|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Free-For-All Friday for December 20, 2002
Aired December 20, 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: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Trent Lott steps down as majority leader. Who wanted him out? We'll get the scoop.
Also, the U.S. says that Iraq is lying about weapons of mass destruction. Is war inevitable?
Then: why is a Catholic children's home saying bah, humbug to California Governor Gray Davis?
And be careful which Web sites you visit. Big Brother could be watching. It's "Free-For-All Friday." TALKBACK LIVE begins right now.
Hello, everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday."
We're going to jump right in, starting with today's surprise announcement that Republican Senate leader Trent Lott is giving up his leadership role.
In a written statement, Lott says: "In the interest of pursuing the best possible agenda for the future of our country, I will not seek to remain as majority leader of the United States Senate for the 108th Congress, effective January 6, 2003. To all those who offered me their friendship, support and prayers, I will be eternally grateful. I will continue to serve the people of Mississippi in the United States Senate."
And joining us now: CNN "INSIDE POLITICS" anchor Judy Woodruff, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, and CNN congressional correspondent Jon Karl, who broke the story here on CNN this morning.
Good to see all of you.
And, Jonathan, well, it looks Bill Frist is the man of the hour, right?
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It sure does.
We've been doing some vote counting here. And we can tell you that Bill Frist has 26 senators on the public record saying that they will support him for majority leader. And with 51 senator, that means he's got the majority. He's got enough to make it a lock.
We also know that there are three other senators that will soon be coming out with their public commitments, bringing the public and private total to 29 senators saying that they will support Bill Frist. He's got more than he needs to win. The election won't actually be held until January 6, when the Republicans come together.
And, earlier today, we caught up with Senator Frist and with one of his first allies there, John Warner. The powerful Armed Services chairman came out last night, right after Frist said he would test the waters, and said that he was the man for the job. Warner clearly got the momentum going here for Senator Bill Frist. But it looks like he's got the votes.
Now, the only other thing that we're waiting on is Senator Rick Santorum, a member of the leadership team, somebody who has been calling colleagues about a possible challenge to Frist. We imagine now, with the votes all lined up for Frist, that we'll be hearing from Santorum as well. It's unclear whether or not he would still go through with the challenge knowing that there are enough public commitments out there for the person he would be running against.
NEVILLE: And, Jon, why Frist?
KARL: Why Frist? He is an extremely popular figure among many quarters of the Republican Party. He has got a very conservative voting record. But he's somebody who appeals to moderates.
He is somebody -- he was a heart surgeon before he came to the U.S. Senate and is somebody that they've turned to on health care issues. Health care issues are going to be, in many ways, the dominant issues of the 108th Congress. At least that's the way it looks like it will be.
So, he's somebody who has a lot of support. And, of course, the White House made no secret of this throughout this process that they like Senator Bill Frist, although there were a lot of sensitivities here in the last couple of days. The White House pulled back in terms of actually twisting arms and getting people lined up for Frist.
Frist's own team let the White House know that they would like to do this on their own and not be seen as the White House candidate, but as the candidate of the Republicans in the Senate. That's who he needs to win. And that's who he's got.
NEVILLE: And, Judy, getting back to Lott, what would you say was the straw that broke the camel's back?
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you know, it's been a cascade, Arthel.
It started, I think, when the president -- it was just a week ago yesterday that President Bush himself made a statement in which he just condemned what Trent Lott had said, made no statement of support. Since then, the White House statements have been lukewarm at best. Yes, they've said Trent Lott should not resign, that the president doesn't believe Trent Lott should resign.
But all the signals coming out of the White House have been, they would be happier if there were a change. So, that's played a key role. We've had the president's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, making a statement. That's almost unprecedented -- the secretary of state, Colin Powell, who very seldom comments on domestic questions, making a statement.
And then, in the last few days, one senator after another conspicuous by their lack of support. And I think you can't emphasize too much how quickly this has happened. It was just 8:30 last evening that Trent Lott put out a statement saying: I will be the majority leader in the next Congress.
Well, here we are, what is it, 18 hours later, and he's not only out, but we know who his replacement is going to be.
NEVILLE: So, then, Judy, why did people like Powell speak out?
WOODRUFF: It's hard for us to know what's in the private discussions that go on inside the Bush administration.
But, as Jon Karl just said, the White House was never particularly thrilled with Trent Lott's performance. He was an ally. But, once he made that statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party suggesting that the country would be better off if we had had a segregationist president, that was really what set all this in motion.
