is he silent now?
CULLUM: Right.
BATTISTA: Well, he may be waiting for the spotlight to shift off him even more. I mean, there has been talk by the Washington police, you know, of other possibilities -- the fact that she, you know, may have just been snatched off the street or developed amnesia, or even, as John Walsh suggested, you know, the victim of a possible serial killer in that area, since a couple of other women of the same description have disappeared -- who were interns.
CULLUM: But you know what raises a really kind of creepy thing is that he sits on the House Intelligence Committee, which raises the question...
MADISON: Oh, God, that's an oxymoron.
CULLUM: Well, this is what raises the question: You know, they don't have to go through the same kind of scrutiny for a national security clearance. So you think about, how -- would you think that this guy would be the target -- there was somebody that would set him up? He'd be easy prey to set him up with a prostitute; it's be easy to get his photograph with someone that he shouldn't be with.
That's why I think we need to go back and maybe reconsider when some of these members are on these panels that are affecting national security or intelligence, perhaps they should go through the security clearance right up-front.
MADISON: I tell you, I also feel sorry for literally the hundreds of other missing people in this country...
AMBERG: Right.
MADISON: ... who unfortunately didn't have an affair with a congressman, so therefore no one is paying attention to them disappearing.
(APPLAUSE)
AMBERG: Right.
BATTISTA: Let me jump in here and take a quick phone call from Dave in California. Dave, go ahead.
DAVE: Hey, how are you doing?
Well, I think the point that was brought up was exactly the point on target that I was going to bring up. The whole reason for not wanting gays in the military is they were afraid they'd be compromised because they have a lifestyle they want to keep hidden.
Here you just bring up the very valid fact Mr. Condit is involved in security of the country, and can be easily compromised by saying hey, look, you know, we'll tell everybody we know, we'll show the pictures if you don't do that we want. And who's to say that Ms. Levy was not the victim, if not directly or indirectly, of a situation just like that? That's my comment.
BATTISTA: Yes and we, of course, don't know that at all. There's, like we said earlier, a whole lot we don't know about this case.
THOMAS: Gary Condit can solve that problem.
AMBERG: I think the point that was made earlier is well taken. I mean, there are huge issues in this country, and what seems to happen is we have this fabulous case, whatever it is. It's sensational, it has sex, it may have a little violence, and the attention of the country is pulled off onto it.
We have real people with real problems on our city streets: people who disappear, people who have no health insurance, people who are hungry. And that's really what the national attention should be on, don't you think?
BATTISTA: Yes.
CULLUM: But we should be able to follow through on this. Unfortunately what we need to do, if we're going to break a story we should follow it through to its logical conclusion.
I think you're exactly right; I think there are a lot of stories we should cover, but we chose this one; and we should follow it, we should finish it and make sure that we get a good enough response so people aren't going to end up thinking it was a conspiracy.
(CROSSTALK)
(BELL RINGING)
THOMAS: ... why -- you have to ask yourselves why we're in this situation. The D.C. cops are more worried about their congressional allowance and their budget than they are finding Chandra. They didn't even investigate her apartment until many days after they knew she was missing...
(BELL RINGING)
THOMAS: The cops are culpable here, and it's the media's duty to investigate.
BATTISTA: I have to jump in here, because we are going to jump off this subject for now. And we're going to take a break.
In a moment: China wins the Olympics, but was that a golden choice? We'll talk about that right after the break. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's great for China.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think there's too many proven human rights violations. I'm -- I think I'm against it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've forgotten why we have the Olympics, and they've become a political statement.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just don't see how we can award them with that kind of economic boom-fall (sic).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It will help us build relations with China.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the Olympics is just too big a prize to reward China at this time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUAN ANTONIO SAMARANCH, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE: The games of the 29 Olympiad in 2008 are awarded to the city of Beijing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: Welcome back. If you are so inclined, start making your travel plans. The 2008 Olympics will be held in Beijing. The International Olympic Committee today chose Beijing over other contenders which included Paris, Toronto, Osaka and Istanbul.
