|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Free-For-All Friday for November 22, 2002
Aired November 22, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone.
(APPLAUSE)
LIN: What a great audience we have today.
Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Carol Lin. I'm in for Arthel Neville.
And it is "Free-For-All Friday," just in case you didn't notice. We're going to meet our panel in just a minute, but we're going to talk with Tom Daschle taking on talk radio and, in particular, Rush Limbaugh. We'll bring you up to date on their latest comments.
And then stay tuned, because we want to know if you are fed up with what some people are calling obscenity on network television.
And what does President Bush have in common with Eminem. Either one could be "TIME" magazine's person of the year. And I want to know who you think deserves the honor.
All right, so here goes. Does talk radio incite violence against public officials? Senator Tom Daschle's attack on Rush Limbaugh and, as he calls it, Rush Limbaugh's wanna-bes really has talk shows buzzing. Daschle compares the rhetoric of talk radio to religious fundamentalists in other countries and said it caused threats against his family to increase.
So what is behind this attack? Both men appeared on CNN's INSIDE POLITICS yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: Sometimes the rhetoric turns to verbal abuse. And sometimes verbal abuse turns to physical abuse. And sometimes people who get so emotionally invested with what they're hearing want to react.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: We all get threats in public life, I think. What did he say threats over -- being called a destructionist? I think this is just whining. In fact, my understanding is that he's backing off of that a little bit or trying to water that down, and then saying something about the fact that I should still realize that my words have consequences. Well, I know that. We won. Of course my words have consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP) LIN: Well, let's meet our guests and let them talk about.
Meredith Bagby is a board member of Third Millennium and the author of "We've Got Issues: The Get Real, No BS, Guilt Free Guide to What Really Matters." Floyd Brown is the executive director of the Young America's Foundation and director of the Reagan Ranch in California. And Eric Liu was a domestic policy adviser to President Clinton. And Tom Adkins is executive publisher of the Web site CommonConservative.com. And he joins us in our studio today.
TOM ADKINS, EXECUTIVE PUBLISHER, COMMONCONSERVATIVE.COM: It's great to be here.
LIN: Good to see you, Tom.
And good to see all of our panel today.
Meredith, let me start with you. Here is a man, Tom Daschle, who is saying that he's getting death threats against his family. He has a right to make these public statements and take on Rush Limbaugh, doesn't he?
MEREDITH BAGBY, AUTHOR, "WE'VE GOT ISSUES": Well, sure he has a right. He has an absolute right. And, in a way, he's become a fantastic publicist for Rush Limbaugh. He hasn't gotten this much press since the Republican revolution.
But I also think it's a little bit of a nonstory and the press loves to talk about the press. I think we probably need to move past this. We all know politics is a mean business. And people have to get used to these kind of slanders.
LIN: Well, Tom, what do you think? Do you think it's strategy? Is this just politics or are these real threats?
ADKINS: If I'm a Democrat, I take Tom Daschle outside and spank him like a bad cocker spaniel, because he really screwed up. He convinced all the Democrats...
LIN: I think that's a misdemeanor, if not a felony.
(LAUGHTER)
ADKINS: I'm inciting violence against Tom Daschle.
I think that Tom Daschle made a critical mistake. He decided to rally all the Democrats in the Senate to not pass a homeland security bill. And that's why they lost the Senate. It was a great foil for conservatives. And now he's whining. When you lose this bad and you put yourself in a box like that -- because if he defined himself worse, people wouldn't vote for him.
If Tom Daschle decided to push for less definition and more just generic, they weren't going to vote for him anyway. So he was in a box. He couldn't go one way or the other. And now that he's lost, he's just whining. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh directly, but that's what he's doing. He's whining. It's just a dumb move on his part.
(CROSSTALK)
LIN: All right, whose voice is that that I'm hearing out there?
FLOYD BROWN, YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION: This is Floyd Brown.
LIN: Hey, Floyd. What do you think?
BROWN: I think what Daschle is trying to do is rehabilitate himself.
You see, he's is the big loser right now. And he knows that, with his hard-core Democratic leftist constituency that runs the Democratic Party, he can rehabilitate himself by attacking someone like Limbaugh. This is a man who desperately wants to be president. And so, right now, with this, he's appealing to those people who would be delegates at a national convention, a National Democratic Convention.