And from then on, it offered the Bush administration a chance to highlight what they want to highlight, which is: We think the Republican Party has got to be seen on the side of better race relations. President Bush wants to reach out to African-American voters. It upsets him that he got just such a tiny percentage of the black vote in the presidential election in 2000.
And part of his priorities going into this next election, a big priority for him is to expand his support among minorities, especially among African-Americans. And this allows him to do that.
NEVILLE: And then, so, Bill, what exactly does the president have to do or the Republican Party? What do they have to do to go ahead and reach out and embrace the so-called minority vote?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the first thing is what the president just did, which was repudiate any taint of racism, any statement that could be construed as endorsement of any racist policies, present or past.
The president clearly did that. And that was a very important measure, because, in the past, Republican leader after Republican leader has gotten in trouble when they have appeared to traffic with racially tainted causes. George Bush himself spoke at Bob Jones University in the South Carolina primary campaign. He was criticized because that university had racially discriminatory policies.
You remember the controversy over the Willie Horton ads that were run by supporters of his father in 1988. And his father's campaign did not repudiate those ads very quickly. Ronald Reagan himself went to the south and talked about states rights. Whenever that happens, the problem of racism emerges with Republican candidates. So, this President Bush has clearly drawn a line and said: unacceptable in this party.
NEVILLE: So, then, Jon, do you think that Lott's resignation and everything that preceded it will precipitate more dialogue regarding race relations on the Hill?
KARL: Well, absolutely.
You already have an opening salvo in that question from Senator Ted Kennedy, who today has sent a letter, a two-page letter to the president, saying that he wants to see a whole agenda here pursued in the Senate, in the Congress to give the Republican Party an opportunity to prove that they have truly been enlightened, in terms -- enlightened, from a Kennedy point of view, on the issue of race relations, talking about pursuing an agenda in terms of affirmative action, in terms of unemployment insurance and other issues, which, from Senator Kennedy and from the perspective of Democrats, are important to the African-American community.
So, clearly, Democrats are going to be pressuring the Republicans to come out and prove that they are the party that will reach out to minorities and to prove it by endorsing essentially Democratic proposals in many of those areas.
NEVILLE: Right. So, now, does this mean, Jon, that Bush is going to be pushed off of his agenda?
KARL: Well, clearly, there will be an effort from the Democrats to try to push him off the agenda. The president has proven that he can be very focused. Now that they've got a new leader, a new face, Bill Frist, we'll see how much that pressure will matter.
But one thing to watch: There's a very significant case now before the Supreme Court on the affirmative action policies of the University of Michigan. The White House has yet not weighed in on that. Now people like Senator Kennedy and some moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter are asking the president to weigh in on behalf of the University of Michigan in favor of their racial preferences policies, in favor of their affirmative action policy.
That is something many conservatives, many Republicans, other Republicans do not want the president to do. But he's going to be under intense pressure now. And there's going to be a lot of scrutiny, a lot more scrutiny on how the White House comes down on that issue and many others.
NEVILLE: Interesting.
And, Judy, getting back to Lott again, of course, we've been hearing talk of a soft landing. He has four more years left in this term. What will he do now and how can he be effective?
WOODRUFF: Well, the reporting that we've done suggests that, if Trent Lott had made this announcement earlier, I think the chances for him, if he had stepped down from the leadership role, the chances for him to come up with another prominent position, if you will, in the Senate would have been greater.
But, at this point, what else is there for him to do? He will be a member of the Senate. He will certainly be a senator with longevity, with some seniority. But the committee chairmanships, those are coveted positions. And there was some talk early on that they would try to entice him to take a committee chairmanship. But how many others who were in line for those chairmanships would like to give them up?
It's not entirely clear at this point, Arthel. Perhaps something, they'll come up with some position. But, at this point, he's going to be another member of what is clearly a distinguished group of 100 senators.
NEVILLE: And, Bill, before we let you guys go, I want to talk to you about this. After all, we are talking about D.C. So, I ask you, does Bill Frist have any political skeletons in his closet?
SCHNEIDER: Everybody's looking.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: I'm sure.
SCHNEIDER: Immediately, you are getting all kinds of rumors. And I'm not going to report anything. But people are looking at his background to see if there's any taint of racism, if there's any background.
He's a Southern Republican senator. He's white. Any Southern white, whether it's Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, any Southern white, you look in the closet to see if there are racist skeletons back there, because many of them grew up with a segregationist past and lived in that shameful system. But the question is, did they endorse it? Did they fight it? How did they behave?
