Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
New Jersey Senate Ballot Battle Continues; Debating Iraq; Election Races Heat Up Around the Country
Aired October 01, 2002 - 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
The battle for control of the Senate is under way. And Democrats are in court this afternoon looking for a little ammunition. They want to replace Senator Robert Torricelli on the New Jersey ballot even though state law says no substitutions this late in the game. Torricelli bailed out of the Senate race yesterday after polls showed him way, way behind. Now, the question is: Do New Jersey Democrats deserve a second chance in the November elections? We're going to get to that in a minute.
Then stay tuned for more reaction for those three Democratic congressmen who have been broadcasting their political peeves from Baghdad.
And later, is gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney getting too physical as he romances the voters?
Our guests are Terry Jeffrey, editor of "Human Events," the national conservative weekly; Arianna Huffington, a nationally syndicated columnist and author; and Peter Beinart, editor of "The New Republic."
We want to welcome all of you.
First up, though: New Jersey Democrats have gone to court to try to replace Senator Robert Torricelli on the November ballot.
And CNN's Deborah Feyerick is in Trenton, New Jersey, where state Democrats filed court papers today.
Hi, Deborah. Here's a question for you. The big question is, can Torricelli be replaced, which would allow the Democrats to possibly maintain control of the Senate?
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's exactly the question that the Democrats are trying to answer.
The tricky part is, is that they missed the 51-day deadline, which technically says that you have that many days before an election to get a candidate on a ballot if somebody drops out. The Democrats are saying, look, that law is a guideline. It was never meant to keep a candidate off of the ballot. And they are saying that, in fact, they should have the right to put somebody else on because of the fact that Robert Torricelli has dropped out. Republicans are saying something very different. They're saying: "You can't change the law. The law clearly states you had 51 days before having somebody else on the ballot and you missed that deadline. So it's your problem."
NEVILLE: Right. So the questions is, what happens next, Deborah?
FEYERICK: What's going on now here is that the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that, yes, they're going to be the ones to hear this case. Actually, there was supposed to be a Superior Court ruling just a couple of miles away for a judge there to decide what was going to happen.
The New Jersey Supreme Court said no. They're going to take this matter over right away. Again, time is very much of the essence because this is affecting the absentee ballots, the military ballots, all of these which have been sent out. There is an order saying stop the printing of all new ballots. But, at the same time, the question is, will those other ones, the military and the absentee ballots, be delayed because of the fact that Torricelli's name is no longer on the ballot?
NEVILLE: Deborah, clearly some questions that need to be answered. When will we know when all of those questions will be answered?
FEYERICK: Well, the Supreme Court is going to be hearing oral arguments at 10:00 tomorrow morning. Both sides are going to have a chance to lay out their case as to why the Democrats feel they should have a candidate on the ballot and why the Republicans feel that, no, they gave up that right when Torricelli dropped out.
The Supreme Court will then make their decision. They are moving along very quickly on this, clearly because there are only 35 days until the November 5 election.
NEVILLE: Boy, time is of the essence, huh, Deborah?
OK, listen, thank you very much for that live report from Trenton, New Jersey.
Arianna Huffington, I want to start with you on this discussion.
Torricelli was investigated for accepting illegal gifts in exchange for lobbying for his backers' business affiliations. Why was he never prosecuted?
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, he was never prosecuted, even though he was reprimanded by the Ethics Committee in the Senate.
What is troubling here is that you want to feel sorry for him. Here's a man at a low point in his career. But he's making it so hard, because, even when he pulled out, he did not admit any wrongdoing. He pulled out at a moment which makes it very difficult, as we are hearing, for his party to field someone else and have a chance to keep the seat for the Democrats.
NEVILLE: But let me jump in there, Arianna. Do you think he made that decision on his own?
HUFFINGTON: No, he didn't make it on his own. You are absolutely right. Indeed, he made it because he was losing. So, basically, even at this moment, he's behaving the way he's behaved in the past, which is purely out of his own self-interest, purely because his back is against the wall. And it's really, basically, hard to feel sorry for him.
NEVILLE: Terry Jeffrey, how do you see it?
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Well, I think this is another example of the Democratic Party putting the pursuit of power over the rule of law. It basically is the same thing they did back in 1999, when the Senate's Democrats voted unanimously when Clinton was not guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury, even though they knew he was, because they wanted to keep a Democrat in power in the White House.
Back in July, the Senate Ethics Committee whitewashed their investigation of Torricelli because they wanted to maintain the viability of Torricelli as a Senate candidate in New Jersey because they thought they needed him to win to maintain their Senate majority. Now, when they know he's going to lose, they are trying to retroactively rewrite the election laws of the state of New Jersey to get him off the ballot and try to get a viable candidate on there.
NEVILLE: Terry, if indeed that is the goal, then why did they wait so long? Clearly they understand the laws, right?
JEFFREY: Because this summer, when they looked at it and Torricelli was ahead in the polls, they thought that Torricelli, the incumbent senator, was their best shot at holding the seat.
When the people of New Jersey started to indicate they did not want Torricelli to continue in the Senate, they went to plan B. And we saw that happen yesterday, which means they are willing to totally sweep aside the election law of the state of New Jersey in their pursuit of power. Tough. Torricelli needs to stay on that ballot. Torricelli is going to lose. The Democrats are going to pay the penalty for putting the guy on the ballot in the first place.
NEVILLE: Hey, Peter, hang on for me. I want to get to you.
But I want to go to Texas first, where Jeff is standing by on the phone.
Go ahead, Jeff.
CALLER: Yes, basically, this is the Democrats' fault anyway.
They were in the Democratically-controlled Senate. They had an Ethics Committee. And they had all this information in advance. And they said: "Oh, well, hey, look, it's OK. You're our guy. We control the Senate and we don't want to lose the Senate. So, hey, look, we'll go there and we'll ignore the fact that you got bribed and somebody went to jail."
Remember Senator Packwood? He made kissy faces at girls and he got expelled. Torricelli gets $10,000, gets caught, gets whatever else, and he stays in the Senate.
NEVILLE: All right, Jeff.
Well, let's see what Peter thinks about that.
Do you agree or disagree with Jeff?
PETER BEINART, EDITOR, "THE NEW REPUBLIC": I basically disagree.
The truth is, if the Democrats had really been as cynical as Terry Jeffrey is suggesting, they would have done this 51 days, not 36 days before the election. The Ethics Committee, last time I checked, had both Democrats and Republicans on it.
"The New Republic," our magazine, called on the Democrats to dump Torricelli a long time ago. So I don't want to stand up for this guy at all. But the truth is, everybody who knows anything about politics knows that there are sleazy, corrupt guys in both parties and that this kind of thing happens. And I'm glad Torricelli is out of here.
NEVILLE: So, Peter, is it over for the Democrats?
BEINART: No, it's not over for the Democrats.
Look, I can't interpret New Jersey state election law. Neither can Terry. Neither of us know anything about it, to be perfectly honest. The truth is, the state Supreme Court will make that decision. If they allow the Democrats to put a candidate on the ballot, if the Democrats have one of their congressmen, they'll have a decent chance.
HUFFINGTON: But what is interesting is that, probably, if this had been a different time, he would have survived.
I think because of the corporate scandal, we have been sensitized to sleaze. I promise you, if this had been a year ago -- and that is probably the gamble that the Democrats were taking -- Torricelli would not have pulled out. I was in New Jersey last Thursday. And I talked to a lot of Democrats who still would have voted for him, because they did not want to vote for the Republican. So that's what they were counting on.
He was their senator. He was their sleazeball. They would stick by him. But is really hard to do that when CEO after CEO out there shows us how much corruption there is. And so it is much harder to sort of close your eyes and go ahead and vote for the guy.
NEVILLE: Ignore it.
Arianna, help us understand why people outside of New Jersey should care about this.
HUFFINGTON: Well, first of all, we should all care, because this is about control of the Senate. I mean, it does hang in the balance. So one or two seats could make the difference. But, also, we should care because I think we should just stop pretending it doesn't matter what these guys do, what their ethics are.
I'm not talking about their personal lives, but this was not about his personal life. This was about how he conducted himself and his abuse of power. And so we should care.
NEVILLE: OK, Terry Jeffrey, you have been trying to jump in there. Now's your chance.
JEFFREY: Well, here's a national issue.
The Senate Ethics Committee said in his letter to Torricelli admonishing him -- which was the only public document they released on this -- that among the reasons they were admonishing him was because there are incongruities between the evidence and his testimony. It seems to me the suggestion that his testimony didn't jive with the evidence suggests he may have committed perjury.
Yet the Senate Ethics Committee has not released that testimony, which was taken in secret, denying the American people the right to judge whether or not they're covering up for perjury by one of their members. I think we have a right to know whether the Senate has corrupted itself again by covering up for perjury. This is exactly what they did in the Clinton impeachment trial.
We know the guy committed perjury. The Senate said not guilty. That was a lie. Now they don't want to give us the evidence to decide for ourselves whether Torricelli committed perjury in their Senate ethics investigation.
NEVILLE: OK, let me get Jim in here from Texas.
JIM: I just wanted to say that the law states, within 51 days, you cannot add another candidate to the ballot. Why is the law not being respected?
NEVILLE: Who wants to take that?
BEINART: The law actually seems to be a little bit more ambiguous than that. It doesn't actually explicitly say what happens if you try to substitute a candidate earlier than 51 days.
The legal scholars that "The New York Times" in New Jersey talked to this morning were all over the map on the question. So the truth is, we really don't know.
NEVILLE: And we'll be watching.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: You know what? Excuse me, Terry. I've got to take a break.
But of course you are going to hang on here for me, because, still ahead: Three Democratic congressmen return from Iraq with a plan of their own for dealing with Saddam Hussein. I'll tell what you it is.