ERIC LIU, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: Floyd, I don't think that's true.
I think the reality is that, if he wants to reestablish himself as a major leader of a party, he needs to be telling a story about the party and about where the Democrats should be headed. I think this was just personal frustration on his part. We do have to understand that, in public life, yes, you have to suffer the slings and arrows. But, at the end of the day, too, he's a human being.
And if he and his family are getting threats, at a certain point, that boils over. So it's understandable, even if it's not particularly smart.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Limbaugh is not the reason he's getting threats. In fact, I doubt he has any threats. This is clearly an attempt by him to rehabilitate himself
(CROSSTALK)
LIN: Floyd, are you saying that Tom Daschle is lying for political gain, that he's using his family?
BROWN: It wouldn't be the first time he's done that.
LIN: Oh.
BROWN: It really is.
LIN: Name one instance.
Meredith, Eric, you guys got to -- you have to step up to the plate here. LIU: I think it's just silly on its face to think that Tom Daschle would want to kind of rebuild his fortunes or his party's fortunes by picking on Rush Limbaugh. As Meredith said earlier, Rush Limbaugh has been off the radar screen. Rush Limbaugh is a nonfactor.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Bill Clinton did this all the time. If you remember back, he's just falling the Clinton plan. I mean, Clinton attacked Limbaugh, did it very effectively after Oklahoma City. And it helped rehabilitate him with the far left.
You see, the far left controls the Democratic Party. That's the big problem they have. There is no center to the Democratic Party. And so, in fact, what you have going on here is him talking to that constituency that will control the nomination process.
LIN: But, Meredith and Eric, isn't it true that the Democrats are saying that they need to get an edge; they need to get some edginess in the same way that the Republicans have been able to capture the public's imagination on issues like homeland security and terrorism?
LIU: Well, that's absolutely right, but the way you get that edge is not to attack over-the-hill radio talk show hosts. The way you get an edge is actually to tell a story about where the Democratic Party is going to take this country on issues like the economy and issues like health care.
ADKINS: What story are you going to tell? Are you going to tell a story that: "OK, from now on, we're going to stand for even more radical feminism. We're going to stand for even more welfare benefits. We're going to have higher taxes"? What are you going to stand for?
(CROSSTALK)
ADKINS: If the Democrats go in the opposite direction, they become conservative.
BAGBY: I think there are lots of stories that the Democrats can tell.
And I would agree with Eric. What they need to do is get a central message. The reason the Republicans have done so well is, they have a central message. It's about keeping the war effort going well and also keeping the economy up. Well, the Democrats need to get a simple message, a message that everyone understands. It's not about attacking Rush Limbaugh or about attacking anyone.
It's about going back to the basic core of the Democratic Party and trying to reinvigorate those values that people will come to vote for them.
(CROSSTALK)
LIN: Let me get a couple of e-mails in right now.
Let's hear from the audience. This is from G.E. in New York: "How easily Daschle forgets freedom of speech when he's on the receiving end. As long as it's not threatening, what is his problem?"
But it is threatening. He's saying his own personal safety and his family are at stake.
(CROSSTALK)
LIN: He compares it to religious fundamentalism.
ADKINS: That's the fallback for every Democrat in trouble. "Oh, it's the religious fundamentalists that are doing it." They never acknowledge the fact that they're wrong.
For the past 40 years, they tried to convince us to be socialists. And about 20 years ago, we got wise to it and we started moving away from it persistently. You can't run on the old Democrat platform anymore, because people in America are too smart to vote for it.
LIN: All right, Timothy on the phone from New York.
CALLER: Yes.
I would like to say that I don't really know if it's Republican or Democrat, but the talk show radio guys, they have to kind of take responsibility for what they're putting out there. I mean, I don't really think they're held accountable, whether Daschle is whining or not. But it's not just about Daschle. It's about all of them. They're talking and sometimes they're getting pretty radical.
LIN: All right.
BROWN: Well, they are accountable every day. And, in fact, there's this huge marketplace of ideas. People can tune in and tune out.
Limbaugh is the 800-pound gorilla in radio because all 20 million people want to tune into him. He has a huge audience, because people love him and love to hear what his commentary is. Rush Limbaugh is an excellent spokesman for conservative ideas. And conservatives love to listen to him.