The decision was made despite concerns over China's human rights violations. The White House remains non-committal about the decision except to say that American athletes will compete. Good Question there from chat room as we enter this, Blanquita, about people think that the Olympics should be about putting politics aside, that it should all be about sports.
CULLUM: Right. And this clearly looks like politics. Was there really any question in many people's minds that it was going to Beijing? We all felt that it was going to be Beijing, and here we still have unanswered questions about what really happened with the group of Falun Gong, who either died in mass suicide or was it mass murder? You have the killing of tons of dogs because they wanted to have the streets to look better. You have the questions about organs being harvested -- human rights violations left and right. But on the other hand are we going to try to make nice with them because we fear them, because we want to work them, because there was a lot of money here?
And are we really looking at that Olympic Committee -- if there was corruption when the Olympics went to Utah, was there anything going on there that was funny, any monkey business? It's still 8 years away or 7 years away, we still have a lot to see really what's really going to end up in China.
BATTISTA: Well, Alan, do you think having the international spotlight on them is going to make them clean up their act, or is that kind of whistling Dixie.
AMBERG: Well, it really depends on...
THOMAS: No, it's not going to help them clean up their act.
AMBERG: Blanquita talked about the, is it mass murder, is it mass suicide? Let's just talk about garden variety violations of rights of women and gay people who until recently would have been put in insane asylums when they came out.
On the other hand if there are things built into it to help the Chinese communicate with the world more, there maybe some possibilities, there may be opportunities, safe places for people to come and demonstrate. I don't know. It gives us at least 7 years to work on it.
BATTISTA: Dave -- go ahead.
CULLUM: Do you think there's really going to be safe places?
THOMAS: Well, actually, since they are increasing the rate of their executions, the next 7 years if they keep it up, they will cease to be a world power. So, I think that's something we should consider.
AMBERG: That's true of our execution rate, too, by the way.
THOMAS: The Chinese have been there for a long time before we came around, they will be there for a long time after us and they have -- they hold the moral high ground, they always have, they are better than we are and that's the way they are going to deal with this. They are not going to change.
CULLUM: You are kidding me, I can't believe you would actually say that and believe that. Are you saying that with a straight face or are you being sarcastic? You think that they are better than we are?
AMBERG: No, I think he thinks that they are...
(CROSSTALK) THOMAS: The Chinese believe that they hold the moral high ground, yes.
CULLUM: I was a little unclear with that one.
AMBERG: Right.
BATTISTA: OK, they think they hold the moral high ground.
CULLUM: OK, gotcha.
MADISON: The bottom line is, I think the bottom line is what you are seeing is big money talking. We can talk about politics and sports, the reality is we want to do business with a billion people and this is big money talking. The Euro dollars talking, the American dollars talking.
This is about business. Forget the politics because money not only in this country but around the world. They want the money, we want the money. It's about business.
AMBERG: And Joe makes the point, but this was not our decision alone, it was an international decision. And right now America's ability to work with other countries in trying to drive forward our agenda seems to be diminishing by the minute. We seem to be offending our European partners, and people in other places round the world with our own arrogance. So if we had wanted to do something.
CULLUM: Oh, please.
AMBERG: Come on, what do you mean, oh, please?
CULLUM: I'm so tired of the Americans that hate America first. I really am. We are a great country. We are the most generous.
AMBERG: We are a great country.
CULLUM: And I am really fed up with people that want to try to say the United States is a bad country. Give me a break.
AMBERG: No, I didn't say that.
CULLUM: What you are saying is that we are offending our neighbors. Who are we offending? You think we are offending the Chinese? Give me a break -- the North Koreans, the Syrians, the Libyans, the Nigerians? Tell me who has the worst human rights record.
Excuse me, I think we do a lot. We are always the first ones to go in. We pay a third of the peace keeping. We are the ones that they come to bail them out and I refuse to accept that we are anything but decent and great country.
AMBERG: Rah-rah, wave that flag.
BATTISTA: To the audience, Chris, your thoughts. CHRIS: I think besides sports events it's also a humanitarian event, and this is from a country that persecutes its citizens. I think that if I was an athlete I would be scared when I go over there, talking about the Chinese government because they'll throw you in jail or something like that.