And you can tell me if you approve of the congressmen's trip. Of course, you can give me call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Do U.S. congressmen have any business bad-mouthing from Baghdad?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: But don't go overseas. Don't go to Baghdad and question the credibility of the president of the United States. That is not appropriate behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Also: Gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney's beefcake ads send Democrats into a slow burn in Massachusetts. But will they turn on women voters?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mitt's a good-looking guy. I'll tell you that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: The talk continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Democratic congressmen Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson, and David Bonior are headed home after a four-day visit to Iraq. Their conclusion: War is not the answer. While still in Baghdad, McDermott suggested the president might be misleading Americans about the need for war.
Republican Senator John McCain had some harsh words for all three.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: These are members of Congress. If these members of Congress want to go to the floor of the House and criticize the president of the United States until the cows come home, fine with me. But don't go overseas. Don't go to Baghdad and question the credibility of the president of the United States. That is not appropriate behavior.
And I don't think it will be very well received by the majority of the American people. It's totally inappropriate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: So do it at home, but not in front of the enemy and certainly not on enemy soil.
Terry, is that the consensus?
JEFFREY: Yes, I agree with Senator McCain exactly. I think any American has a right to challenge the policies of the president, especially a member of Congress.
I believe members of Congress have a constitutional obligation to vote yea or nay on the president's war resolution. If they are against it on the merits, vote against it. But it is an entirely different thing to travel to foreign soil, particularly a nation such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which is a dictatorship, after all, and question the integrity of the president of the United States.
That is beyond the pale. It is outrageous. No congressman should do it. No citizen should do it.
NEVILLE: Arianna?
HUFFINGTON: I agree that they have the right to criticize and they should criticize. And I actually happen to agree with them that we should not be invading Iraq.
But why do it while abroad, especially why do it while in Iraq? I think it undermines their case. The strongest case against invading Iraq is that it is a distraction from the war on terror. It's not about whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or not. Many countries have weapons of mass destruction. I think that's the position and it detracts really from that to be out in Baghdad attacking the president.
NEVILLE: Why do you think that? If you think that's the goal, then why is that the case, the distraction?
HUFFINGTON: Well, because they obviously feel strongly that we should not be invading Iraq. And I think they really forgot the protocol and what is appropriate.
NEVILLE: Let me clarify my question for you, Arianna. I think I heard you say that perhaps this whole idea of talk of war, possibly invading Iraq, is a distraction from the war on terrorism. Did you say that? And, if so...
HUFFINGTON: Yes, I did.
NEVILLE: ... why do you say that? HUFFINGTON: I say that because the war on terror is multifaceted. We face many threats, especially here in the homeland. And we need to concentrate on protecting the homeland and finding and punishing the people who perpetrated the assault on September 11.
That was not Saddam Hussein. So, when the president is asked, "Who is the greater threat, Saddam or Osama?" and he says they are indistinguishable, this is not only wrong; it is dangerous, because they are distinguishable. They represent different threats. And there's no question that the greater threat at the moment comes from al Qaeda and that al Qaeda is all over the world in many sleeper cells, including in this country. And this is our dominant enemy.
And to ignore that, just because we haven't caught Osama and just because we have so far failed to bring the perpetrators of September 11 to justice is simply to misinform the American people. I agree on that.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go right ahead.
BEINART: I think that really makes no sense whatsoever.
I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has shown that a war against Iraq would undermine the war on terrorism. In fact, the one country that is most explicitly opposed to war on Iraq, Germany, has responded precisely by increasing their support for the war on terrorism, helping us with this recent suspect in Pakistan, agreeing to leave the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.
I haven't heard a single country say, even though they do disagree with us on Iraq, that they would not support the war on al Qaeda, because the war on al Qaeda is in their own interests. It is threatening their governments, too. And as for the idea that we will be too militarily stretched, the war on terrorism does not, by and large, require a big military deployment.
(CROSSTALK)
HUFFINGTON: Let me quickly respond, because I think there are many...
NEVILLE: Quickly, because I want to get some audience response in here. Go ahead.
HUFFINGTON: There are many terrorism experts who believe that fighting the war on terror effectively requires us to be able to get information from any nation which are not our allies.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: But no one has said they won't give us that.
HUFFINGTON: Hold on a second. Mary Jo White, who actually prosecuted terrorists and knows what she is talking about, has said that, the more we allow the opposition to be strengthened and unified, the harder it is for us to conduct the war on terror.
BEINART: No foreign country has said that that I'm aware of.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Now I am going to ask for an e-mail, if you could pop up that for me, the e-mail. It's from Kassie in Oklahoma: "I would hope there is some sort of punishment for the congressmen that went over to the enemy and bad-mouthed our president. As far as I'm concerned, that is being a traitor."
And Jim from Michigan, what do you say?
JIM: It is kind of billed as a fact-finding mission, but I doubt that they can find out much in three days. I think it's just a show. I have questions about whether or not we should go into Iraq, but I also think it's absolutely important that we support our administration in this effort.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I want to go to the phones now to talk to Alia (ph).
Alia, where are you calling from?
CALLER: I'm calling from Massachusetts.
NEVILLE: OK, go ahead.
CALLER: I think it is absolutely essential that these congressmen be given the forum to talk and to express their views. It is essential to our democracy.
NEVILLE: OK, sir, thank you for your call.
I'm going to talk to Keith now from Miami.
KEITH: Hi.
I find it rather paradoxical that this is a democratic society and yet we want to restrain people from saying things that they feel. Had they said this in Europe, would it have been any less cantankerous than having said this in Iran?
NEVILLE: All right, who wants to respond to that quickly?
BEINART: It's not the same to say that in Europe as in Iraq, because you are saying it in a dictatorship. And one of the problems with going over there and doing that is that we really don't know what kind of restrictions these guys are under in Iraq. It's not a place where you can freely express your speech. So I think that's one of the problems here. JEFFREY: I would say it would be objectionable for a U.S. congressman to go to Europe or to any other foreign country and attack the integrity of the president of the United States.
It is even more onerous, by several degrees of magnitude, to go into the homeland of Saddam Hussein and allow yourself to be manipulated as a tool by a brutal dictator, which is in fact what Congressman McDermott did.
NEVILLE: OK, I have to take a break right now.
Up next: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer startles reporters today by saying any action to get rid of Saddam Hussein would be welcomed: a bullet, exile, whatever it takes. Those are a lot of options. And I am going to play that sound bite for you after the break. So you don't want to miss that.
Stay right here. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
It seems the White House would welcome any number of options for taking down Saddam Hussein. But some of the options hinted at today by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer were downright breathtaken -- taking. It has already taken my breath.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has not made any decisions about military action or what military option he might pursue. And so I think it's impossible to speculate. I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that.
QUESTION: You intend to advocate from that podium that some Iraqi person put a bullet in his head?
FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes.
QUESTION: So the answer is yes?
FLEISCHER: Thank you.
Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: So you shook your head when you heard those words. Why? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, once you start to overthrow people in that way, you are inviting it upon yourself, too. And I believe that we have to get Hussein out of here. And I believe the reason George is so -- I want to call it obsessed, because it has to be done, is, he realizes his father now should have done it in 1990.
But it's such a complicated issue. And once you start throwing over regimes, you are going to have the Shiites, the Sunnis. And I have been hearing about it for four years and I don't know what the repercussion would be if we overthrow him. What are we going to get in there now? Are we going to get a pan-Iraq, Iran? But when you start talking about that, it gets scary. I think he has to be taken out, but I wish it wouldn't be couched in that type of language.
NEVILLE: Well, Terry, how do you interpret Ari Fleischer's words?
JEFFREY: Well, first, let me say, St. Thomas Aquinas would tell you that tyrannicide is in fact moral. If some German had shot Hitler in 1935, I think that would have been a legitimate act. And I don't think it would be immoral for the Iraqis to liberate themselves from Saddam Hussein and, in the process, kill him.
I think, however, that reasonable people, in debating whether or not we ought to go to Iraq and remove him by military force are most concerned about the aftermath of that, the consequence of it for the United States? Is it going to breed more terrorism or limit terrorism? Is it going to stabilize the Middle East, destabilize the Middle East?
And I think, in coming to the right conclusion to that debate, the means by which we go about the process leading up to the conflict and the means by which we carry out that conflict are going to be telltale. So I'm not sure that Ari's comments were prudent.
NEVILLE: I want to go to Florida now, where Chris is standing by on the phone.
Chris, what do you say?
CALLER: Well, I definitely wouldn't be a proponent of someone assassinating another world leader. I think that we would be opening ourselves up for a similar attack. And we really don't have the apparatus to protect leaders in our own nation to such a degree.
But, at the same time, I would be concerned that Saddam certainly is a threat. I think that there is so much rhetoric going on back and forth within our own politicians that, quite honestly, I think everyone has kind of lost focus of the real danger here, which is: Would Saddam give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist organization that would threaten our own nation?
NEVILLE: Well, Peter, let me ask you, is this sort of rhetoric helpful or hurtful?
BEINART: I don't think it's that bad. You have to put it in context.
The United States is very much hoping that there will be -- people will rise up within Saddam's military, hopefully close to him. If they do, it would make our war effort much easier than it would otherwise. And I think the Bush administration has been, in a number of ways -- you heard it with Rumsfeld a few days ago -- trying to signal to those people: "Look, do that. Rise up. We won't hold you responsible if you do." And I think that's good military strategy.
NEVILLE: All right, here's a question, though. Can you trust Iraq to let the inspectors look at everything and anything in the search for weapons?
We're switching gears here. We're talking about Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspection team, says Iraq has agreed to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. Now, Blix has been meeting with Iraqi officials in Vienna for the past two days -- now, one thing still outstanding; access to the presidential palaces.