It's almost like, "What did you do during the Vietnam War?" a question every candidate of a certain generation has to face. I can't report anything right now. But I can tell you that that's the next big issue that is being investigated.
NEVILLE: OK, Jon, I understand you have some important words from Bill Frist right now.
KARL: Our producer, Karla Crosswhite, has just handed me a new statement from Senator Frist .
And it reads: "I know that Trent's decision to step aside as majority leader was a difficult one for his family and for him personally. He has always put concerns for his family, country and colleagues first and demonstrated that today. We all know that we have a unique opportunity to accomplish great things for America during the next few months. As ever, Trent made the selfless decision."
And then he says: "Trent has been an effective leader and a close friend. I am saddened for him, for Tricia, and for their family. I look forward to continuing to work with him." Tricia, of course, is Mrs. Trent Lott, Trent Lott's wife.
So there's some words, a lot of words. A lot of Senator Lott's colleagues who have been harshly critical of him since he made those comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party are now putting out statements thanking him for making what they are calling a courageous decision and a decision that was in the interest not only of their party, but also of the Senate and of the country. At least, that's the Republican view.
NEVILLE: OK, Jon, Judy, and, Bill, thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.
And, by the way, we want to let everyone know that Judy will talk to Virginia Republican Senator John Warner about the Lott affair today on "INSIDE POLITICS" immediately following TALKBACK LIVE. So, keep it locked right here.
All right, now our "Question of the Day": Is the Trent Lott controversy about race or politics? Give me a call: 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
Then later: A Catholic children's home won't let Governor Gray Davis play Santa unless he repents. What's his offense? Find out.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: the government's new plan to find out what you're doing on the Internet. Will Big Brother be playing I-spy on your computer?
Also, is the U.S. on a relentless path to war with Iraq? We'll see if there are any clues in President Bush's speech today.
Stick around. There's a whole lot more to talk about on "Free- For-All Friday."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about Trent Lott stepping down as Senate Republican leader.
We're going to meet our panel right now. Jim Bohannan is a syndicated radio talk show host out of Washington, D.C. Julianne Malveaux is an economist, author, and political commentator. Lou Pate is a radio talk show host on Seattle station KIRO. And Gregory Allen Howard is a playwright and screenwriter. His credits include the movies "Remember the Titans" and "Ali."
Jim, you're up first today. Were you surprised that Lott stepped down?
JIM BOHANNAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: When this first came out, somebody asked me how long he was going to last. I said, well, he's 61. I'd say three more terms. But it kept building and building and building.
So, no, for the past four or five days, I think it was pretty clear that, even if he chose to stay and fight, he would lose.
NEVILLE: Anybody on the panel?
Julianne, were you surprised?
JULIANNE MALVEAUX, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Not at all.
I think that everyone, the Democrats and the Republicans, have made Trent Lott the lightning rod. This is not at all about Trent Lott. Republicans have been speaking in racial code speak a very long time. And many, many Democrats have been allowing it.
I'm really heartened by the last segment, Arthel, where we talked about -- or you talked Ted Kennedy sending a letter to the White House. But the fact is that Trent Lott was destined to go, but let's not make this the end of the conversation about racial economic gaps in this country.
NEVILLE: Right. So, are you saying, Julianne, that Trent Lott is not the lone ranger?
MALVEAUX: He certainly is not the only one who just poked his head out from under a sheet.
LOU PATE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, Arthel, the Democrats aren't exactly pure.
But I think this whole episode makes them both look bad, both parties, the Democrats first for all the bellyaching and embellishment in the beginning, and then the Republicans for not
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Stop right there, Lou. I have to say this.
Now, you know, if in fact this were the other way around, then, sure enough, the Republicans would have jumped all over it. That's just the way it goes.
PATE: Well, no, no, I agree. But that's why I said it makes both parties look bad. I said for the Democrats in the beginning for the bellyaching, but then the Republicans for not backing their guy.
We speak about tolerance in this country and then we are intolerant here. And I think it should be about the country, what's good for the people, and not what's good for one particular politician or one particular party's agenda. And maybe that's why there's not much getting done in Washington these days.
(CROSSTALK)
MALVEAUX: Oh, please. This bellyaching comment is way off the charts. Democrats were not bellyaching. This man sat there and said: I wish I was in the land of cotton in 1948.
Where's the tolerance for people of color? Where's the tolerance for people who have been discriminated against? Democrats were not bellyaching. They were pointing out what this man said. And what he said, as you know -- and he apologized 99 times, so even he knows -- was wrong.