On the way to the studio today, I listened to him. And I'll tell you, there's a lot of people that really take exception to what Daschle said, because Limbaugh has never advocated any kind of violence. And this is a low blow. Daschle should really apologize.
(BELL RINGING)
LIN: That's round one. Let's end on a comment from Paul from Georgia.
PAUL: What Rush Limbaugh -- as much as I detest Rush Limbaugh and what he has to say, Tom Daschle's a little bit reminiscent of what Ross Perot was saying during the presidential election. This is way out far to the right. It's ridiculous.
LIN: All right, on that note, we have got much more coming up.
Up next: Could this CBS fashion show be the straw that broke the camel's back? What is obscene? And is the FCC doing enough to keep the airwaves clean?
Call or e-mail now. We want to hear from you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LIN (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE:
MICHAEL COPPS, FCC: The statute says whoever utters any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined.
LIN: How much is too much? Is network television becoming an obscenity?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LIN: Hey, welcome back.
As you just saw, a lot of people watched the Victoria's Secret fashion show this week on CBS. But the show didn't come close to its competition, "The Bachelor" or "West Wing."
Did you guys watch "The Bachelor"?
(APPLAUSE)
LIN: All right. Aaron looks pretty good, don't you think?
Apparently, the show prompted so many complaints to the Federal Communications Commission, the agency's e-mail overloaded and crashed. But one of the commissioners told CNN that the Victoria's Secret show is just a symptom of the creeping obscenity in network programming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COPPS: But the point is not this specific show. The point is what's going on in the big picture. It's the overall race to the bottom. And it's time to do something about it. I used to think there was a bottom. Now I'm beginning to wonder if there really is a bottom to this race. And we have to ask ourselves: Why this is happening?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LIN: A bottom to this race. I don't think he was making a pun. I think he was really just talking about sinking to a new low.
All right, CBS has been quick to defend the show, saying: "We are confident that the Victoria's Secret special was completely within acceptable boundaries for broadcast television."
OK, we've got Rob on the telephone from Georgia.
Rob, what do you think? Did you watch the show?
CALLER: Yes, I watched it. Hello?
(BABY CRYING)
LIN: Obviously, Rob, you have a baby.
CALLER: Yes. That's my son. I'm sorry.
LIN: Did that meet your definition of obscenity?
CALLER: No, come on. If you were insulted by it, you should just don't tune into it. Turn it off.
LIN: There you go. Vote with the remote control.
What do you guys think?
(APPLAUSE)
LIN: That's fair. That's fair. Let's talk about, what is the definition of obscenity? What we were learning in our research today is that it really kind of depends on what societal standards are willing to tolerate.
So, Meredith, does this meet a standard of obscenity? Is this something that the FCC can crack down on? Because the penalty is a fine or two years in prison.
BAGBY: I think it's really hard, because, in some ways, you're trying to hit a moving target. I mean, society's standards are always changing on what is obscene.
It used to be obscene to have a couple sleeping in one bed. And so Lucy and Desi had set twin beds. So I think it's very, very difficult. And I think it's very dangerous. And, for me, I'd rather err on the side of the First Amendment and not on censoring. And, in terms of Victoria's Secret, I think the FCC also agreed that it wasn't considered obscene.
And, lastly, I think we should focus on violence and not sexual content so much. I should think that should be our first plan of attack.
LIN: All right, well, Tom, did you think that it was obscene? It just looked like a fashion show to me, a few things jumping around here and there.
ADKINS: As a hot-blooded American male, I see nothing wrong with hot babes prancing around in underwear. That's OK with me.
LIN: But how does that add to the public discourse? What value is there in that?
(CROSSTALK)
BAGBY: That's the male perspective.
ADKINS: I can see where you have to be careful. You don't want to cross this line. If tomorrow, we decided to put on a show that showed somebody killing puppy dogs, it would get ratings. It would be sick and said, but it would get ratings. So, there is a line that you have to be careful not to cross.
LIN: Well, we did run that al Qaeda tape, as you might recall.
BROWN: This is not just about ratings. This is about public airwaves and the right of the government to control those airwaves. Frankly, I think that that was an obscene show, an indecent show.