Also, the State Department now says the U.S. will do everything it can to prevent inspectors from going back into Iraq until the U.N. Security Council passes a new resolution giving the teams more authority to carry out their mission.
Arianna, what do you make of all of this? Because this whole idea of not going into the palaces, that is a biggie. Is it a deal- breaker? And what do you think is going to happen from this point on?
HUFFINGTON: Well, let me just say that I agree with the administration that we cannot trust Saddam Hussein. There is no question that he has been working on weapons of mass destruction. At what exact level he is with nuclear weapons, we don't know. But he's working on them.
But I want to return to my main point, which is, we have a war on terror to fight. And this war on terror is paramount. And I don't understand why, just because this president cannot handle complexity, the entire war on terror has been reduced down to Iraq.
Remember, when he gave his speech on the axis of evil, he had three countries: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Now we don't hear much about Iran. We hear nothing about North Korea. Yet North Korea actually does have nuclear weapons. And it seems as though he couldn't even handle three countries. And he had to return to this very comforting binary relationship between the United States and another evil empire, except now it happens to be Iraq. It is, to me, a completely wrong diagnosis.
BEINART: Can I respond to that?
NEVILLE: Go ahead. You've got 15 seconds.
BEINART: Yes, first of all, we're not ignoring the war on terrorism at all. We've actually just been making tremendous strides with those arrests in Pakistan. It's just nonsense to say that they're ignoring it. We're pursuing a different policy towards Iran and North Korea, because there's a better chance of political overthrow in Iran and because North Korea has not attacked its neighbors in something like 50 years, which Saddam has.
NEVILLE: Terry, 15 seconds. What do you think about the latest move on the Bush administration, the suggestion or request not to go back in until a resolution has been agreed upon?
JEFFREY: Well, look, I think the idea that weapons inspectors are going to thoroughly eliminate the threat of Saddam developing weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous.
And if people want to weigh that proposition, consider that we had anthrax attacks here in the United States last fall. The FBI hasn't discovered who did it. No one's been indicted. No one's been convicted. We know that Saddam Hussein has developed anthrax. Do we really seriously believe some U.N. guys running around that country are going to be able to find every last bit of anthrax he's stockpiled? I don't believe it.
NEVILLE: And that is the last word. We have to take another break right now.
And up next: A topless candidate is heating up the Massachusetts governor's race. We're going to take a look right after this.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Democratic spokeswoman Sue Harvey wants to know what Mitt Romney is running for, prom king or governor? Tasseled hair, a little sweat and a bare chest, they are all part of a political ad. Some say it is aimed at women voters in Massachusetts. "People Magazine" named Romney one of the 50 most beautiful people in the world, calling him "arrestingly handsome with a blinding smile." But he is trailing his female opponent in the Massachusetts governor's race, and I have someone from Massachusetts here.
Anne (ph), will you stand up for me? You are a female. So would this kind of ad with a bare chest and a smile and all this stuff work for you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it doesn't. Really it's because he doesn't distinguish himself on any issues. And so I think he's just running on his looks. Also, he's running against women, which I think is why he's behind in the polls.
NEVILLE: Why do you say he's running against women?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because there is a very unpopular acting governor in Massachusetts, Jane Swift, and he's comparing his democratic female component to Jane Swift, thereby running against women, because she's from his own party.
NEVILLE: I understand. Arianna, would it work for you?
HUFFINGTON: No, I think it is kind of insulting to think that women would vote based on the candidate's bare chest. I also think it's kind of a little humorless for the democratic spokeswoman to be attacking him for just basically being athletic and handsome. And I don't think that's what the race is going to hinge on.
They actually are running a very interesting race because they both are trying to get the populous position. And you have Mitt Romney, a very successful businessman, claiming that he's running for the little guy, and we have her attacking him for the different corporate directorships he's held. So that's kind of the interesting populous message of this campaign.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's hear from another lady. She's not from Massachusetts, but from California. Barbara (ph), you say what?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well you know we don't really trust a lot of our politicians, but this guy is really baring his chest. So maybe there is something trustworthy here.
NEVILLE: So you are saying he's baring it all, finally?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Finally, yes.
NEVILLE: All right, Barbara (ph). We're going to go to the phones now where -- who's standing by? Carol (ph) is standing by in Oklahoma. Carol (ph), go ahead.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you. Great show. I just want to that a guy baring his chest is not going to get my vote unless he talks about the issues. And that these days it seems like only people who are smart are voting, believe it or not, and we're happy to vote for people who actually discuss the issues and have some ethics. But he's kind of cute, so who knows?
NEVILLE: So bottom line, I mean if you could, would you vote for him because you just said he's kind of cute?
CALLER: He's kind of cute, but unless he starts talking about the issues, it doesn't count. He could be the ugliest person. You know?
NEVILLE: Terry (ph), I see you over there giggling. What are you thinking?
JEFFREY: Well, I'll tell you what's funny. The truth is Mitt Romney is trying to outbid his opponent to the left on social issues. He's pro abortion, he's in favor of domestic partnership benefits. He's in favor of government subsidized daycare.
There is no way a Republican can ever outbid a liberal Democrat on those issues. And ironically, Jesse Helms, when he ran for re- election in North Carolina in 1996, did not have a gender gap. He actually tied on the female vote.
But Bill Weld, the former Governor of Massachusetts, lost big to the female vote. And Christie Todd Whitman, who was up in Massachusetts campaigning for Romney, she lost the female vote big. I do not think a Republican can ever beat a Democrat by trying to outmaneuver them to the left on social issues.
NEVILLE: OK.
BEINART: Yes, but this is Massachusetts, which is an extremely liberal state. And Romney, as your first questioner implied, has a particular problem with female voters because he and the Republican Party basically ousted the female Republican governor so he could run instead. The truth is, while Jesse Helms might have been able to run off further to the right and do fine with women in North Carolina, there is not a lot of evidence it will work in Massachusetts.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's get Shannon's (ph) take.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I would just like to say that the voters will decide, and Minnesota elected a wrestler, so if that's what the voters want, then maybe they can take a lesson from Minnesota and see if it works out for them.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much.
Now I have an e-mail coming in I want to share with everybody. It is from David in Massachusetts. "Give me a break. Mitt Romney is in a bathing suit playing around with his kids. It's not like he's posing for the camera, like a model." So I'm thinking David doesn't have a problem with it, is that what you are thinking here, Arianna?
HUFFINGTON: Yes, and I kind of agree with David. I mean the pictures were really tasteful and fun and OK. And he wanted to appear (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with his beautiful blond wife, and that's not really what's going to determine the election. And there are so many issues there.
In fact, one of the biggest issues in Massachusetts is the whole clean elections issue. And Mitt Romney has been making some positive noises. I think his democratic opponent should challenge him on that, because if they really want to clean up the system, there is nothing better than public financing of campaigns.
NEVILLE: So, Peter, does this hurt Romney's credibility?
BEINART: No, it doesn't hurt Romney's credibility. I think Arianna is right, it's not a big deal. But the basic issue is Romney is too conservative particularly on some of the social and cultural issues for most people in Massachusetts. He's trying to move to the center, but he needs to do that substantively with issues rather than this kind of pabulum (ph) about how much he loves his family. It really doesn't matter.
NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to take a break right now. And up next, would a war with Iraq effect the economy? Lots of people already feeling the pinch. We're going to get some expert advice from our next guests.
So you want to hear this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Will a war with Iraq put the economy in the tank or speed up our recovery from recession? Here to talk about the war and the economy is Allen Wastler, Managing Editor of the CNN Money Web site. Welcome, Allen.
ALLEN WASTLER, MANAGING EDITOR, MONEY.COM: How are you doing, Arthel?
NEVILLE: I'm good. Well, everybody is not so good, though. I mean I know the Dow is up over 300 points, but we're still talking about two nosedives on Wall Street Friday and Monday. Have we hit rock bottom yet?.
WASTLER: Have we hit rock bottom? We're stutter stepping at the right point and you are seeing a lot of bounce back. The bull (ph) argument is, yeah, you know we're sort of making a bottom and going on here. But their argument is, nah, because you never know what kind of surprise is going to pop up.
Now today's (ph) rally, Iraq is saying, yes, we'll go along with the UN inspections; everybody is comfortable about that. Still, a lot of uncertainty in the market, and markets hate uncertainty. So whenever you see any news coming across the TV set, keep that in mind, then look at your Dow price and figure, OK, that explains it.
NEVILLE: Yes, it's up 346 points right now. OK, so there is talk that a war with Iraq would cost about $9 billion a month. I've read figures that go up as high as $200 billion in overall costs. We're talking about troop deployment, $9 to $13 billion; bringing troops home, $5 to $7 billion; cost of combat, $6 to $9 billion per month; post war peacekeeping $1 to $4 billion a month. That is a lot of money. Can we afford that?
WASTLER: Quite a lot of money. Luckily, the government has a pretty good credit card right now. So it can still put out some, although the bond market is bubbling a little bit.
The big thing for people to worry about in the immediate term is oil, OK? Oil touches everything. It touches all the businesses in the market one way or another. It touches all our lives one way or another.
So when you are looking at a Mid East conflict, any uncertainty in the price of oil is going to affect our economy. And it's real simple. You can look at all the graphs and formulas and permutations. It's like this: price of oil up, GDP down, OK? That's the equation right there.
So when you are talking about, you know, starting some tension with Iraq, that's the first thing you look at, the price of oil. Now we all see gasoline prices go up and all these companies saying, oh, we got to start raising prices because the price of oil, our energy costs are going up. You know, we're starting to do it.
So consumers start reigning in spending, OK? The economy has been going on two things this very beleaguered year: housing and the consumer. If the consumer pulls in, the economy is going to get weaker, and that is not good for anybody.