PATE: And it is wrong. I'm not condoning what he said. But in reference to the original statement, you cannot deny that that has been dissected to the point of absurd.
MALVEAUX: No, it was absurd for him to ever make that statement.
PATE: It was absurd.
(CROSSTALK)
MALVEAUX: Why don't people raise it? People are raising it. The fact is that he said it before. Maybe that's the problem. But this time, people jumped on it. It's not bellyaching. People are finally on point about the fact that segregation is, was, and will forever be wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
PATE: It was absurd. And he should have known better.
MALVEAUX: There is no but, my dear. There is no but.
PATE: But to the point that you know that it was -- it was taken out of context. It was a bunch of old-boy back-slapping. That's all it was.
MALVEAUX: Well, when your old-boy back-slapping includes my enslavement, get off the reservation. Get out of the leadership.
BOHANNAN: There's one thing we ought to keep in mind about this whole thing, Arthel.
And that is that there has been a tendency to treat Trent Lott as though he's out there by himself and everybody else in Congress is pristine and pure. The last major civil rights act to come up before the Congress was the 1990 Civil Rights Act. Of 42 Republican senators, 35 voted against it.
MALVEAUX: Good point, Jim. And the fact is that that's what I said. The Republicans aren't clean. Neither are the Democrats.
So, words like bellyaching really are -- that's ridiculous. People finally got it. And thank goodness. But Trent Lott is just the tip of the iceberg. He's not the only problem.
NEVILLE: Let me get Gregory in there.
Gregory, you say the Republicans have been uncloaked. Why do you say that?
GREGORY ALLEN HOWARD, SCREENWRITER: The Republicans have been uncloaked.
Trent Lott is merely a scapegoat for a policy that basically has been in effect in the Southern Republican Party for 40 years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed by a Southern president, in effect, started the Republican Party. They have been running on race for 40 years, using various code words. And all Trent Lott did was say, as President Clinton pointed out, words that they have been saying on the back roads for the past 40 years.
NEVILLE: All right, let's see what Cecily (ph) has to say here before we go to break.
Do you think the resignation -- what do you think about the resignation?
CECILY: Well, I honestly think he probably should have stepped down from the Senate entirely. I don't think that, in this day and age, someone who purports to represent all of Americans should be allowed to be able to continue in the Senate, when he has publicly espoused his views not once, but twice.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much for standing up and speaking out.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: And the bell, that is the bell. The bell has rung, sir. It's time for another break.
And later: What's behind the government's plan to track your every move on the Internet?
Details and the debate are still ahead. So, don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Hey, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome back.
Trent Lott resigns as Senate Republican leader. That's what we're talking about right now.
Lou Pate, you say that it wasn't right for Trent Lott to resign. Why do you say that?
PATE: No, I didn't say it wasn't right. I just said that it looked bad for both parties. I think that his resignation was inevitable. And I think it's actually bad for the Democrats that he did, because he would have been almost a puppet to them, because he painted himself into a corner.
HOWARD: I think it's very important to point out that the Republicans are the ones that took his head off, not the Democrats.
PATE: And I agree. I made that very clear. Phase one was the Democrats and phase two made the Republicans look bad for not backing their guy.
MALVEAUX: The phase one was not at all the Democrats.
And, in fact, if you saw the tape of his what you called old-boy back-slapping, there was a collective sigh of disgust from the people who were present at the Trent Lott (sic) birthday party. People did not believe he said it. The Republicans were the ones who shot the first arrow.
Conservative columnist Robert George was one of the first to go, in "The New York Post," to talk about this. I think the good news here is that many in our nation are at least horrified by segregationist sentiments, no matter how old. The bad news is that Trent Lott is not the only one that's expressing such segregationist sentiments.
But get your parties straight, Lou. It's not the Democrats who went off with his head. It's the Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Yes, but you know what? I'm going to say this here, that this is not just about Democrats and Republicans. As you said, this is about Americans. And people need to get together, because there is an impending war that's a bigger issue here.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely.
PATE: I just want to make the one point, though.
This function was a notch above a celebrity roast. They had a Marilyn Monroe look-alike singing happy birthday, AKA John Kennedy. It wasn't exactly a serious function. A gasp? Surely you jest. Come on.
(CROSSTALK)
BOHANNAN: No. 1, he said this before on another occasion in almost exactly the same words. And, No. 2, precisely what problems could Trent Lott have been talking about? The only, only rationale for the Strom Thurmond candidacy in 1948 was segregation. That was the only rationale.
MALVEAUX: Jim, you're right.
