Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Columnists Debate Bush Economic Forum

Aired August 13, 2002 - 13:36   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: We want to talk some more about the president's economic forum. It was advertised by the White House as a serious policy discussion, but some see it as damage control by a somewhat worried Bush administration.
Joining us with their opinions, liberal columnist Julianne Malveaux and conservative columnist Armstrong Williams. Both are in Washington.

Hi guys, good to see you.

JULIANNE MALVEAUX, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good to see you. How are you today?

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Hello.

LIN: I'm doing very well.

I don't know if you got a chance to monitor the president's remarks. They just ended a few minutes ago. But I'm wondering, Armstrong, can this have much credibility, as the Democratic presence there was like nil?

WILLIAMS: I think the most important issue here -- and I think you hit it -- is really symbolism. The Bush White House is learning from the days of the elder Bush, when he seemed to be disinterested in the economy, even though he had this phenomenal success in the Persian Gulf. I think what President Bush is trying to do is stop the slide and have this conference so there is a perception that Bush cares about the economy, he wants to get it back on track, even though Fed chair Alan Greenspan said that this fault on the economy was caused by the greed on Wall Street -- he still said that recovery was in sight.

And even though interest rates are at an all-time low, the housing market is buoyed by those people buying homes at a phenomenal rate. But still, the president has to be cautious. I think he is doing the right thing.

I don't know how much of anything substantive that can come out of this forum, but it is not being done for substance; it is being done for symbolism, for the average Joe Blow out there to know that the president of the United States cares.

LIN: Which has Julianne laughing her head off.

WILLIAMS: She agrees. MALVEAUX: I'm surprised that Armstrong would admit that this is nothing more than a symbolic feat. It has nothing do with anything, quite frankly. One million six hundred thousand Americans have lost their jobs since Mr. Bush came into office. How many of them were invited to the summit? None of the congressional leaders, certainly none of the Democrats, were invite ridiculous. This is ridiculous. I realize it is his day, he is the president, it's his party. The fact that that's this economy affects all of us, and he should have been more broad in his reach. Very, very few Democrats there.

This is just an infomercial. They probably spent more money, effort, energy and money on the backdrop, that is very attractive, than on the content: he and Dick Cheney running around like mice chasing their tails, going to eight seminars in a morning.

The seminar format is not Mr. Bush's best format. But Armstrong is correct in saying that this is symbolism. It signals to people that maybe he cares. But then again, it signals that he is paying attention to the grumbling without dealing with the substance.

The substance is this: There was a tax cut. This man took us from surplus to deficit. The symbolism is this: He has paid no attention to the people at the bottom, to the minimum wage worker. While Armstrong is, again, correct is stating that the housing market is overheated, the fact is that there are many people who do not own their homes. And indeed, there are many Americans who are not in the stock market and are suffering. He didn't pay any attention to them this time around, and these are the people who are disaffected and alienated by all of this nonsense.

WILLIAMS: If I may.

LIN: Armstrong...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: If I may, I'm trying not to be a partisan today. I'm really trying to be fair and objective about this issue.

MALVEAUX: What happened today, Armstrong?

WILLIAMS: I think you go a little too far when you say that the president does not care at all and you try to blame the president for this economy. If we look back at former administration of President Clinton, a lot of -- the economy was manipulated, a lot of the figures that came out in terms of how well the economy was doing was not true. The president used...

MALVEAUX: The very same Alan Greenspan you just quoted was supporting Mr. Clinton.

WILLIAMS: And President Bush inherited this economy.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Of course the president -- I will concur with you on this -- has not given the economy the kind of time that many people would like for him to have given it. But let's face it. We are in war on terrorism. The president is fighting an incredible battle, an enemy that is unseen. And he is doing a very good job on that front.

MALVEAUX: Now that the president has taken 25 days off to go city to city to raise money for his party. The president is on an extended vacation. Don't talk about the war on terrorism...

WILLIAMS: Julianne, don't be rude.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: Hold on. Hold on. Let me pick up on a point that Armstrong just made. Amrmstrong, today the president just announced that he is not going to be releasing this $5 billion in emergency money that was supposed to go to the war on terrorism, because he is concerned about the budget deficit. And $90 million of that was supposed to go for long-term studies for the health impacts of rescue workers at ground zero. So is this really about the war on terrorism?

WILLIAMS: A lot of the money was to go to reimbursements to police officers, firefighters; some of it was to go to Israel; some of it was to go to Afghanistan. But what you don't mention is that there is a lot of poor and a lot of useless spending in that bill. And what the Democrats have done is put all this pork in that bill and tied it to these issues that are very important to the president of this White House.

MALVEAUX: Armstrong, I thought you said you weren't going to be partisan today.

WILLIAMS: But I'm not. And the president has said -- and the president has said...

MALVEAUX: Did you hear him say he wasn't going to be partisan today?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... the president has said that On principle, I am not going to support this bill, because it is not the bill that I asked for.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: Armstrong, I have got to give Julianne the last word. We've got about a minute left.

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: The fact is that this president has lobbied for some of the components of the bill, and now that he is getting mumbled at, he is taking a partisan stand. The problem is that you cannot say you are going to lead all Americans and have an economic summit for some Americans. You can't say that you want to fight a war on terrorism on behalf of all of us and then lock out some of us. The reimburses -- some of the other things -- are so terribly critical.

And just I'm amazed, both at this president and at my colleague here, for the level of partisanship that they are basically involving themselves in at a time when America should be coming together.

WILLIAMS: And what do you call what you are saying?

MALVEAUX: I'm calling it analysis, Armstrong.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: And on that note, analysis and opinion, as we always will get from the both of you.

Thank you so much, Julianne Malveaux...

MALVEAUX: Always a pleasure.

LIN: ... Armstrong Williams -- always a pleasure with you too.

Keeping it hot.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com