Now finally, is the psychological effect. In the past couple months, as the Bush administration has been revving up talk about problems with Iraq and the UN has been waffling one way or another and people have been talking about well, should we do it, should we not do it, that psychology prices into the market and it gets lower and lower and lower. And so part of the reason you are seeing the market so low today, even with the pop that we're getting - that's probably why we're getting the pop - it's psychology, OK? You're pricing in a war.
NEVILLE: OK. I have a call from California, where Cliff (ph), I think, has a question for you. Go ahead, Cliff (ph).
CALLER: Yes. I don't believe there is any way we can go into a war with Iraq and not hurt the economy. I think just the war that we're having now in Afghanistan has hurt it enough, along with the presidency.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Cliff (ph).
WASTLER: OK, Cliff (ph), that's -- and you know what? The market agrees with you right now, that it's already priced in. And you are absolutely right. As more and more of the war rhetoric heats up, the market has been going down and down and down, pricing it in, like I said.
NEVILLE: OK. I have another gentleman here, Derrick (ph) from Arizona.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. You know I think the war in Iraq, when it does happen, the price of oil will have an initial spike, which will raise the prices and cause the economy to suffer in the short term. I think once things settle down - and the war will be short -- the economy will come back to normal because OPEC will keep prices down over the long term.
NEVILLE: Why are you so sure that we will go to war?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you look at what happened in 1991, the same thing happened. Price of oil increased in the first couple of months when the war started. Once the war calmed down, things calmed down as well.
NEVILLE: Allen? WASTLER: Well, that's a good point. And that is actually the best-case scenario right there, that if it does happen, it is quick, it's over fairly quickly. And a lot of people do draw the comparison to the 1991 event. However, there are some things changed right now, not the least of which is Israel and the problems going on there right now.
Remember, OPEC is -- you know, it's a coalition of people. And generally, depending on policies throughout the Middle East and the Israel situation and the Iraq situation, might affect whether or not OPEC really wants to dish out oil or what kind of production level that keeps going.
On the other hand, Venezuela and Russia have jumped in. So that sort of changes the OPEC equation a little bit.
NEVILLE: You mentioned credit cards earlier. You know there are a lot of people out there who are forced to live off of credit cards right now because of the state of the economy. Is there any hope for this getting better? What do you say to those people?
WASTLER: For the interest rate situation?
NEVILLE: No. I mean mot just the interest rate. I mean people are forced to live off their credit card in many cases.
WASTLER: That's right, and going on and on. The average family actually has about $8,400 in credit card debt, which is pretty high. And defaults are rising out there as well. So what we need is a good - basically, we need to see a good jobs report tomorrow. A good jobs report, that will be a sign that maybe things are turning around.
NEVILLE: But I just read that that report is not so good at the moment.
WASTLER: Well, it got a little bit better. Actually, Challenger and Gray (ph) just came out with their own survey showing that as far as layoff announcements go, the growth of layoffs - it's actually retreating. There are less companies doing layoffs right now than there was last month.
So there is hope that maybe things are turning around. For the families that are struggling along as it is, it is a bad, bad situation. What we've got to hope for is that it gets to the point where companies can actually start the buying process, filling the inventory pipeline, because when they get that demand, get that production, they can hire back the workers.
Right now, they're nervous about the economy, nervous of that consumer that we were talking about isn't going to start buying again, and so they're holding off on either hiring workers and buying widgets to make the products.
NEVILLE: And a lot of people have exhausted their unemployment benefits on top of that -- David from California. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know I get the feeling that oil has a lot to do with whether or not we go to war. And I just want to get a straight answer from the administration, you know, how much that affects our decisions? I mean is it about the weapons of mass destruction? Is it about the UN resolution, or is it about oil?
And I feel a little cheated and I'm not -- it's not because I'm from California or because I'm a liberal or whatever.
NEVILLE: So, Allen, will we get a straight answer?
WASTLER: If you ever get a straight answer from anyone in government, you just let me know, OK? I'll tell you right now it doesn't seem to be so much about the supply of oil as much as it does seem to be about politics, Mid East policy, and also we've got our own election year follies going on right now. And that enters into the equation as well.
NEVILLE: OK. Cal (ph) is calling in from New Jersey. Go ahead, Cal (ph).
CALLER: Yes. I think the conversation around whether we can afford to have this war or not is absolutely repugnant. If there is a compelling reason for us to go to war with Iraq, which I happen to not believe that there is, we should be doing it regardless of it.
I think the whole thing is a ploy that Bush is doing to get everybody's mind off the economy and on to a war. And I think it's absolutely terrible for the American people to sit around and talk about can we afford this war or can we not afford this war. If there's a reason to do it, we should do it, and I don't think there's a reason for us to do it. I think...
NEVILLE: Thank you very much for your call, sir.
Listen, we have to take a break right now. And then we're going to bring our panel back. And I want to know what you want to hear the president talk about, the war or the economy? We'll be right back. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking with Allen Wastler from CNN Money.com; along with Terry Jeffrey, the Editor of "Human Events;" Syndicated Columnist Arianna Huffington -- hello; and Peter Beinart, Editor of "The New Republic."
OK, Arianna. Going with you on this one. Do you think people care more about war or the economy? And what do you think they want to hear from the president?
HUFFINGTON: Well, people care about both. Obviously, people care about their lives, about whether they are able to feed their families. And a lot of people are hurting very badly in this country at the moment. Bankrupts are at a record level; we have high unemployment. Many people are coming off welfare without the prospect of any jobs.
But, of course, if the president could make a compelling case that this country was in imminent threat and that we had to invade Iraq, I think the public would be behind him. It's just that that case has not been made. And therefore, although I agree with the viewe who said that if that was a compelling case, then the cost of war would not be an issue, it is not a compelling case, and therefore it is an issue.
NEVILLE: Terry.
JEFFREY: Well I think the people clearly care about national security more than the economy right now, which is why the Democrats haven't been getting traction trying to argue that the economy is all that bad. The truth is interest rates are down, inflation is down, unemployment hasn't gone up that much.
The economy is still growing, although it's growing sluggishly. I concede there's a lot of uncertainty in the market because of the situation in Iraq. But I think in the wake of September 11, people understand that our security and our liberty are directly at threat here in the United States of America. And they're most interested in making sure the federal government does its number one job, which is keeping us free and safe.
NEVILLE: Peter.
BEINART: Yes, I basically agree with that. I think if people really were focused on the economy much more than the war on Iraq you wouldn't have seen the problems the democratic candidates have been having in the last couple of weeks. And I totally disagree with Arianna. I think that the case has been made.
The case is not that we know exactly when Saddam is going to have a nuclear weapon. It's that he'll have a nuclear weapon in years and not decades, and that once we find out he has one, it's too late. I think it's that simple.
HUFFINGTON: But Peter, even Senator Bob Graham, who is the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and therefore has a lot more information than you or I at our fingertips, has said that the case has not been made. The connection between al Qaeda and Saddam has not been made.
The fact that the administration claims we are in imminent danger from Saddam has not been made. And many people are saying that. So for you to assert it as a fact is simply based on no foundation.
BEINART: Well, let's see how Bob Graham votes on the resolution. I think Bob Graham is probably going to vote to give the president authorization for force. And there are a lot of people on the intelligence committee who, you're right, have more information, not about the connection with al Qaeda. I agree, that is a total red herring. That's not the issue.
The issue is Saddam's capacity to get nuclear weapons. And it's true, we don't exactly know what he has or when he'll get them. But that's precisely the point. We can't afford to wait and take that gamble.
NEVILLE: Let's see what Helmet (ph) thinks?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we have to be very careful. And coming from Canada - and I think America is the only superpower left And they should play by the rules and go through United Nations, put as much pressure on them as possible. But not go to war and lose young American lives. That's my opinion.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And Allen, I have to take a break right now. But when we come back, I want to ask you what happened to our economy and who's to blame. Stick around for the answer as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. Allen Wastler, what happened to our economy? Who's to blame? We went from surpluses to deficits. What's going on?
WASTLER: What's wrong? It's corporate America; they're to blame, OK? During the bubble period, the heady bull market, everybody (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and they're like working ahead and buying and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). A bunch of pigs there just eating up and eating up.
And then, all of a sudden, the demands started drifting off. And the supply start going down. Your inventory pipeline started draining out.
OK. Now that happens, right? The economy goes up and down cycles, except we found out so many people were lying about it and lying about their numbers. And now we're seeing the problem with that.
So right now, while demand is in a natural sort of down cycle, we can't get it going again because nobody trusts the numbers. Nobody trusts the corporations; people don't want to invest in what they can't trust. So that's why we're at where we're at.
NEVILLE: I think Doug (ph) from California might agree with you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think that corporate America is certainly partly to blame. But also just the human condition here in America, where we're all pursuing money, caused many people to take risks and spend money they wouldn't normally do in an Internet stock market that eventually made sense that it would back down and go there. So how do you blame a complex system like the economy on one thing?
WASTLER: Excellent insight.
NEVILLE: OK. Final thoughts from Terry?
JEFFREY: Well listen, I think people are doing a smart thing today by investing in the U.S. stock market. Clearly today, there are stocks in U.S. companies that are undervalued, just like there were stocks a few years ago that are overvalued. I think it's a good time to get into the market right now when there is good prices.
WASTLER: The trick is just picking the right ones and the wrong ones, right Terry?
JEFFREY: Sure.
NEVILLE: Yes, just that simple, right?
HUFFINGTON: I don't know about Terry, but I'm definitely completely out of the market, and I urge the viewers to do the same. We have no idea what's going to happen, and to urge especially small investors to be in the market at this moment is completely irresponsible.
And also for us -- who is to blame? I think the political establishment is also to blame.