That was the only plank on that Dixiecrat platform. He was talking code speak about black folks. And we all know it. And then, when he turned out and went on BET, Ed Gordon asked him directly what were the problems. He talked about communism, defense and crime.
(CROSSTALK)
PATE: By then, he was panicking. But I want to make it clear.
(CROSSTALK)
MALVEAUX: Well, he should have been panicking as soon as he opened his mouth and put his big old foot in it.
PATE: I really want to make it clear. I don't condone what he said and what it's been turned into. But he only said it to make an old man feel good. After all, they were honoring the career of Strom Thurmond.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Julianne, hang on.
Rewind the tape. Lou, what did you say? You said that he was making Strom Thurmond feel good by saying that?
(LAUGHTER)
PATE: I think he just was patting an old man on the back, trying to make him feel good.
NEVILLE: Lou, there is a comment, but I'm going to actually edit myself and go to Beverly here in the audience, and ask you, what do you think about the Lott resignation?
BEVERLY: What I think is that, I think Trent Lott is like an old dog and you can't teach him new tricks. And he should step down. And how many times can you beat a dead horse? Let him go.
NEVILLE: OK.
PATE: Arthel, I have to say, you guys are painting me as someone who is supporting Trent Lott. I'm not supporting what he said. But here we were, they were celebrating the career of Strom Thurmond. And that was just part of it.
(BELL RINGING)
MALVEAUX: Lou, you made that point three times. You're wrong.
NEVILLE: All right, Lou, he has the final word there.
OK, that's not the only big news the's making the country sit up and take notice. President Bush could be laying the groundwork for invading Iraq. His comments made less than an hour again seem to be setting the stage. We'll listen to them right after the break.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: Is war with Iraq inevitable? Just before TALKBACK LIVE went on the air today, President Bush said the 12,000-word Iraqi arms document is not encouraging. During a conference on Middle East peace, he was asked if the US and Iraq are on a path to war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The world spoke clearly that we expect Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. Yesterday's document was not encouraging. We expected him to show that he would disarm and, as the secretary of state said, it's a long way from there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. So here's what we know: the US says Iraq lied in its reports about its weapons of mass destruction, a material breach of the disarmament resolution and a clear prerequisite for any action. And early next month, an additional 50,000 troops will join those already in the Gulf region. And Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix says he needs more information on possible Iraqi weapons sites from US and British intelligence sources.
All right, Lou, I'll start with you on this segment. Is the White House setting the table for war?
PATE: The White House is setting the table for war, yes. It's inevitable, but I think they're rushing everybody to the table for dinner. I believe that Iraq has these weapons of mass destruction. It's just a matter of when we find them, where we find them. But I do think that the administration is rushing it.
Patience is a virtue and they should practice some patience because, as I said, the turkey is in the oven. It will cook, and they just have to wait for it to be complete. Quit rushing things.
NEVILLE: Well now, Julianne, if in fact the US administration is going ahead and setting the table for war, how is the American appetite for war?
MALVEAUX: Well, I think the Americans don't have that holiday appetite. I was laughing, because I was enjoying Lou's analogies about the turkey being in the oven. I'm not even sure the turkey should be in the oven just yet.
We need to hear from Hans Blix and what he needs to know. If Mr. Bush has information that the rest of us don't have, he needs to share it with the UN weapons inspector. The fact is that, when you ask Americans about going to war, initially, about two-thirds say yes. But when you start talking about body bags and casualties, the table quickly turns. We can't look at war in abstraction. It will cost us between $100 billion and $1.6 trillion dollars, not to mention loss of life. And so I think, while Mr. Bush is rushing, he wants to serve dinner, if you want to use a loose analogy. Everybody else is saying just a sec.
NEVILLE: Hey Jim, on your radio show, what are your callers saying about possible war? Are they for it or against it?
BOHANNAN: We're having a pretty good split. My guess would be we're about two to one in favor of some kind of military action. But the problem we have here is that, no matter how many inspectors you have in a country the size of the state of California, which has had 11 years since the Gulf War to hide things, we cannot trust the verification of any number of inspectors.
The fact is that, in the 21st century with the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we simply cannot allow certain regimes to continue to exist. That's harsh, but it's reality. And pretending that this problem is going to go away is to invite something a lot worse than September 11.
NEVILLE: OK. So Gregory, is the fact that -- or the possibility that Iraq is a threat to the US and other nations enough reason to go to war?