LIN: What did you find obscene about it, Floyd?
BROWN: I don't think it should have been on the public airwaves.
Carol, it's easy in America to get pornography. All you have to do is surf onto the Internet. You can watch live sex on the video cams. It's just about everywhere. Cable TV pushes the envelope all the time. That's fine. Those are their wires. People are choosing to buy those cable channels.
But, with broadcast television, it's different. These are the public airwaves. This broadcasts into everybody's home. And I think that the government has a right to set standards for that broadcast property.
BAGBY: And, truly, everyone can turn off their television.
LIU: I would agree that -- the public airwaves argument I actually agree with, to an extent. I think Floyd is right. These are public airwaves. We ought to be thinking in terms of public responsibility. But I think the answer, then, isn't that we want the FCC or any governmental entity kind of deciding for us, in a top-down kind of way, where you draw that line between decent and indecent.
What I'd much rather have us do is return to an emphasis that says, hey, if these are public airwaves, then the broadcast companies have a public responsibility to make sure they add content and programming on there that has some broader benefit, that isn't just pure schlocky entertainment. And that was supposed to be what television was supposed to be about in the beginning.
ADKINS: Well, wait a second. What's wrong with pure schlocky entertainment?
(LAUGHTER) LIU: There's nothing wrong with it in isolation. But if you're going to operate a broadcast network over the public airwaves, then you ought to be providing something that's also in the public interests and of public benefit. That's what was the idea behind the FCC and behind opening up the airwaves 70 years ago.
(CROSSTALK)
ADKINS: You're scaring me now. You're trying to make the government call on what's schlocky, what's not schlocky. If we took out all the schlocky television programming, we would be left with half a channel. Am I right or what? Because that's what people want.
(LAUGHTER)
LIN: Let's hear from Ed from Texas.
Ed from Texas, what do you have to say about this?
CALLER: You know, what I was saying is that the Victoria's Secret, the networks are competing with the cable viewer. And so they're going to put things on that are a little risque. You've got 3,000 stations now. Hit the buttons.
And, as far as programming and First Amendment, you're going to choose when you could have First Amendment rights, when you can't have First Amendment rights? It's freedom of choice. I don't want someone dictating my morals to me, because it's not on TV. There's a lot more profane things that they show on television. I'd rather them check the news. I'd rather not see our newscasts and have 50 minutes of it be murders.
(BELL RINGING)
LIN: All right, there's the bell. Yes, duke it out. Man.
All right, up next: The U.S. nets a big fish in the al Qaeda network. So, will he cooperate? And how far should the United States be able to go to make him talk?
And don't forget our "Question of the Day": Who do you think should be "TIME" magazine's person of the year? Call or e-mail your choice.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LIN: Welcome back.
The world is just learning more about the capture earlier this month of the man authorities say is al Qaeda's chief of operations in the Persian Gulf. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is believed to be the mastermind behind the bombing of the USS Cole back in 1998. He is a native of Saudi Arabia. The government won't say where he's being held. And U.S. officials say he's given up a lot of information. How are they getting that information?
Well, we're going to find out. We're going to be talking to some of our panelists. And the question really is, how far should these interrogators be able to go in order to elicit information?
Tom, what do you think?
ADKINS: Well, if you want to get the information out of him, send him to Rosie O'Donnell. She'll get it out of him.
(LAUGHTER)
LIN: She's busy covering her own tracks.
ADKINS: I got to tell you, I'm heartless, I would take somebody from al Qaeda -- in America, we have our rights. And we can't -- you're always trading off the rights of one person vs. the rights of another. I have the right to go anywhere I want, but I can't go into your house, kick your front door open, and starting eating the food out of your refrigerator, because my right to go wherever I want bumps up against your right to own property.
So here we have a situation where you have the rights of someone to not get beaten or interrogated too much vs. the national security. So, where do you cross the line? Me, I make the judgment of that. I go ahead and do it.
LIN: But what makes you think that torturing someone is going to get you the truth?
ADKINS: Because it works. It does.
LIN: Doesn't it just make them tell you what they think you want to know?
ADKINS: I've been married 20 years. Yes. No, No, I'm just teasing. My wife's great. My wife never tortures me, I swear.
Hi, honey. I love you.
LIN: All right.