NEVILLE: And that is the final answer, Arianna Huffington, Terry Jeffrey, Peter Beinart and Allen Wastler, thank you very much for joining us here today. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow 3:00 PM Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Election Races Heat Up Around the Country>
Aired October 1, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
The battle for control of the Senate is under way. And Democrats are in court this afternoon looking for a little ammunition. They want to replace Senator Robert Torricelli on the New Jersey ballot even though state law says no substitutions this late in the game. Torricelli bailed out of the Senate race yesterday after polls showed him way, way behind. Now, the question is: Do New Jersey Democrats deserve a second chance in the November elections? We're going to get to that in a minute.
Then stay tuned for more reaction for those three Democratic congressmen who have been broadcasting their political peeves from Baghdad.
And later, is gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney getting too physical as he romances the voters?
Our guests are Terry Jeffrey, editor of "Human Events," the national conservative weekly; Arianna Huffington, a nationally syndicated columnist and author; and Peter Beinart, editor of "The New Republic."
We want to welcome all of you.
First up, though: New Jersey Democrats have gone to court to try to replace Senator Robert Torricelli on the November ballot.
And CNN's Deborah Feyerick is in Trenton, New Jersey, where state Democrats filed court papers today.
Hi, Deborah. Here's a question for you. The big question is, can Torricelli be replaced, which would allow the Democrats to possibly maintain control of the Senate?
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's exactly the question that the Democrats are trying to answer.
The tricky part is, is that they missed the 51-day deadline, which technically says that you have that many days before an election to get a candidate on a ballot if somebody drops out. The Democrats are saying, look, that law is a guideline. It was never meant to keep a candidate off of the ballot. And they are saying that, in fact, they should have the right to put somebody else on because of the fact that Robert Torricelli has dropped out. Republicans are saying something very different. They're saying: "You can't change the law. The law clearly states you had 51 days before having somebody else on the ballot and you missed that deadline. So it's your problem."
NEVILLE: Right. So the questions is, what happens next, Deborah?
FEYERICK: What's going on now here is that the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that, yes, they're going to be the ones to hear this case. Actually, there was supposed to be a Superior Court ruling just a couple of miles away for a judge there to decide what was going to happen.
The New Jersey Supreme Court said no. They're going to take this matter over right away. Again, time is very much of the essence because this is affecting the absentee ballots, the military ballots, all of these which have been sent out. There is an order saying stop the printing of all new ballots. But, at the same time, the question is, will those other ones, the military and the absentee ballots, be delayed because of the fact that Torricelli's name is no longer on the ballot?
NEVILLE: Deborah, clearly some questions that need to be answered. When will we know when all of those questions will be answered?
FEYERICK: Well, the Supreme Court is going to be hearing oral arguments at 10:00 tomorrow morning. Both sides are going to have a chance to lay out their case as to why the Democrats feel they should have a candidate on the ballot and why the Republicans feel that, no, they gave up that right when Torricelli dropped out.
The Supreme Court will then make their decision. They are moving along very quickly on this, clearly because there are only 35 days until the November 5 election.
NEVILLE: Boy, time is of the essence, huh, Deborah?
OK, listen, thank you very much for that live report from Trenton, New Jersey.
Arianna Huffington, I want to start with you on this discussion.
Torricelli was investigated for accepting illegal gifts in exchange for lobbying for his backers' business affiliations. Why was he never prosecuted?
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, he was never prosecuted, even though he was reprimanded by the Ethics Committee in the Senate.
What is troubling here is that you want to feel sorry for him. Here's a man at a low point in his career. But he's making it so hard, because, even when he pulled out, he did not admit any wrongdoing. He pulled out at a moment which makes it very difficult, as we are hearing, for his party to field someone else and have a chance to keep the seat for the Democrats.
NEVILLE: But let me jump in there, Arianna. Do you think he made that decision on his own?
HUFFINGTON: No, he didn't make it on his own. You are absolutely right. Indeed, he made it because he was losing. So, basically, even at this moment, he's behaving the way he's behaved in the past, which is purely out of his own self-interest, purely because his back is against the wall. And it's really, basically, hard to feel sorry for him.
NEVILLE: Terry Jeffrey, how do you see it?
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Well, I think this is another example of the Democratic Party putting the pursuit of power over the rule of law. It basically is the same thing they did back in 1999, when the Senate's Democrats voted unanimously when Clinton was not guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury, even though they knew he was, because they wanted to keep a Democrat in power in the White House.
Back in July, the Senate Ethics Committee whitewashed their investigation of Torricelli because they wanted to maintain the viability of Torricelli as a Senate candidate in New Jersey because they thought they needed him to win to maintain their Senate majority. Now, when they know he's going to lose, they are trying to retroactively rewrite the election laws of the state of New Jersey to get him off the ballot and try to get a viable candidate on there.
NEVILLE: Terry, if indeed that is the goal, then why did they wait so long? Clearly they understand the laws, right?
JEFFREY: Because this summer, when they looked at it and Torricelli was ahead in the polls, they thought that Torricelli, the incumbent senator, was their best shot at holding the seat.
When the people of New Jersey started to indicate they did not want Torricelli to continue in the Senate, they went to plan B. And we saw that happen yesterday, which means they are willing to totally sweep aside the election law of the state of New Jersey in their pursuit of power. Tough. Torricelli needs to stay on that ballot. Torricelli is going to lose. The Democrats are going to pay the penalty for putting the guy on the ballot in the first place.
NEVILLE: Hey, Peter, hang on for me. I want to get to you.
But I want to go to Texas first, where Jeff is standing by on the phone.
Go ahead, Jeff.
CALLER: Yes, basically, this is the Democrats' fault anyway.
They were in the Democratically-controlled Senate. They had an Ethics Committee. And they had all this information in advance. And they said: "Oh, well, hey, look, it's OK. You're our guy. We control the Senate and we don't want to lose the Senate. So, hey, look, we'll go there and we'll ignore the fact that you got bribed and somebody went to jail."
Remember Senator Packwood? He made kissy faces at girls and he got expelled. Torricelli gets $10,000, gets caught, gets whatever else, and he stays in the Senate.
NEVILLE: All right, Jeff.
Well, let's see what Peter thinks about that.
Do you agree or disagree with Jeff?
PETER BEINART, EDITOR, "THE NEW REPUBLIC": I basically disagree.
The truth is, if the Democrats had really been as cynical as Terry Jeffrey is suggesting, they would have done this 51 days, not 36 days before the election. The Ethics Committee, last time I checked, had both Democrats and Republicans on it.
"The New Republic," our magazine, called on the Democrats to dump Torricelli a long time ago. So I don't want to stand up for this guy at all. But the truth is, everybody who knows anything about politics knows that there are sleazy, corrupt guys in both parties and that this kind of thing happens. And I'm glad Torricelli is out of here.
NEVILLE: So, Peter, is it over for the Democrats?
BEINART: No, it's not over for the Democrats.
Look, I can't interpret New Jersey state election law. Neither can Terry. Neither of us know anything about it, to be perfectly honest. The truth is, the state Supreme Court will make that decision. If they allow the Democrats to put a candidate on the ballot, if the Democrats have one of their congressmen, they'll have a decent chance.
HUFFINGTON: But what is interesting is that, probably, if this had been a different time, he would have survived.
I think because of the corporate scandal, we have been sensitized to sleaze. I promise you, if this had been a year ago -- and that is probably the gamble that the Democrats were taking -- Torricelli would not have pulled out. I was in New Jersey last Thursday. And I talked to a lot of Democrats who still would have voted for him, because they did not want to vote for the Republican. So that's what they were counting on.
He was their senator. He was their sleazeball. They would stick by him. But is really hard to do that when CEO after CEO out there shows us how much corruption there is. And so it is much harder to sort of close your eyes and go ahead and vote for the guy.
NEVILLE: Ignore it.
Arianna, help us understand why people outside of New Jersey should care about this.
HUFFINGTON: Well, first of all, we should all care, because this is about control of the Senate. I mean, it does hang in the balance. So one or two seats could make the difference. But, also, we should care because I think we should just stop pretending it doesn't matter what these guys do, what their ethics are.
I'm not talking about their personal lives, but this was not about his personal life. This was about how he conducted himself and his abuse of power. And so we should care.
NEVILLE: OK, Terry Jeffrey, you have been trying to jump in there. Now's your chance.
JEFFREY: Well, here's a national issue.
The Senate Ethics Committee said in his letter to Torricelli admonishing him -- which was the only public document they released on this -- that among the reasons they were admonishing him was because there are incongruities between the evidence and his testimony. It seems to me the suggestion that his testimony didn't jive with the evidence suggests he may have committed perjury.
Yet the Senate Ethics Committee has not released that testimony, which was taken in secret, denying the American people the right to judge whether or not they're covering up for perjury by one of their members. I think we have a right to know whether the Senate has corrupted itself again by covering up for perjury. This is exactly what they did in the Clinton impeachment trial.
We know the guy committed perjury. The Senate said not guilty. That was a lie. Now they don't want to give us the evidence to decide for ourselves whether Torricelli committed perjury in their Senate ethics investigation.
NEVILLE: OK, let me get Jim in here from Texas.
JIM: I just wanted to say that the law states, within 51 days, you cannot add another candidate to the ballot. Why is the law not being respected?
NEVILLE: Who wants to take that?
BEINART: The law actually seems to be a little bit more ambiguous than that. It doesn't actually explicitly say what happens if you try to substitute a candidate earlier than 51 days.
The legal scholars that "The New York Times" in New Jersey talked to this morning were all over the map on the question. So the truth is, we really don't know.
NEVILLE: And we'll be watching.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: You know what? Excuse me, Terry. I've got to take a break.
But of course you are going to hang on here for me, because, still ahead: Three Democratic congressmen return from Iraq with a plan of their own for dealing with Saddam Hussein. I'll tell what you it is.