HOWARD: Well, there has to be some pretext for war. I think North Korea is a more immediate threat, but we seem to be going down this road towards Iraq, somewhat Iraq obsessed at this point. And now we've committed men and material.
But there has to be a pretext, and he has to be patient. Because if he is precipitous, then China will attack Taiwan because they say they feel threatened, then India will attack Pakistan because they feel threatened. There has to be a pretext for war. So he needs to continue down this road of patience.
MALVEAUX: Arthel, can I ask Jim something?
NEVILLE: I have an e-mail coming in -- go ahead.
MALVEAUX: Jim, when you're talking to your radio listeners, do their opinions change when you start talking about casualties? Because that's what I've been seeing in polling data. How does the conversation change when you talk about bringing back, let's say 5,000 American casualties?
BOHANNAN: Whatever. I haven't really tossed out various figures to get their reaction. I mean, inherent in any conflict is the possibility of some kind of casualties. And if Saddam Hussein has any sense at all, he will probably withdraw to a few key cities, give up 85 percent of the country in the first week, and urban fighting will go produce more casualties than the Gulf War did.
Now I'm sure as casualties increase, then public support will erode. But if it erodes too much, then you will have simply proven that Osama bin Laden is right, that we are paper tigers. That's why we have a military.
MALVEAUX: Well Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are not the same person, though. I think this is what the president is trying to confuse.
BOHANNAN: No, but Saddam Hussein has also indicated by his actions that he feels that this country is a paper tiger. That the first time we get our nose bloodied we back off. And that's why we're in this problem to begin with.
NEVILLE: Well then Julianne, who is the bigger threat, Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein?
MALVEAUX: Well, see, I think that that's a -- I don't think that that's a question at all. We're so big; we don't get our nose bloodied. That's the thing. We're the world's 700-pound gorilla. We're the ones who can set the tone for peace, for patience, for the UN process.
So we're not supposed to be sitting around mud wrestling with either Saddam Hussein, frankly, or Osama bin Laden. But when we say that the war on terrorism was our number one threat, that's where our focus needs to be. We still haven't found Osama bin Laden.
BOHANNAN: We don't have to find him. That presumes if we find -- look, we didn't find Hitler either and we didn't lose World War II. Finding Osama bin Laden is icing on a cake, nothing more.
PATE: Respectfully, I say there are 3,025 families from September 11 who have more than a bloody nose, and they're reentering the holidays yet again without their loved ones.
NEVILLE: I have an e-mail coming in right now I want to share with everybody. Coming in from Walter in California, "All we know about the evidence against Iraq is what our government tells us. If the people are to back a war, we need to see this evidence." And to that, Julianne Malveaux, you say what?
MALVEAUX: I say that he's absolutely right. I mean, what Hans Blix has been saying is if that if the US or Great Britain have other information besides what he's found, obviously they ought to share it. The 12,000-page memo I will agree is a bunch of nonsense. 12,000 pages is way too much.
And I understand Mr. Bush's skepticism or anyone else's skepticism about it. But if there's more information, put it out there. I need to be convinced that this is the greatest threat out there. Just a year ago, at the state of the union, we talked about Syria, we talked about South Korea. Let's be clear. This may not be the greatest threat to the world's stability.
BOHANNAN: But we ought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and go after several threats at the same time.
HOWARD: But at the same time, Arthel, I think it is important to note how many countries can we administer. We're already in Afghanistan. This will be the second country we will be administering. There are limits to our military involvement in the world.
NEVILLE: OK. Got to take a break right now. We are going to move on. And up next: you might want to be careful about surfing the web. That's right. Big brother could be watching you. Details on the plan the government has in the works when we come back. TALKBACK LIVE back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville. This is TALKBACK LIVE.
How much do you want the government to know about what you're doing on the Internet? Well, here's what the government would like to do. According to "The New York Times," it wants Internet providers to help build a system that would allow the Internet to be monitored. The idea is to protect computers from viruses and terrorist attacks. But such a system could possibly be used to monitor users as well.
And Gregory, I want to start with you on this story. How does this idea fly with you.
HOWARD: Well, I think it's horrible. We are a free country. And anytime -- any law passed or any sort of intrusion like this somehow mitigates our freedom. And I think it's a horrible idea. And I think it's somewhat ironic that a Republican administration would float something like this since they are supposedly the proponents of freedom.
NEVILLE: Yeah, but -- OK, in defense of the Republican administration, this is the first administration to face the kind of war that we're facing right now, which is a serious war on terrorism.