Eric, how does the United States, though, claim the moral high ground? Even though the United States likely are not the interrogators who might be using torture tactics, that is against our laws. But nothing prevents them from sending to a third-party country such as Jordan, for example, or Israel or another country which may have different standards in terms of their interrogations.
LIU: Well, look, I think that, as long as he's within our borders, our standards, our moral and our legal standards, ought to prevail. But the fact of the matter is, this is a rough game. And I think there are things that you can do, short of outright physical torture, that can be quite psychologically trying and abusive and draining that will get information out of this guy.
I think, at the same time, though, you've got to draw that line. If we start going and saying, hey, torture is totally acceptable and the circumstances demand it, all we've done, basically -- there's two dimensions to it. There's a moral dimension that you're talking about, which is, we've just become the very kinds of people that we're trying to hunt.
But the second thing is just a practical thing. We lose credibility with people in the Muslim world, who we want to have behind us. And we lose the ability to really have moral persuasion in other venues.
LIN: But how much are American lives worth? I mean, if you know that he knows when exactly the next attack is -- and, already, we've gotten messages from al Qaeda saying that there will be a spectacular attack, likely somewhere in Washington or New York, if the United States goes ahead and attacks Iraq.
This man may very well know when and where that attack is going to take place. What's it worth to you if your son, daughter, mother, brother is standing in the Capitol one day and a plane or something else happens to crash in or explode?
BROWN: Yes, I can't believe that Eric actually said that we'd lose credibility with the Muslim world by torturing someone. I mean, they've refined the art of torture. How are we going to lose credibility with them?
ADKINS: Well, I think he's right.
BROWN: Frankly, I've heard a lot of liberals -- maybe they're not on this show today -- who have been whining about excessive force.
I listened to one on the radio this morning. And, frankly, these people are going to have blood on their hands if we don't torture someone and don't find out their plans and innocent Americans die. I mean, this is a very vicious group. And I approve of anything President Bush wants to do in order to ferret out this information and protect our country and our citizenry.
(CROSSTALK)
BAGBY: I think that that's right. But the dangerous thing is becoming the enemy. And I think the reason we're such a great nation is, we have certain standards, certain morals, the way we treat people.
I think we'll never really know what happens behind the doors to these terrorists. But I think what's a little bit frightening to me is, some have reported that the Supreme Court will treat the whole process with a higher degree of deference, which means that they're going to look the other way, to a certain extent, with how we get the information.
(BELL RINGING)
LIN: Let's end on a question or a comment from our audience here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's OK to use torture or whatever means. He crossed the line before we did.
LIN: Things are changing in America today.
All right, well, we've heard the bell.
I wonder if Eminem ever thought he'd be in competition with President Bush and Martha Stewart? But when it comes to "TIME" magazine's person of the year, anything can happen.
You pick your favorite up next. So call or e-mail us right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
LIN: We have such a great audience today. Thank you so much. Welcome back.
It is that time of year when speculation over who's going to be "TIME" magazine's person of the year actually starts bubbling up to the surface. "TIME" released its list of possibles this week, and some of them may surprise you. OK, there's President George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Eminem, Saddam Hussein, Martha Stewart, Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.
OK. Which brings me to today's question of the day. Who should be "TIME's " person of the year? And that's what we're here to talk about today.
All right, Osama bin Laden -- you know, the standard this year is someone who has affected the news for better or ill. All right? Seems to me, panel, that Osama bin Laden has pretty much shaped the dialogue of the past year. Certainly here in the United States and on the international stage.
What do you think, Eric?
LIU: No, I don't think so. I actually think Osama bin Laden -- I mean, he set things in motion, but the man who, for better or for worse has dominated every discussion, politics, culture, media, both here and around the world is George Bush. I mean there's no question.
LIN: But George Bush wouldn't be dominating that culture if it weren't for Osama bin Laden, right?.
LIU: Well, that's true, but bin Laden you can talk about being man of the year last year. But this whole year that we've been in right now, in the changed world we've been living in, it's all been dominated by what this president and his administration have wanted to do, whether it's on privacy issues here at home or whether it's on how we attack Iraq.