And you can tell me if you approve of the congressmen's trip. Of course, you can give me call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Do U.S. congressmen have any business bad-mouthing from Baghdad?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: But don't go overseas. Don't go to Baghdad and question the credibility of the president of the United States. That is not appropriate behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Also: Gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney's beefcake ads send Democrats into a slow burn in Massachusetts. But will they turn on women voters?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mitt's a good-looking guy. I'll tell you that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: The talk continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Democratic congressmen Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson, and David Bonior are headed home after a four-day visit to Iraq. Their conclusion: War is not the answer. While still in Baghdad, McDermott suggested the president might be misleading Americans about the need for war.
Republican Senator John McCain had some harsh words for all three.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: These are members of Congress. If these members of Congress want to go to the floor of the House and criticize the president of the United States until the cows come home, fine with me. But don't go overseas. Don't go to Baghdad and question the credibility of the president of the United States. That is not appropriate behavior.
And I don't think it will be very well received by the majority of the American people. It's totally inappropriate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: So do it at home, but not in front of the enemy and certainly not on enemy soil.
Terry, is that the consensus?
JEFFREY: Yes, I agree with Senator McCain exactly. I think any American has a right to challenge the policies of the president, especially a member of Congress.
I believe members of Congress have a constitutional obligation to vote yea or nay on the president's war resolution. If they are against it on the merits, vote against it. But it is an entirely different thing to travel to foreign soil, particularly a nation such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which is a dictatorship, after all, and question the integrity of the president of the United States.
That is beyond the pale. It is outrageous. No congressman should do it. No citizen should do it.
NEVILLE: Arianna?
HUFFINGTON: I agree that they have the right to criticize and they should criticize. And I actually happen to agree with them that we should not be invading Iraq.
But why do it while abroad, especially why do it while in Iraq? I think it undermines their case. The strongest case against invading Iraq is that it is a distraction from the war on terror. It's not about whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or not. Many countries have weapons of mass destruction. I think that's the position and it detracts really from that to be out in Baghdad attacking the president.
NEVILLE: Why do you think that? If you think that's the goal, then why is that the case, the distraction?
HUFFINGTON: Well, because they obviously feel strongly that we should not be invading Iraq. And I think they really forgot the protocol and what is appropriate.
NEVILLE: Let me clarify my question for you, Arianna. I think I heard you say that perhaps this whole idea of talk of war, possibly invading Iraq, is a distraction from the war on terrorism. Did you say that? And, if so...
HUFFINGTON: Yes, I did.
NEVILLE: ... why do you say that? HUFFINGTON: I say that because the war on terror is multifaceted. We face many threats, especially here in the homeland. And we need to concentrate on protecting the homeland and finding and punishing the people who perpetrated the assault on September 11.
That was not Saddam Hussein. So, when the president is asked, "Who is the greater threat, Saddam or Osama?" and he says they are indistinguishable, this is not only wrong; it is dangerous, because they are distinguishable. They represent different threats. And there's no question that the greater threat at the moment comes from al Qaeda and that al Qaeda is all over the world in many sleeper cells, including in this country. And this is our dominant enemy.
And to ignore that, just because we haven't caught Osama and just because we have so far failed to bring the perpetrators of September 11 to justice is simply to misinform the American people. I agree on that.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go right ahead.
BEINART: I think that really makes no sense whatsoever.
I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has shown that a war against Iraq would undermine the war on terrorism. In fact, the one country that is most explicitly opposed to war on Iraq, Germany, has responded precisely by increasing their support for the war on terrorism, helping us with this recent suspect in Pakistan, agreeing to leave the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.
I haven't heard a single country say, even though they do disagree with us on Iraq, that they would not support the war on al Qaeda, because the war on al Qaeda is in their own interests. It is threatening their governments, too. And as for the idea that we will be too militarily stretched, the war on terrorism does not, by and large, require a big military deployment.
(CROSSTALK)
HUFFINGTON: Let me quickly respond, because I think there are many...
NEVILLE: Quickly, because I want to get some audience response in here. Go ahead.
HUFFINGTON: There are many terrorism experts who believe that fighting the war on terror effectively requires us to be able to get information from any nation which are not our allies.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: But no one has said they won't give us that.
HUFFINGTON: Hold on a second. Mary Jo White, who actually prosecuted terrorists and knows what she is talking about, has said that, the more we allow the opposition to be strengthened and unified, the harder it is for us to conduct the war on terror.
BEINART: No foreign country has said that that I'm aware of.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Now I am going to ask for an e-mail, if you could pop up that for me, the e-mail. It's from Kassie in Oklahoma: "I would hope there is some sort of punishment for the congressmen that went over to the enemy and bad-mouthed our president. As far as I'm concerned, that is being a traitor."
And Jim from Michigan, what do you say?
JIM: It is kind of billed as a fact-finding mission, but I doubt that they can find out much in three days. I think it's just a show. I have questions about whether or not we should go into Iraq, but I also think it's absolutely important that we support our administration in this effort.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I want to go to the phones now to talk to Alia (ph).
Alia, where are you calling from?
CALLER: I'm calling from Massachusetts.
NEVILLE: OK, go ahead.
CALLER: I think it is absolutely essential that these congressmen be given the forum to talk and to express their views. It is essential to our democracy.
NEVILLE: OK, sir, thank you for your call.
I'm going to talk to Keith now from Miami.
KEITH: Hi.
I find it rather paradoxical that this is a democratic society and yet we want to restrain people from saying things that they feel. Had they said this in Europe, would it have been any less cantankerous than having said this in Iran?
NEVILLE: All right, who wants to respond to that quickly?
BEINART: It's not the same to say that in Europe as in Iraq, because you are saying it in a dictatorship. And one of the problems with going over there and doing that is that we really don't know what kind of restrictions these guys are under in Iraq. It's not a place where you can freely express your speech. So I think that's one of the problems here. JEFFREY: I would say it would be objectionable for a U.S. congressman to go to Europe or to any other foreign country and attack the integrity of the president of the United States.
It is even more onerous, by several degrees of magnitude, to go into the homeland of Saddam Hussein and allow yourself to be manipulated as a tool by a brutal dictator, which is in fact what Congressman McDermott did.
NEVILLE: OK, I have to take a break right now.
Up next: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer startles reporters today by saying any action to get rid of Saddam Hussein would be welcomed: a bullet, exile, whatever it takes. Those are a lot of options. And I am going to play that sound bite for you after the break. So you don't want to miss that.
Stay right here. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
It seems the White House would welcome any number of options for taking down Saddam Hussein. But some of the options hinted at today by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer were downright breathtaken -- taking. It has already taken my breath.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has not made any decisions about military action or what military option he might pursue. And so I think it's impossible to speculate. I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that.
QUESTION: You intend to advocate from that podium that some Iraqi person put a bullet in his head?
FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes.
QUESTION: So the answer is yes?
FLEISCHER: Thank you.
Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: So you shook your head when you heard those words. Why? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, once you start to overthrow people in that way, you are inviting it upon yourself, too. And I believe that we have to get Hussein out of here. And I believe the reason George is so -- I want to call it obsessed, because it has to be done, is, he realizes his father now should have done it in 1990.
But it's such a complicated issue. And once you start throwing over regimes, you are going to have the Shiites, the Sunnis. And I have been hearing about it for four years and I don't know what the repercussion would be if we overthrow him. What are we going to get in there now? Are we going to get a pan-Iraq, Iran? But when you start talking about that, it gets scary. I think he has to be taken out, but I wish it wouldn't be couched in that type of language.
NEVILLE: Well, Terry, how do you interpret Ari Fleischer's words?
JEFFREY: Well, first, let me say, St. Thomas Aquinas would tell you that tyrannicide is in fact moral. If some German had shot Hitler in 1935, I think that would have been a legitimate act. And I don't think it would be immoral for the Iraqis to liberate themselves from Saddam Hussein and, in the process, kill him.
I think, however, that reasonable people, in debating whether or not we ought to go to Iraq and remove him by military force are most concerned about the aftermath of that, the consequence of it for the United States? Is it going to breed more terrorism or limit terrorism? Is it going to stabilize the Middle East, destabilize the Middle East?
And I think, in coming to the right conclusion to that debate, the means by which we go about the process leading up to the conflict and the means by which we carry out that conflict are going to be telltale. So I'm not sure that Ari's comments were prudent.
NEVILLE: I want to go to Florida now, where Chris is standing by on the phone.
Chris, what do you say?
CALLER: Well, I definitely wouldn't be a proponent of someone assassinating another world leader. I think that we would be opening ourselves up for a similar attack. And we really don't have the apparatus to protect leaders in our own nation to such a degree.
But, at the same time, I would be concerned that Saddam certainly is a threat. I think that there is so much rhetoric going on back and forth within our own politicians that, quite honestly, I think everyone has kind of lost focus of the real danger here, which is: Would Saddam give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist organization that would threaten our own nation?
NEVILLE: Well, Peter, let me ask you, is this sort of rhetoric helpful or hurtful?
BEINART: I don't think it's that bad. You have to put it in context.
The United States is very much hoping that there will be -- people will rise up within Saddam's military, hopefully close to him. If they do, it would make our war effort much easier than it would otherwise. And I think the Bush administration has been, in a number of ways -- you heard it with Rumsfeld a few days ago -- trying to signal to those people: "Look, do that. Rise up. We won't hold you responsible if you do." And I think that's good military strategy.
NEVILLE: All right, here's a question, though. Can you trust Iraq to let the inspectors look at everything and anything in the search for weapons?
We're switching gears here. We're talking about Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspection team, says Iraq has agreed to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. Now, Blix has been meeting with Iraqi officials in Vienna for the past two days -- now, one thing still outstanding; access to the presidential palaces.
Also, the State Department now says the U.S. will do everything it can to prevent inspectors from going back into Iraq until the U.N. Security Council passes a new resolution giving the teams more authority to carry out their mission.