MADISON: We will be the safest people actually in China, quite honestly. And again, I agree with all of this. For example I've been in and out of Sudan. One of the biggest problems that we have in the United States Senate right now is trying to get them to decide on whether to sanction oil companies that do business in Sudan where people just came back freeing 6,000 slaves.
The reality is let's wake up and be real. Money talks. We know what walks, this is about money.
THOMAS: Well if you are going to work with reality, do you honestly believe that the average Chinese citizen is going to benefit or participate in any of these Olympics?
MADISON: No.
(BELL RINGING)
BATTISTA: George, I'll give the last comment to you there in the audience.
GEORGE: I'm basically against them getting the Olympics because I feel like it will increase the human rights issues that they are going through now because they are going to develop a "whatever it takes attitude." So whatever it takes for 2008 be great, that's what is going to happen. The dogs may turn into the lower class folks within the country. So what's going to happen?
BATTISTA: They may also use it as an opportunity to showcase their ideology and their nationalistic...
MADISON: But we forget, Bobbie, that -- "Let's go to Berlin" Olympics, it didn't change Nazism in Germany. Sarajevo, it didn't change anything.
BATTISTA: Oh, double bell. I am getting yelled at here. OK, we have got to take a break. In a moment, we are moving on, do we need a Constitutional amendment to define marriage?
If so, how would you define it? We will be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMAINE PATTERSON, LESBIAN: I would love to see someone shows me the difference in the amount of commitment I have with my partner versus, you know, the commitment my brother has with his married wife.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BATTISTA: We are back. And the fur is flying already over this one, a proposal made that the constitution of the United States of America be amended to say that marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman. It's called the federal marriage amendment. Gay rights call it gay bashing, but backers say the amendment would stop judges from setting family policies that lack public support. So, Alan, this is what, like all your fault, or what?
AMBERG: All our fault. Yes, this is all our fault. Yes, like the story about a deadbeat dad, in that decision they said that of all the marriages that end in divorce, only one in three fathers pay their full child support. And that's our fault, you see, because gay and lesbian people affirm the institution of marriage.
We want to be able to get married. We are now starting to be able to get married in Canada, in Europe, in other places, and somehow that undermines all the rest of you, somehow that means there won't be enough marriage licenses for the rest of you, somehow that means that it is our fault that your marriages are ending at the rate of one in every two. That's our fault. Didn't you know that, Bobbie?
BATTISTA: Well, does any of our panelists think that the government should be involved in the institution of marriage?
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: Stay out. Stay totally out of it.
CULLUM: Absolutely. Stay out of it.
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: Hold on, hold on, go ahead.
THOMAS: Have you ever seen a politician fix something?
CULLUM: And, you know, think about it: it's going to take two- thirds of the members to be able to approve this. Then they have to pass it around to have it ratified throughout the states, 38 states have to ratify it, and so -- I mean, at a minimum it would take at least seven years.
And frankly, why are we going to have the federal government -- I mean, you've already got the Defense of Marriage Act, you've already got a number of states that have laws on the books. It doesn't need to be in the constitution. Maybe some people would say it needs to be in your heart, some people would say it needs to be in your Bible, but it shouldn't be in the federal government. They should bug out!
MADISON: I am going to tell you something, you may find out -- you may find out how many gay people are actually in this country when you start fooling around with the constitution.
CULLUM: And I think you will find out how many straight people would say that this is not a decision that the federal government should intervene in, it should be between the parties involved. The federal government needs to be out.
MADISON: That's exactly right.
AMBERG: Now, wait a minute. Let's pick that up for a second, OK?
MADISON: Now, we're on your side, don't...
CULLUM: Oh, he can't help it. He has to come forward.
AMBERG: I agree. I agree. But there are a couple of things to understand here, and one is that the federal government already does intervene. If you are a heterosexual and you get married in this country, you get 1,050 rights and privileges that I do not get with my partner. OK? So, let's be clear about this. The federal government does intervene and does reward heterosexual couples and does provide reinforcement for those families. Now...