I mean here's a guy who, in the middle of the summer, changed the terms of the entire discussion about the debate, much to the frustration of many Democrats, where it wasn't about anything other than Iraq. It wasn't about economy, it wasn't about the war on terror, it was just about Saddam Hussein. He single-handedly shifted the terms of the debate. He got the United Nations to kind of talk in the terms that he wanted to. He has dominated...
ADKINS: I've got to disagree with you here, Eric. It's ironic we have a Democrat saying that George Bush would be the man of the year. And conservatives saying that Osama bin Laden should be. And here's the reason why.
Osama bin Laden single-handedly did set those things in motion, and I'm happy because -- in a sad way I'm happy because it gave conservatives a chance to prove what we've been saying all along, we are better leaders and George Bush proved it. We're no longer -- we are no longer nation run by the kids, now we're now run by the adults.
So we have the adults in charge. And I'm glad that's given George Bush and his administration a chance to prove what it's like to have adults in charge. However...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Osama bin Laden is the guy who made that happen.
ADKINS: ... that's why, whether you like it or not, when you polled this audience and see who they wanted, the best reaction you got, negative or positive, was for Osama bin Laden. And that's exactly the point.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This gang of adults hasn't done such a good job of actually running our economy.
ADKINS: Oh, please, spare me, spare me.
LIN: Let's hear from Jerry (ph) from New York on the telephone. Jerry (ph) from New York on the telephone -- or, I'm sorry, Massachusetts.
JERRY: Yes, Massachusetts. No, I think it has to be Osama bin Laden. And in the quotes, dead or alive, G. W. Bush, and every year until he's caught. Bye.
BAGBY: I think whether you like it or not...
LIN: Go ahead, Meredith.
BAGBY: I think whether you like it or not, man of the year exults the person who receives it. And I'm not sure at this time in our history we want to reward Osama bin Laden. (APPLAUSE)
BAGBY: And I know "TIME" magazine will say, well, look, we picked Hitler once, we picked Khomeini once, but I'm not sure those were good choices. And I don't think we ought to reward evil with fame.
(APPLAUSE)
LIN: All right. Let's hear from Charlotte (ph) from Kansas in our audience.
CHARLOTTE: I wouldn't vote for any of them. I would go for Powell. I think he's given some sense to all of this, to involve the world and not just the U.S.
(APPLAUSE)
LIN: But you've got to think about what's the catalyst for what it is that we're talking about today, Tom.
ADKINS: Pardon me?
LIN: The catalyst for what we're talking about today.
ADKINS: Yes. And I think the guy's a disgusting cretin and I hope he dies very soon. But he's the guy who made all of this happen. He's the guy who single-handedly changed the face of the earth for better or for worse.
LIN: Floyd, you've been awfully quiet.
BROWN: Yes, I have been. And I basically agree with the panelists that think it should be George Bush. But let me just say a word for Condoleezza Rice, because she is an extraordinary woman who has just done some extraordinary things this year.
I mean, she's overseeing a lot of this effort on the war on terrorism. She's been a leader in foreign policy. This is a woman of extraordinary talent and, at the same time, the left has been sniping at her. Some in the civil rights movement have sniped at her. And I think she's just an awesome woman. And she would deserve the recognition also.
ADKINS: Frankly, I think you're going to see Condoleezza Rice be our presidential nominee in 2008. I do.
LIN: No reaction here.
ADKINS: Nobody here knew who Bill Clinton was in 1989.
LIN: See, but I'm not sure I know who Condoleezza Rice is yet. Because what I hear and see of her is parroting the administration's message on the weekend talk shows.
ADKINS: That's her job. She's supposed to do that. (CROSSTALK)
BROWN: She's setting the message. She's the adviser. She's the one who's actually formulating the policy. This is an incredibly smart woman. And basically, George Bush's policy is policy that she's developing.
LIN: And you know she's a nut over football. Did you know -- she said no matter what job she had in life, that she would turn it down or leave it if she could be the commissioner of the NFL.
ADKINS: And she's an incredible piano player.
LIN: Oh, there you go. All right. We've got a call from Florida. Jenny (ph)?
JENNY: Hi there.
LIN: Jenny (ph) from Florida.
JENNY: Yes. I would like to nominate Al Gore. He received the most votes of anyone in the nation. He connects more with the middle class people and does not represent the rich.