Arianna, what do you make of all of this? Because this whole idea of not going into the palaces, that is a biggie. Is it a deal- breaker? And what do you think is going to happen from this point on?
HUFFINGTON: Well, let me just say that I agree with the administration that we cannot trust Saddam Hussein. There is no question that he has been working on weapons of mass destruction. At what exact level he is with nuclear weapons, we don't know. But he's working on them.
But I want to return to my main point, which is, we have a war on terror to fight. And this war on terror is paramount. And I don't understand why, just because this president cannot handle complexity, the entire war on terror has been reduced down to Iraq.
Remember, when he gave his speech on the axis of evil, he had three countries: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Now we don't hear much about Iran. We hear nothing about North Korea. Yet North Korea actually does have nuclear weapons. And it seems as though he couldn't even handle three countries. And he had to return to this very comforting binary relationship between the United States and another evil empire, except now it happens to be Iraq. It is, to me, a completely wrong diagnosis.
BEINART: Can I respond to that?
NEVILLE: Go ahead. You've got 15 seconds.
BEINART: Yes, first of all, we're not ignoring the war on terrorism at all. We've actually just been making tremendous strides with those arrests in Pakistan. It's just nonsense to say that they're ignoring it. We're pursuing a different policy towards Iran and North Korea, because there's a better chance of political overthrow in Iran and because North Korea has not attacked its neighbors in something like 50 years, which Saddam has.
NEVILLE: Terry, 15 seconds. What do you think about the latest move on the Bush administration, the suggestion or request not to go back in until a resolution has been agreed upon?
JEFFREY: Well, look, I think the idea that weapons inspectors are going to thoroughly eliminate the threat of Saddam developing weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous.
And if people want to weigh that proposition, consider that we had anthrax attacks here in the United States last fall. The FBI hasn't discovered who did it. No one's been indicted. No one's been convicted. We know that Saddam Hussein has developed anthrax. Do we really seriously believe some U.N. guys running around that country are going to be able to find every last bit of anthrax he's stockpiled? I don't believe it.
NEVILLE: And that is the last word. We have to take another break right now.
And up next: A topless candidate is heating up the Massachusetts governor's race. We're going to take a look right after this.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Democratic spokeswoman Sue Harvey wants to know what Mitt Romney is running for, prom king or governor? Tasseled hair, a little sweat and a bare chest, they are all part of a political ad. Some say it is aimed at women voters in Massachusetts. "People Magazine" named Romney one of the 50 most beautiful people in the world, calling him "arrestingly handsome with a blinding smile." But he is trailing his female opponent in the Massachusetts governor's race, and I have someone from Massachusetts here.
Anne (ph), will you stand up for me? You are a female. So would this kind of ad with a bare chest and a smile and all this stuff work for you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it doesn't. Really it's because he doesn't distinguish himself on any issues. And so I think he's just running on his looks. Also, he's running against women, which I think is why he's behind in the polls.
NEVILLE: Why do you say he's running against women?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because there is a very unpopular acting governor in Massachusetts, Jane Swift, and he's comparing his democratic female component to Jane Swift, thereby running against women, because she's from his own party.
NEVILLE: I understand. Arianna, would it work for you?
HUFFINGTON: No, I think it is kind of insulting to think that women would vote based on the candidate's bare chest. I also think it's kind of a little humorless for the democratic spokeswoman to be attacking him for just basically being athletic and handsome. And I don't think that's what the race is going to hinge on.
They actually are running a very interesting race because they both are trying to get the populous position. And you have Mitt Romney, a very successful businessman, claiming that he's running for the little guy, and we have her attacking him for the different corporate directorships he's held. So that's kind of the interesting populous message of this campaign.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's hear from another lady. She's not from Massachusetts, but from California. Barbara (ph), you say what?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well you know we don't really trust a lot of our politicians, but this guy is really baring his chest. So maybe there is something trustworthy here.
NEVILLE: So you are saying he's baring it all, finally?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Finally, yes.
NEVILLE: All right, Barbara (ph). We're going to go to the phones now where -- who's standing by? Carol (ph) is standing by in Oklahoma. Carol (ph), go ahead.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you. Great show. I just want to that a guy baring his chest is not going to get my vote unless he talks about the issues. And that these days it seems like only people who are smart are voting, believe it or not, and we're happy to vote for people who actually discuss the issues and have some ethics. But he's kind of cute, so who knows?
NEVILLE: So bottom line, I mean if you could, would you vote for him because you just said he's kind of cute?
CALLER: He's kind of cute, but unless he starts talking about the issues, it doesn't count. He could be the ugliest person. You know?
NEVILLE: Terry (ph), I see you over there giggling. What are you thinking?
JEFFREY: Well, I'll tell you what's funny. The truth is Mitt Romney is trying to outbid his opponent to the left on social issues. He's pro abortion, he's in favor of domestic partnership benefits. He's in favor of government subsidized daycare.
There is no way a Republican can ever outbid a liberal Democrat on those issues. And ironically, Jesse Helms, when he ran for re- election in North Carolina in 1996, did not have a gender gap. He actually tied on the female vote.
But Bill Weld, the former Governor of Massachusetts, lost big to the female vote. And Christie Todd Whitman, who was up in Massachusetts campaigning for Romney, she lost the female vote big. I do not think a Republican can ever beat a Democrat by trying to outmaneuver them to the left on social issues.
NEVILLE: OK.
BEINART: Yes, but this is Massachusetts, which is an extremely liberal state. And Romney, as your first questioner implied, has a particular problem with female voters because he and the Republican Party basically ousted the female Republican governor so he could run instead. The truth is, while Jesse Helms might have been able to run off further to the right and do fine with women in North Carolina, there is not a lot of evidence it will work in Massachusetts.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's get Shannon's (ph) take.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I would just like to say that the voters will decide, and Minnesota elected a wrestler, so if that's what the voters want, then maybe they can take a lesson from Minnesota and see if it works out for them.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much.
Now I have an e-mail coming in I want to share with everybody. It is from David in Massachusetts. "Give me a break. Mitt Romney is in a bathing suit playing around with his kids. It's not like he's posing for the camera, like a model." So I'm thinking David doesn't have a problem with it, is that what you are thinking here, Arianna?
HUFFINGTON: Yes, and I kind of agree with David. I mean the pictures were really tasteful and fun and OK. And he wanted to appear (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with his beautiful blond wife, and that's not really what's going to determine the election. And there are so many issues there.
In fact, one of the biggest issues in Massachusetts is the whole clean elections issue. And Mitt Romney has been making some positive noises. I think his democratic opponent should challenge him on that, because if they really want to clean up the system, there is nothing better than public financing of campaigns.
NEVILLE: So, Peter, does this hurt Romney's credibility?
BEINART: No, it doesn't hurt Romney's credibility. I think Arianna is right, it's not a big deal. But the basic issue is Romney is too conservative particularly on some of the social and cultural issues for most people in Massachusetts. He's trying to move to the center, but he needs to do that substantively with issues rather than this kind of pabulum (ph) about how much he loves his family. It really doesn't matter.
NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to take a break right now. And up next, would a war with Iraq effect the economy? Lots of people already feeling the pinch. We're going to get some expert advice from our next guests.
So you want to hear this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Will a war with Iraq put the economy in the tank or speed up our recovery from recession? Here to talk about the war and the economy is Allen Wastler, Managing Editor of the CNN Money Web site. Welcome, Allen.
ALLEN WASTLER, MANAGING EDITOR, MONEY.COM: How are you doing, Arthel?
NEVILLE: I'm good. Well, everybody is not so good, though. I mean I know the Dow is up over 300 points, but we're still talking about two nosedives on Wall Street Friday and Monday. Have we hit rock bottom yet?.
WASTLER: Have we hit rock bottom? We're stutter stepping at the right point and you are seeing a lot of bounce back. The bull (ph) argument is, yeah, you know we're sort of making a bottom and going on here. But their argument is, nah, because you never know what kind of surprise is going to pop up.
Now today's (ph) rally, Iraq is saying, yes, we'll go along with the UN inspections; everybody is comfortable about that. Still, a lot of uncertainty in the market, and markets hate uncertainty. So whenever you see any news coming across the TV set, keep that in mind, then look at your Dow price and figure, OK, that explains it.
NEVILLE: Yes, it's up 346 points right now. OK, so there is talk that a war with Iraq would cost about $9 billion a month. I've read figures that go up as high as $200 billion in overall costs. We're talking about troop deployment, $9 to $13 billion; bringing troops home, $5 to $7 billion; cost of combat, $6 to $9 billion per month; post war peacekeeping $1 to $4 billion a month. That is a lot of money. Can we afford that?
WASTLER: Quite a lot of money. Luckily, the government has a pretty good credit card right now. So it can still put out some, although the bond market is bubbling a little bit.
The big thing for people to worry about in the immediate term is oil, OK? Oil touches everything. It touches all the businesses in the market one way or another. It touches all our lives one way or another.
So when you are looking at a Mid East conflict, any uncertainty in the price of oil is going to affect our economy. And it's real simple. You can look at all the graphs and formulas and permutations. It's like this: price of oil up, GDP down, OK? That's the equation right there.
So when you are talking about, you know, starting some tension with Iraq, that's the first thing you look at, the price of oil. Now we all see gasoline prices go up and all these companies saying, oh, we got to start raising prices because the price of oil, our energy costs are going up. You know, we're starting to do it.
So consumers start reigning in spending, OK? The economy has been going on two things this very beleaguered year: housing and the consumer. If the consumer pulls in, the economy is going to get weaker, and that is not good for anybody.