(CROSSTALK)
CULLUM: ... and the people...
AMBERG: You pay more taxes?
THOMAS: That's a very, very one -- I mean, that's a very biased look at marriage.
CULLUM: I mean, that is the traditional form of marriage, that is where the general consensus -- unless you have to do a test tube baby or turkey baster baby, you are getting married -- the majority of people -- to have a family.
AMBERG: Well, gays and lesbians have children too. It has been a long time since there was a definition that said that procreation was the test for whether the people should be allowed to get married or not.
CULLUM: Well, before you couldn't do it that way unless you had a scientist in your background.
AMBERG: Well, hang on a second...
BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience here. Let me get them in. Dorothy, go ahead.
AMBERG: OK.
DOROTHY: Well, I just feel that the state has enough to worry about with their own zipper, you know. They can't handle their own zipper, so I'm not going to let them in my house to handle mine.
AMBERG: Thank you.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
BATTISTA: Well, well, where do we go from here on that one? (CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: Well, actually, Alan is raising a good point. A lot of the folks behind this amendment, you know, they say it speaks to the deterioration of marriage in this country.
AMBERG: We want to get married!
BATTISTA: But the point is, the amendment really would be the start of taking away an enormous amount of rights for gay people.
MADISON: What the people behind this amendment wanted to do is to have the federal government do the job of the states. And he's absolutely right, there is this interference. See, I don't want to see homophobia sweep this country. Leave people alone, let them be happy, live any way they want to live.
CULLUM: And the other part of this, Joe, it's bad enough...
(CROSSTALK)
THOMAS: I don't understand that.
MADISON: Understand what, leave people alone?
CULLUM: You have to wear a seatbelt...
MADISON: You are a libertarian, and you don't understand that?
THOMAS: I don't think we need another victim class, I don't think homophobia rules. I think that's nonsense. People get along with one another.
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: Dave, it's not a victim class.
THOMAS: Then tell me what it is, explain to me, please then, share your wisdom.
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: I will share my wisdom. I will share my life experience. When my first partner was dying in the hospital, his doctors would not talk to me unless I waved a piece of paper in front of them saying that I had a power of attorney. They ignored me while he was dying...
THOMAS: And when I had to visit somebody in the hospital, I was smart enough to be able to get up there in the room, I'm sorry.
AMBERG: And if your wife was in a hospital, they wouldn't ask the question.
THOMAS: No, you have -- no, no.
AMBERG: They wouldn't give you the hassle.
THOMAS: Excuse me, there's a lot of nonsense little things, like the inheritance thing. Anybody can...
AMBERG: It's not nonsense.
THOMAS: ... can give at their death to anyone they want to.
AMBERG: And if you give to your wife, and if you give to your wife...
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: Look...
THOMAS: ... why would anybody think that the government -- no, because you are making bad points.
AMBERG: It's not a bad point, Dave.
THOMAS: ... why would anybody think that the government should solve a problem between married people or unmarried people? That's nonsense -- stick to the facts. It's a simple argument.
AMBERG: Because, because -- hello?
BATTISTA: You guys are not going to come to an agreement here. Let me take a phone call, Melanie on the phone in Texas. Go ahead, Melanie.
MELANIE: Yes, as far as marriage goes and the government, I don't think the government has a right to tell us who we can marry. But at the same time, now I am a Christian and I'm not prejudicial against homosexuality, but I don't agree with it.
BATTISTA: OK.
AMBERG: OK, so you don't agree, so don't marry one, don't marry one.
CULLUM: Well, what she's pointing out is pretty much what Thomas Jefferson said, that the government that governs best is the government that governs least.
BATTISTA: Oh, nice timing. We will take another break here. And from marriage, we will move on to the story that Alan has referred to a couple of times, that deadbeat dad story. What can you do about a man who doesn't support his kids? Can you order him not to have any more? We'll talk about that in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
E. JAMES FITZGERALD, MANITOWOC COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Everybody agrees he's got a constitutional right to have children. The issue is whether a state, or the state of Wisconsin, can impinge upon that particular constitutional right. We do it all the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: We're back. A Wisconsin father of nine children from four different women has been ordered not to have any more. David Oakley owes $25,000 in child support to these four women. The state Supreme Court banned Oakley from fathering children over the next five years unless he can support all of those kids.