HOWARD: Yes, that's true no -- if you'll just let me finish. Yes, that's true, and we can win the domestic war on terrorism, but we won't be the United States and we won't be free. So we always have to question ourselves, what are we going to be? Because policing is only easy in a police state.
NEVILLE: Go ahead Julianne.
MALVEAUX: Arthel, we've had a president to the government over monitoring individuals. It's called (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It was used to attack many of the civil rights and African-American organizations, student political organizations in the late '60s and early '70s.
This is an unwarranted incursion into people's privacy. I think it could be terribly misused and I think it's wrong. With $29 billion in resources, and with terrorists right up under their noses, and with several tools at their disposal, the FBI could not track down the 19 who were responsible for September 11. Giving them more power will not make them more effective in finding terrorists, but I think what it will do is put all of our first amendment privacy and other rights at peril. I'm not willing to give those up.
BOHANNAN: Whenever I can, I have tried to give the government the benefit of the doubt in waging this war on terror. But I'll tell you, I have two problems with this. Number one, I would like to know at what point a judge has to step in to authorize these intrusions. And number two, I'm not sure this is even technically possible. With all of the Internet service providers out there, I'm not sure that this is an area where you can effectively monitor.
PATE: Arthel, I agree with my colleagues. It might surprise you. I don't like this at all, and I certainly don't like using viruses as an excuse. There's a way to ward off viruses. I think they're using that as an excuse.
But the information's out there. I'm bothered by this, but this information is out there. Bank cards, credit cards, debt cards, library cards, key cards to get in get in buildings. It's just a matter of gathering it up, but I am bothered by this. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt, as Jim said, but this is not a good thing.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, sir. Stand up for me. What do you think about this idea?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's absolutely ridiculous. There are books out there too. Are they going to send agents into libraries to see what books I'm reading too? That's ridiculous.
NEVILLE: All right. Thank you very much. Gregory, does this fly with you?
HOWARD: No it doesn't. As I said, I'm horrified by it. The incursions into our private lives is not something the government should be involved in. We are a free nation and that's what we should adhere to.
We can solve the problem, as I said before, but then it won't be the United States. And we will no longer be free. And that price is too high.
NEVILLE: All right. That's it for computer spies. Up next: I'm going to tell you why a Catholic children's home refuses to celebrate Christmas with California's Governor Gray Davis. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. California Governor Gray Davis's stand on abortion has left him persona non grata at a Catholic children's home this holiday season. Now Davis traditionally delivers a pile of presents to kids at St. Patrick's Home in Sacramento, but the monsignor who runs the place wants the governor to stay away until he has renounced his pro-choice stand on abortion and signed a letter of repentance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MSGR. EDWARD KAVANAGH, ST. PATRICK'S HOME FOR CHILDREN: You see the governor had an agenda here, and he wanted to look good, because he's helping kids. But what about the kids he doesn't allow to be born? When is he going to (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Somebody has to stand up to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, he's entitled to his point of view and I'm entitled to mine. I'm unapologetically pro choice, and I'm not changing my position. Having said this, this holiday tradition has lasted for 20 years. The tradition is about children, not grownups.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: All right. Now Davis is a practicing Catholic, but he says he's not changing his position. He invited the children to join him at the capital to receive the presents there instead. And Lou, you're a Catholic. I want to know what you think about this.
PATE: Arthel, can't we just let it go for one day? I mean it's Christmas. Christmas has been commercialized to death. Now we're going to politicize it?
Gray Davis is going there not as a Democrat, not as pro choice. He's going there as an ambassador of goodwill to help children maybe put a smile on their face. It's what this is, and I don't like when people hide behind children. But it's an anti-abortionist using kids to get his point across and it's ridiculous.
(APPLAUSE)
BOHANNAN: Holding him hostage. I mean, the Catholic Church is backing away from full bore child abuse, so now Father Kavanagh is trying child abuse light here in holding these kids hostage.
MALVEAUX: You know, it's so hypocritical, because actually Jerry Brown, former governor of California, also pro choice, actually visited this very same place and brought gifts, and this didn't become an issue. Gray Davis has been in some political mud for a while, had a very closely won election, and I think that the monsignor is playing games with children. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
NEVILLE: And lately, I'd like to say, Arthel, that the Catholic Church, to paraphrase a diplomat, has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They're completely tone deaf on this issue, as they were on the abuse issue.
PATE: You know, as a Catholic, the hypocritecy within the Catholic Church is appalling. And I just think they should lay as low as they possibly can for a long time.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely. This is not the time for the Church to be generating headlines. I mean, they've had enough, don't you think. I mean, they're bankrupt in I don't know how many places. You have Catholics fleeing from the pews.