Now finally, is the psychological effect. In the past couple months, as the Bush administration has been revving up talk about problems with Iraq and the UN has been waffling one way or another and people have been talking about well, should we do it, should we not do it, that psychology prices into the market and it gets lower and lower and lower. And so part of the reason you are seeing the market so low today, even with the pop that we're getting - that's probably why we're getting the pop - it's psychology, OK? You're pricing in a war.
NEVILLE: OK. I have a call from California, where Cliff (ph), I think, has a question for you. Go ahead, Cliff (ph).
CALLER: Yes. I don't believe there is any way we can go into a war with Iraq and not hurt the economy. I think just the war that we're having now in Afghanistan has hurt it enough, along with the presidency.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Cliff (ph).
WASTLER: OK, Cliff (ph), that's -- and you know what? The market agrees with you right now, that it's already priced in. And you are absolutely right. As more and more of the war rhetoric heats up, the market has been going down and down and down, pricing it in, like I said.
NEVILLE: OK. I have another gentleman here, Derrick (ph) from Arizona.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. You know I think the war in Iraq, when it does happen, the price of oil will have an initial spike, which will raise the prices and cause the economy to suffer in the short term. I think once things settle down - and the war will be short -- the economy will come back to normal because OPEC will keep prices down over the long term.
NEVILLE: Why are you so sure that we will go to war?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you look at what happened in 1991, the same thing happened. Price of oil increased in the first couple of months when the war started. Once the war calmed down, things calmed down as well.
NEVILLE: Allen? WASTLER: Well, that's a good point. And that is actually the best-case scenario right there, that if it does happen, it is quick, it's over fairly quickly. And a lot of people do draw the comparison to the 1991 event. However, there are some things changed right now, not the least of which is Israel and the problems going on there right now.
Remember, OPEC is -- you know, it's a coalition of people. And generally, depending on policies throughout the Middle East and the Israel situation and the Iraq situation, might affect whether or not OPEC really wants to dish out oil or what kind of production level that keeps going.
On the other hand, Venezuela and Russia have jumped in. So that sort of changes the OPEC equation a little bit.
NEVILLE: You mentioned credit cards earlier. You know there are a lot of people out there who are forced to live off of credit cards right now because of the state of the economy. Is there any hope for this getting better? What do you say to those people?
WASTLER: For the interest rate situation?
NEVILLE: No. I mean mot just the interest rate. I mean people are forced to live off their credit card in many cases.
WASTLER: That's right, and going on and on. The average family actually has about $8,400 in credit card debt, which is pretty high. And defaults are rising out there as well. So what we need is a good - basically, we need to see a good jobs report tomorrow. A good jobs report, that will be a sign that maybe things are turning around.
NEVILLE: But I just read that that report is not so good at the moment.
WASTLER: Well, it got a little bit better. Actually, Challenger and Gray (ph) just came out with their own survey showing that as far as layoff announcements go, the growth of layoffs - it's actually retreating. There are less companies doing layoffs right now than there was last month.
So there is hope that maybe things are turning around. For the families that are struggling along as it is, it is a bad, bad situation. What we've got to hope for is that it gets to the point where companies can actually start the buying process, filling the inventory pipeline, because when they get that demand, get that production, they can hire back the workers.
Right now, they're nervous about the economy, nervous of that consumer that we were talking about isn't going to start buying again, and so they're holding off on either hiring workers and buying widgets to make the products.
NEVILLE: And a lot of people have exhausted their unemployment benefits on top of that -- David from California. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know I get the feeling that oil has a lot to do with whether or not we go to war. And I just want to get a straight answer from the administration, you know, how much that affects our decisions? I mean is it about the weapons of mass destruction? Is it about the UN resolution, or is it about oil?
And I feel a little cheated and I'm not -- it's not because I'm from California or because I'm a liberal or whatever.
NEVILLE: So, Allen, will we get a straight answer?
WASTLER: If you ever get a straight answer from anyone in government, you just let me know, OK? I'll tell you right now it doesn't seem to be so much about the supply of oil as much as it does seem to be about politics, Mid East policy, and also we've got our own election year follies going on right now. And that enters into the equation as well.
NEVILLE: OK. Cal (ph) is calling in from New Jersey. Go ahead, Cal (ph).
CALLER: Yes. I think the conversation around whether we can afford to have this war or not is absolutely repugnant. If there is a compelling reason for us to go to war with Iraq, which I happen to not believe that there is, we should be doing it regardless of it.
I think the whole thing is a ploy that Bush is doing to get everybody's mind off the economy and on to a war. And I think it's absolutely terrible for the American people to sit around and talk about can we afford this war or can we not afford this war. If there's a reason to do it, we should do it, and I don't think there's a reason for us to do it. I think...
NEVILLE: Thank you very much for your call, sir.
Listen, we have to take a break right now. And then we're going to bring our panel back. And I want to know what you want to hear the president talk about, the war or the economy? We'll be right back. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking with Allen Wastler from CNN Money.com; along with Terry Jeffrey, the Editor of "Human Events;" Syndicated Columnist Arianna Huffington -- hello; and Peter Beinart, Editor of "The New Republic."
OK, Arianna. Going with you on this one. Do you think people care more about war or the economy? And what do you think they want to hear from the president?
HUFFINGTON: Well, people care about both. Obviously, people care about their lives, about whether they are able to feed their families. And a lot of people are hurting very badly in this country at the moment. Bankrupts are at a record level; we have high unemployment. Many people are coming off welfare without the prospect of any jobs.
But, of course, if the president could make a compelling case that this country was in imminent threat and that we had to invade Iraq, I think the public would be behind him. It's just that that case has not been made. And therefore, although I agree with the viewe who said that if that was a compelling case, then the cost of war would not be an issue, it is not a compelling case, and therefore it is an issue.
NEVILLE: Terry.
JEFFREY: Well I think the people clearly care about national security more than the economy right now, which is why the Democrats haven't been getting traction trying to argue that the economy is all that bad. The truth is interest rates are down, inflation is down, unemployment hasn't gone up that much.
The economy is still growing, although it's growing sluggishly. I concede there's a lot of uncertainty in the market because of the situation in Iraq. But I think in the wake of September 11, people understand that our security and our liberty are directly at threat here in the United States of America. And they're most interested in making sure the federal government does its number one job, which is keeping us free and safe.
NEVILLE: Peter.
BEINART: Yes, I basically agree with that. I think if people really were focused on the economy much more than the war on Iraq you wouldn't have seen the problems the democratic candidates have been having in the last couple of weeks. And I totally disagree with Arianna. I think that the case has been made.
The case is not that we know exactly when Saddam is going to have a nuclear weapon. It's that he'll have a nuclear weapon in years and not decades, and that once we find out he has one, it's too late. I think it's that simple.
HUFFINGTON: But Peter, even Senator Bob Graham, who is the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and therefore has a lot more information than you or I at our fingertips, has said that the case has not been made. The connection between al Qaeda and Saddam has not been made.
The fact that the administration claims we are in imminent danger from Saddam has not been made. And many people are saying that. So for you to assert it as a fact is simply based on no foundation.
BEINART: Well, let's see how Bob Graham votes on the resolution. I think Bob Graham is probably going to vote to give the president authorization for force. And there are a lot of people on the intelligence committee who, you're right, have more information, not about the connection with al Qaeda. I agree, that is a total red herring. That's not the issue.
The issue is Saddam's capacity to get nuclear weapons. And it's true, we don't exactly know what he has or when he'll get them. But that's precisely the point. We can't afford to wait and take that gamble.
NEVILLE: Let's see what Helmet (ph) thinks?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we have to be very careful. And coming from Canada - and I think America is the only superpower left And they should play by the rules and go through United Nations, put as much pressure on them as possible. But not go to war and lose young American lives. That's my opinion.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And Allen, I have to take a break right now. But when we come back, I want to ask you what happened to our economy and who's to blame. Stick around for the answer as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. Allen Wastler, what happened to our economy? Who's to blame? We went from surpluses to deficits. What's going on?
WASTLER: What's wrong? It's corporate America; they're to blame, OK? During the bubble period, the heady bull market, everybody (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and they're like working ahead and buying and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). A bunch of pigs there just eating up and eating up.
And then, all of a sudden, the demands started drifting off. And the supply start going down. Your inventory pipeline started draining out.
OK. Now that happens, right? The economy goes up and down cycles, except we found out so many people were lying about it and lying about their numbers. And now we're seeing the problem with that.
So right now, while demand is in a natural sort of down cycle, we can't get it going again because nobody trusts the numbers. Nobody trusts the corporations; people don't want to invest in what they can't trust. So that's why we're at where we're at.
NEVILLE: I think Doug (ph) from California might agree with you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think that corporate America is certainly partly to blame. But also just the human condition here in America, where we're all pursuing money, caused many people to take risks and spend money they wouldn't normally do in an Internet stock market that eventually made sense that it would back down and go there. So how do you blame a complex system like the economy on one thing?
WASTLER: Excellent insight.
NEVILLE: OK. Final thoughts from Terry?
JEFFREY: Well listen, I think people are doing a smart thing today by investing in the U.S. stock market. Clearly today, there are stocks in U.S. companies that are undervalued, just like there were stocks a few years ago that are overvalued. I think it's a good time to get into the market right now when there is good prices.
WASTLER: The trick is just picking the right ones and the wrong ones, right Terry?
JEFFREY: Sure.
NEVILLE: Yes, just that simple, right?
HUFFINGTON: I don't know about Terry, but I'm definitely completely out of the market, and I urge the viewers to do the same. We have no idea what's going to happen, and to urge especially small investors to be in the market at this moment is completely irresponsible.
And also for us -- who is to blame? I think the political establishment is also to blame.
NEVILLE: And that is the final answer, Arianna Huffington, Terry Jeffrey, Peter Beinart and Allen Wastler, thank you very much for joining us here today. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow 3:00 PM Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Election Races Heat Up Around the Country>