Joe, we should preference this by saying it's not that he, you know, can't afford to pay the child support; he apparently just never has, or has chosen not to. It's a bad situation; is this an appropriate punishment?
MADISON: You know I happen to be thinking about the father who just announced he had seven children, with the septuplets here in Washington. Imagine what his child support is going to be like if, for some reason, he doesn't stay around.
I think it's bad law. I don't know how you're going to enforce it, you know, unless you find Lorena Bobbitt or something. I mean, the best thing to do is to -- how do you enforce this man? I mean, what do you do? You follow him around? He can have a child like that, unless you put him in jail.
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: But let me make one other point, if you don't mind; just one other point. I bet you that there are a bunch of rich dads running around here, big spenders, big corporate CEOs who aren't paying their child support, but they have lawyers -- they have lawyers that keep them from getting this kind of judgment.
THOMAS: You know, we're being way too easy on this guy. You know, this guy is a heinous criminal, and I think we ought to impose more punishment on him. One of the things I would propose is that he be prohibited from watching family friendly movies. Can you imagine this guy seeing reruns of "Ozzie and Harriet" and wanting to go out and create the idyllic family?
I mean I, for one, am not going to tolerate this frustration level.
BATTISTA: But you know what, Blanquita, what happens if this guy, you know, has a new girlfriend, new wife, whatever -- what if she gets pregnant? That throws her in the middle of this.
CULLUM: So what happens then? She's taking the pill and he's wearing the condom; there's a hole in the condom and the pill doesn't work. Who gets the burden on that one?
BATTISTA: What if she doesn't even know about this agreement when she gets pregnant?
CULLUM: Listen, you know, I think it's ridiculous, frankly, I really do. I think we ought to make sure the guy is working and paying money, because think about it: If we're going to say, well this guy shouldn't do it because he's not paying his child support, are we going to say, well this mother shouldn't have children because she's had crack babies. This guy shouldn't do it because he has a heart condition. We shouldn't do it, this woman is mentally ill because -- and she is of child-bearing age.
The government has got to stay out of our marriages, it's got to stay out of our womb; it's got to get out of the way here because I'm telling you we're going to make decisions that are going to be a little Hitler-esque here that are just a little frightening for me.
AMBERG: Let me make a different point about that.
THOMAS: I agree.
AMBERG: Let me make a different point about this: Let's point out that we live in a country where just a few days ago Surgeon General David Satcher came out with a report that says abstinence education doesn't work. It came out with a report that said that trying to tell gay kids that they should go get therapy doesn't work.
We still have places all throughout the country -- the county next to Chicago, it's illegal for health educators to go into that school and talk about condoms -- illegal. The school board won't let them do it. So here we go...
CULLUM: But you also have schools -- you also have schools that are passing out condoms, and you can't hand out an aspirin. I mean, I would like to see the schools quit focusing on the lower half of kids' bodies and focus on the upper half...
AMBERG: But the point is...
CULLUM: ... then maybe they'll be so interested in other things that they'll go out and graduate instead of sitting around in the backseat of the car learning how to put the condom on the banana. Give me a break...
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: Blanquita, you're hiding your head in the sand.
CULLUM: No I'm not. I have two kids and I'm a single mother.
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: You guys, I have to interrupt -- I have to interrupt here to go quickly to Bob Franken in Washington for an update on the Condit case.
Get ahead, Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bobbie, 5:00 Eastern, which is to say, a little bit over an hour from now, Abbe Lowell, who is Congressman Condit's attorney, is holding a news conference. CNN has learned from two sources connected to the Condit camp that he will announce that the congressman has taken a lie detector test.
As you know, the police and the congressman have been trying to negotiate the conditions for a lie detector test. We are told that the announcement will be -- it's characterized as a major announcement -- that he has taken a lie detector test and that the results were favorable to the congressman.