BROWN: Oh please. I mean this is incredible. I mean he went down to Florida this year and he said, why don't you defeat Jeb Bush based on what he did to me. And he was rejected.
LIN: All right. A quick comment from our audience.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want somebody who's not infamous. I want somebody who's famous and inspirational. And I'd vote for Condoleezza Rice.
LIN: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Honorable mention to the truck driver who caught the sniper.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm taking Eminem. He's the better of all choices.
LIN: He's got a better record contract, that's for sure. All right. We heard the bell.
Up next, religious rioting in Nigeria over the Miss World beauty pageant. And it all started when a newspaper suggested Mohammed would have picked a wife from among the contestants. We are going to explain when we come back. One hundred people dead.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LIN: All right. This story has a lot of people scratching their heads. Get this, at least 100 people were killed and more than 500 injured during riots in the northern Nigeria city of Kaduna. At the heart of the violence was an article in a local paper supporting the upcoming Miss World pageant, which will be held in Nigeria's capital next month.
Many Muslims are opposed to the pageant and became enraged when the article suggested that, if the prophet Mohammed were alive, he'd consider marrying one of the contestants. By the way, it was a Christian newspaper. So, you know, we've got this dynamic going where there was this huge Muslim response. I mean it was overwhelming what happened.
Peter were setting each other on fire in the streets. Shooting each other.
ADKINS: And it's worse today. I think yesterday 100 people were killed and today it's even worse. The rioting is continuing and spreading.
I mean there's a place they take morality and religion seriously. I mean, Tom Daschle and Rush Limbaugh, that's hilarious. That's for real. I mean you don't see that kind of thing happening in the streets of Washington or the streets of Atlanta.
BROWN: Here you have the religion of peace at work again.
BAGBY: Well, I think the issue is very complex. I don't think the commissioners of Miss World were very intelligent. I mean, after all, we're in the middle of Ramadan. You bring the Miss World pageant to Nigeria, which has the largest Muslim population in sub-Saharan Africa. And then...
ADKINS: It's not intelligent, I don't think.
BAGBY: Yes, it's not the intelligent thing. And something else, you've got the issue of Amena Lewal (ph), who is the woman who is sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery. That's also going on in Nigeria and they're rioting around that at as well.
LIN: Right. Five women from five different countries are boycotting because women are being stoned to death because they were found to be pregnant outside of wedlock. One woman you're talking about right there.
BAGBY: Yes.
LIN: So how can it be justified that this pageant can go forward. I mean given that the pageant is supposed to symbolize international unity, something that...
BROWN: So what do you, just give into these thugs? You can't give into terrorists and into thugs like this and into people rioting. You've got to just go on, and the pageant was scheduled to be here. And if they want to have the pageant there, that's fine. I mean, for us to be counteractive because of a bunch of thugs out on the streets, I -- that sends the wrong message. LIU: Let's not kid ourselves. This pageant isn't about international unity, this pageant is about marketing women and marketing the idea that, you know -- that there's kind of a beauty standard that women have to meet all over the world.
BROWN: Yes, so?
LIU: So I think the idea is it's all about kind of treating women as objects for entertainment purposes.
BROWN: Oh, please.
LIU: Now I think what's going on here with these riots kind of says something about the Muslim world and about the wider world that we live in right now, which is that they, you know, for better or worse, this pageant represents the modern world, it represents kind of western culture and modern life. And it's something that -- you know, it's an easy thing for hard-core diehard Muslims to grab on to and say, we don't want to be dragged into this modern world. We don't want to be contaminated by forces like this.
And I think when we're thinking about the wider war on terror and where America's placed in the world, we just have to understand the mindset here. It's not just about religion, it's about people being dragged into the modern era.
LIN: Tom, quickly the last world, you were rolling the eyes.
ADKINS: No one here objects? It's OK for us to have Victoria's Secret on TV, but, oh my gosh, how can we dare treat them as objects.? Hello?
LIN: And don't forget about the scholarship money, right, that you get when you win. That's what they always tell me.
All right, up next, time for our blinding flash round. Among other things, we're going to be asking the panel's reaction to making porn flicks on college campuses. And the Canadian official who allegedly called President Bush a moron and forgot she said that. OK. See what happens to her.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LIN: All right, it's time for our fast-paced flash round.