My mom's a Catholic; I was raised one. Got out of that a little earlier. But people are not even giving money in collection because they're so horrified with what's been happening. So they might want to stay out of the headlines for a little while.
NEVILLE: You know, I mentioned...
BOHANNAN: Well, as far as I know, Father Kavanagh does not belong to Augusta National, so give him a break.
NEVILLE: All right. Listen, I mentioned that Father Kavanagh wanted Gray Davis to go ahead and sign a repentance form. Let's take a look at how that reads. It says, "I, Gray Davis, repent ever having promoted the killing of innocent unborn children through the murderous act called abortion." Who was that groaning?
MALVEAUX: Everybody.
BOHANNAN: Everybody.
HOWARD: That sounds like something that Jerry Falwell wrote.
MALVEAUX: You know, I mean Gray Davis is not running around forcing people to have abortions. There are groups of Catholic women, Catholics for Choice. I mean, this guy is way off key, and the wording of such a thing, to have the temerity to hand that to someone is not an act of Christian charity at all. There is nowhere in the bible that allows him to judge Gray Davis or anyone else. He needs to go get a life.
NEVILLE: Hey, David (ph), here in the audience, what did you say? Wait -- go ahead, Jim. What did you say.
BOHANNAN: I just said parish the thought -- P-A-R-I-S-H.
PATE: Well you know this isn't about abortion. This is about putting a smile on kids' faces.
NEVILLE: Yeah. David (ph), here in the audience, do you think the monsignor is out of touch, or does he have a right to his position?
DAVID: Yeah, I do think he's out of touch. I think he's basically trying to play like he's god. And let the governor go ahead and play with -- I mean, do the traditional thing and help with the children.
NEVILLE: Bring the presents to the kids, because otherwise -- thank you very much, David (ph) -- otherwise those kids may not get presents. These are kids who a lot of families didn't want to take care of, unfortunately
MALVEAUX: It's been a tradition that's been going on for 21 years. So the question has to be why now. There's been another governor who's gone there who's been pro choice, so why now? The monsignor has said, well, the last couple of years, Gray Davis hasn't come himself. He sent staff people. But if he had such repugnance for a pro-choice governor, he would not have accepted it from the staff people. He is playing political games, and he is so far off base that he needs to go the way of Cardinal Law.
NEVILLE: OK, quickly, let me get to Tess (ph) here in the audience; ask you should the governor have been allowed to play Santa?
TESS: I certainly think so, because obviously his beliefs on abortion aren't going to affect the children. He's not going to go to the children and speak about his beliefs to them. It's about Christmas and it's about bringing them joy. And it shouldn't matter.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much, Tess (ph) from North Carolina. And listen, I have to thank my guests for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today. Jim Bohannan, Julianne Malveaux...
MALVEAUX: Always a pleasure.
NEVILLE: Yes, always good to see you and good to have you here. Lou Pate...
BOHANNAN: Come back on my radio show.
NEVILLE: I will be back, Jim. Thank you very much. And Gregory Allen Howard, will you come back?
HOWARD: Absolutely.
NEVILLE: All right. Thanks so much for joining us here on Free- For-All Friday. All right, right after the break, I'm going to take your calls and letters on the question of the day. Back to Trent Lott. Do you think the controversy surrounding Lott was more about race or politics? This is your last chance to get in on the debate.
I'll be back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. The question of the day: Is the Lott controversy more about race or politics? We're going to go straight to Texas, where Helene (ph) is standing by with an answer. What's your answer, Helene (ph)?
HELENE: I feel that it's right.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Short and sweet. And we're going to go to some e-mails now that are coming in that I want to share with you. Starting with Joseph in Pennsylvania. "The controversy over Senator Lott's remarks are about race and politics. They are inseparable in our country today."
T in California, "It's all about politics of personal destruction, as only the Democrats know how to play. The Democrats lost and want revenge."
And coming in Joey in Florida, "The Lott controversy is about race. The GOP frequently proves they are a party of bigots, but Democrats don't take advantage of it like they should."
And Andre (ph), is it about race or politics?
ANDRE: I think among the politicians it's about politics. But the people who put the politicians in office, I think it's about race.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And we have a man from Australia. What do you say sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's about both, basically. Because, in the US, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It's just one of those things about US politics that are linked.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir. We are out of time. I want to thank you so much for watching. And I'm Arthel Neville. Have a great weekend. TALKBACK LIVE returns Monday, 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