We do not know if he's going to be talking about the police lie detector test or if it was an independent test. Many lawyers will tell you that before you submit your client to a polygraph test you make sure, if he's prominent in particular, that an independent one was taken and that the results were favorable.
But CNN has learned that there will be an announcement at 5:00 Eastern from Abbe Lowell, Congressman Condit's attorney, announcing that he has taken a lie detector test and that the results are favorable -- Bobbie.
BATTISTA: All right Bob, thanks very much. We'll just have to wait until 5:00 to see which test he's talking about.
All right, back to...
THOMAS: Bobbie, can I ask a simple question?
BATTISTA: Yes.
THOMAS: I'd like to ask a simple question. We started out this hour talking about a politician gone bad, a very popular and, apparently, effective politician gone bad. The rest of the hour we're talking about how government and politicians like Gary Condit are going to solve all our social problems. I don't get it.
CULLUM: Right; very good point.
BATTISTA: Nice segue, Dave.
AMBERG: The point that I'm making here is that right now we are a country who refuses to teach young boys and girls about their bodies and about how to prevent pregnancy...
THOMAS: We shouldn't be teaching...
CULLUM: That's not the job, the parents...
THOMAS: The government has no business doing that.
CULLUM: Yes, absolutely...
THOMAS: It never has.
AMBERG: But...
CULLUM: Exactly.
AMBERG: Excuse me. Kids are growing up in a world where they are bombarded all the time with...
THOMAS: That's your perception.
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: It's not my perception. Look around you.
(CROSSTALK)
CULLUM: Everything you talked about and -- with great respect, is focused on your genitalia and your decision of your lifestyle. Again, what you said earlier...
AMBERG: Oh, very nice. Thank you. That was...
CULLUM: There are other things to talk about...
AMBERG: You know, Blanquita...
CULLUM: Kids need to know about math and geometry. They need to...
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: They need to know how not to get pregnant, how not to get STDs. In Europe we've got half the number of cases of AIDS.
BATTISTA: Tommy, go ahead -- in the audience.
AMBERG: Go ahead.
TOMMY: I think the courts are right with this father. The family and welfare service here can take a child who is in foster care for 12 months away from his mother -- legally the judge takes it and it's adopted out. So should this father be denied his child until he takes care of those he has.
MADISON: And there's another thing that I would suggest, too...
(BELL RINGING)
BATTISTA: Last word to Joe here; go ahead.
MADISON: Well, they should give the children to the father. You know, let him raise them.
BATTISTA: Let him take care of those kids for a while.
MADISON: Yeah. Yeah.
BATTISTA: All right. Enough about that, deadbeat dads here. We got to move on, we're running out of time. What about deadbeat fiances, though? If your intended backs out, who keeps that engagement ring? We'll be right back.
Actress Elizabeth Taylor may hold the title for one of the biggest rocks in Hollywood. In 1967, actor Richard Burton gave her a 69.42 karat diamond. After their marriage ended, Taylor sold the ring in 1978 for 2.8 million.
Michael Douglas gave Catherine Zeta-Jones a 10-karat antique engagement ring that cost over $250,000. Last year, basketball star Kobe Bryant gave his fiancee, Vanessa Lane, a seven-karat diamond ring that reportedly cost about 100,000.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He thought enough of her to give her the ring, and he should give it back to her.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She should also give back the bridal shower gifts and the wedding gifts if they've come in early.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm torn on that one. I'm torn on that one.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She should keep it for her pain and stress and all of that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, no way, I'm sorry, that was a gift.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Give the ring back, give the ring back, girl. Get another ring, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Suing? That's not going to help anything. It makes him looks like a wuss.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BATTISTA: We love this story. There are several of them out there about engaged couples breaking up and then fighting over who keeps the engagement ring. A Minnesota appeals court recently ruled that the ring must be returned to the giver no matter what the circumstances are.
Let's check our online...
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: I'm going to you, Blanquita, first, because you are the only woman in our panel today, but...
CULLUM: Thank you for that.