First up, Indiana University may sue over a pornographic movie that was shot on campus. Administrators are accusing the film crew of exploiting students. The film company says all students in the movie signed releases. Is this exploitation or is the university overreacting. Let's start with you, Meredith, real fast.
BAGBY: I think they're definitely exploiting the students. Especially -- hopefully they're not minors, but absolutely this is a terrible, terrible story. LIN: Floyd.
BROWN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) always exploitation.
LIN: That's it? Eric.
LIU: Well, these students I think in general signed up for -- you know, they knew what they were signing up for. They thought they'd be kind of on an R-rated or X-rated version of the "The Real World, and they thought that was exciting.
LIN: Tom.
ADKINS: Just one more example of the dopey liberals who run your colleges.
LIN: Why?
ADKINS: The liberals -- I'm sorry, there's a lot of colleges here today...
LIN: Sorry, we don't have enough time. Sorry, Tom.
OK. Up next, a group of Republican congressmen is urging Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America to drop its policy allowing gays and lesbians to be mentors. They note adult men would never be matched with teenage girls. Valid point or discrimination, Meredith?
BAGBY: I think it's discrimination. I think sexuality doesn't really come into play when you're mentoring a child. At least it shouldn't.
LIN: Floyd?
BROWN: This is clearly an example of where they'll be manipulating the program in order to recruit young people into their lifestyle. You see people aren't naturally homosexual, so what they have to do is recruit them into the life lifestyle. They're going to use these groups, mentor these young boys., and in the end I bet a number of them convert to the lifestyle. It's a terrible, terrible tragedy and I agree with the congressmen.
LIN: Is it a lifestyle, Eric?
LIU: No. I think this is clearly discrimination. And it's just absurd the idea that people who happen to be gay or lesbian can't be good leaders or can't be good mentors or can't be good role models for other people.
LIN: One in 10 it Americas, I hear. Yes, Tom?
ADKINS: My two best friends are gay and they tell me that you're crazy for having men and young boys together like that. They think it's nuts, because they know that they do recruit.
LIN: I want to meet your friends. ADKINS: They'll tell you.
LIN: OK. Last story, a spokeswoman for Canada's prime minister offered to resign after she was quoted as calling the president, President Bush, a moron while at the NATO conference in Prague. Prime Minister Chretien refused her resignation, saying she was having a private conversation and doesn't recall using that specific word. Should he have accepted it instead -- Meredith.
BAGBY: I think it's going to take a lot to repair relations between Canada and the U.S. over this. Hopefully it will blow over, but I think it makes Canada look really bad.
LIN: Floyd.
BROWN: He should have accepted the resignation. She should be gone and I'm offended.
LIN: Eric.
LIU: It's refreshing to hear a little honesty in diplomatic talk these days.
LIN: Wait a second, you're talking about the man you want to be man of the year on "TIME" magazine.
LIU: Well President Reagan showed us that you can be a moron and still be a great leader.
LIN: Tom.
ADKINS: Madame, vous etes un hoser (ph).
LIN: Oh dear. I wonder if it's not moron but, moron, which must mean something else.
OK. That's it for the flash round. Our thanks to Meredith Bagby, Floyd Brown, Eric Liu and Tom Adkins for joining us.
Up next, we're going to see what Charles Barkley had to do to pay off a bet. Let's just say kissing was involved.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LIN: All right. You saw it right here. We're going to update a story we talked about this week. Charles Barkley keeps his bets. He puckered up, there you saw it, for Kenny Smith, after losing a bet that the Houston Rockets', Yao Ming (ph) couldn't score 20 points in a game.
And now for the question of the day. How do you even move on from that moment? All right, question of the day, who would you pick for "TIME's" person of the year? We've got an e-mail for you coming up here. There you go. Darryl (ph) in Oregon says, "If bin Laden is chosen, I will publicly burn the magazine and cancel my subscription." Oh, no! Real quick.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I say Jimmy Carter.
LIN: Jimmy Carter. All right. Good choice. Thank you so much for joining us.
I'm Carol Lin for Arthel Neville. Arthel is back on Monday. And I'm going to hosting "Iraq: the Weapons Hunt" Sunday at 10:00 AM. So please join me for our special over the weekend. Judy Woodruff up next with "INSIDE POLITICS."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