BATTISTA: Let's check the online viewer vote real quickly on this topic. We asked the same question: only if she ends the relationship, got 34 percent. Yes, no matter who ends the relationship, 62 percent. No, she should always keep it, 4 percent.
I don't know about you, BQ, but I personally I wouldn't even want to keep the ring, I probably couldn't throw it in his face fast enough. CULLUM: You know, and the thing of it is, you've got to have some integrity. I mean, if the guys -- especially most guys aren't going to be able to buy $100,000 ring. If he spent good money, why not give it back to him. If it belonged to his mother or some other thing, give it back. If he wants you to keep it, keep it, but for crying out loud, have a little integrity and don't be that kind of person that keeps it.
BATTISTA: Agreed, gentlemen? Of course, you all would agree.
(CROSSTALK)
CULLUM: And you can give me a ring, you three, and maybe I could change my mind.
MADISON: Well, I mean...
AMBERG: Sorry, Blanquita, you are not my type.
MADISON: The one...
CULLUM: I can make you switch.
AMBERG: Oh, yeah, right!
(LAUGHTER)
AMBERG: OK, Bobbie, we've got another show here, let's go!
BATTISTA: Yes, we do. Can we get another hour from the network on that one? Go ahead.
AMBERG: You know, Blanquita, and the thing is, I could make you switch, that's the interesting part.
CULLUM: I bet you could. You know, I bet you could.
AMBERG: They say I'm that bad in bed.
BATTISTA: Dave, how do libertarians feel on this issue?
THOMAS: Well, if two people make a commitment to one another, they have a problem, they should work it out. Why is the government or the law system telling us what we should do with our lives?
AMBERG: Thank you. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
CULLUM: That's the whole hour, just keep the government out of it.
(CROSSTALK)
THOMAS: It should be a lesson that you should not get engaged.
AMBERG: But, Dave, it is our fault, it is our fault -- the gay agenda...
BATTISTA: Hold on, let me get Joe in here. Go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: I swear you won't get me to switch. But anyway, speaking as a man.
CULLUM: Oh, come on, Joe, be a good sport.
MADISON: Speaking as a man, I don't think I would ask for it back. I mean, you know, I just wouldn't ask. If I thought enough of it to give it to her, it's hers, and quite candidly, I wouldn't ask for it back, and I don't know another woman who would want somebody else's engagement ring.
CULLUM: But you know, Joe...
MADISON: I wouldn't do it.
CULLUM: If you were having a hard time, and you were a young couple, and she knew that you were having a hard time...
BATTISTA: How is she going to know unless you tell her?
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: ... two spoiled children who can't solve their problems, except by going to courts...
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience, you guys, because they're very vocal on this. Jenny, go ahead.
JENNY: I was engaged for a brief time. It was a beautiful ring, beautiful ring, but I gave it back because it was his -- it was a sign of his love to me, and I didn't want it anymore. I tried to buy it, but he wouldn't give to it me.
BATTISTA: You tried to buy it?
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: You go, girl.
All right. This is funny, Chris in Pasadena, Maryland, it's funny/sad: "My sister-in-law is using her ring from her ex-fiancee to pay for her wedding. I think they could at least invite him." What is that all about?
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: Greg in Orlando has sort of an interesting proposal here. He says: "After giving an engagement ring to my fiancee who is an attorney" -- he was nervous already -- "I learned that the ring is a premarital gift, and can be kept with no obligation to get married. One might consider though giving an exact replica made of cubic zirconium for the engagement and give the real diamond on the wedding day."
CULLUM: They want a pre-nup, this couple. They want a pre- nuptial arrangement.
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: I wonder if Greg is a lawyer also. I don't know. One more word on this, or we've got to go?
AMBERG: You know what? All I can say, Bobbie, is that it is our fault, the gay agenda has...
CULLUM: Oh, get over it!
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: Stop being a victim, Alan.
All right. Alan, Blanquita, Joe and Dave, thank you all very much for joining us.
THOMAS: Thank you, Bobbie.
MADISON: Appreciate it.
CULLUM: Good-bye, guys.
BATTISTA: We will see you all on Monday. Join us again.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
