|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Which Democrat Can Challenge President Bush?; Liberal Voice to Take on Rush Limbaugh?
Aired January 1, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN VAUSE, GUEST HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: the presidential push. Democrats begin lining up for 2004. Some campaigns are already in the works and more are sure to come. Who can give President Bush a run for his money?
He's a powerful conservative mouthpiece. Now there is word that the left is looking for an equally powerful voice to take on Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk. Is there a liberal general up to the task in a long-running media war?
And new laws in the new year: At least one has civil libertarians up in arms: get arrested, give up your DNA. Cutting edge law enforcement or a gross invasion of privacy?
TALKBACK LIVE begins right now.
OK. Hello and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. For the first day of 2003, I'm John Vause, in for Arthel Neville, who has this week off.
Well, their pictures were released to the public and the FBI asked you and law enforcement across country for help in tracking them down. But now a Pakistani jeweler says a serious mistake has been made.
Well, for more on that, CNN's Jeanne Meserve is here. She is going to help us sort it all out.
Jeanne, what's going on?
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, you and the audience may have seen the photograph that the FBI has put of Mustafa Khan Owasi, one of five men it believes may have entered the U.S. illegally last week.
Well, now compare it to this next photo. This is Mohammed Asghar, taken by the Associated Press. Asghar is a jeweler in Lahore, Pakistan, who says the FBI photo is of him. And you can see why. Except for the beard and the length of the hair, the resemblance between the two is extraordinary.
Now, the FBI has not revealed where or how it got the photo of the man it identified as Owasi. But administration sources say his name and the four others came up during the interrogation of an alleged smuggler of illegal aliens that was picked up in Canada. Asghar, the man in Lahore, tells the Associated Press he has had forged travel documents. And he suspects the forgers may have recycled them. And we do know that the five men we're looking for, sources tells us they had forged British passports.
Now, the FBI said, when it first posted the information about the five men, that their names and dates of birth could be fictitious. What about the photographs? An administration official says it is not inconceivable that they, too, are bogus. And the matter is being looked into.
But if all the information, including the pictures, is falsified, it's not going to be of any use in nabbing these individuals that authorities believe are still at large here in the United States -- John.
VAUSE: Well, how could they get it so wrong? Where did the information come from? I understand it came from Canadian sources at one stage. Where has this all gone wrong?
MESERVE: Well, I think your language may be a little bit harsh here.
This is an imprecise science. They're dealing with intelligence source here that are not always reliable. As I said, when the FBI first posted the names and dates of birth, it said this could be fake information. These were forged documents. It's not inconceivable that these people would have had false photographs in the documents as well, if that indeed is where the photographs came from.
It's a little bit puzzling in this respect, though. If you know someone who goes out and gets a fake I.D., let's say to do some underaged drinking, usually, they do put their own photograph on an I.D. that is otherwise falsified, so they can get through the door. Unclear exactly how this worked or even if this man in Pakistan is correct in his claim that the photograph is of him.
VAUSE: Certainly the photograph that we just saw there, the AP photograph, definitely looks like a very good match. The hair is slightly longer. He's unshaven. But, apart from that, they're virtually identical.
What sort of doubts does this cast now on the other four photos that were released by the FBI?
MESERVE: Well, of course, it raises questions about them.
No one in the U.S. administration is quantifying their degree of discomfort with this or saying any more than it's not inconceivable that they're not authentic photographs of the five individuals they thought there were. But the bottom-line question is, how useful are they now? Obviously, if they're not photographs of the men they're looking for, they aren't useful at all.
VAUSE: OK, Jeanne Meserve there for us in Washington bringing us up to date, thanks for that. And happy new year. Well, we want to shift gears now. Let's turn our attention to politics. It's the first day of 2003. And guess what? The Democrats are already looking ahead to 2004. A senator and a governor are already actively seeking funds for a presidential campaign. Today, "The New York Times" reports Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle could establish an exploratory committee for a presidential bid fairly soon. And Senator John Edwards of North Carolina is showing signs of a foundation laying for a White House run next year. And there are other names being floated as well.
CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley joins us now, also in Washington, to tell us who they are and if anyone actually stands a chance against President Bush.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the answer to the first is, yes.
We are two years away from a presidential race. I think you don't have to go much further than President Bush, the first one, to find a man who had very high public approval ratings just less than a year before an election and then, of course, lost to Bill Clinton.
The field's getting crowded. When Al Gore moved out of the race in December, he sort of opened the floodgates. And so what we're seeing now is Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, The first Southerner to step into it. He will form, we believe tomorrow, an exploratory committee, which is -- basically, this has to do with money. They need to set that up so they can begin to raise money, because the primaries, even though they're a year away, they come very quickly as far as gathering the money up is concerned.
We do expect that Joe Lieberman, who ran as vice president with Vice President Gore in the last presidential race, will also throw his hat in. We're expecting Dick Gephardt, who used to be the minority leader in the House. We expect him to throw his hat in. So, we won't be lacking for Democratic candidates in the 2004 race. It's beginning to get crowded and it's beginning to look like an election's coming.
VAUSE: Absolutely, Candy.
Let's just talk about Tom Daschle for a moment. Has he seriously got a chance? Many people blame him for the midterm debacle for the Democrats. So has he got a real shot at this?
CROWLEY: Well, let me tell you, there are sort of two steps. They've got to get through the primary first.
And, yes, whenever I have gone to -- a lot of these people started going around to various state party meetings. One in particular I remember in California, both John Edwards and Tom Daschle were among those present who spoke. And the Democratic Party faithful love Tom Daschle. There are even some who are trying to convince him that he should stay on as Democratic leader in the Senate, rather than run, because they believe they need him now. It is looking like he is leaning heavily towards running. So, sure, they all have a chance. The question is how good of a chance. Some more so than others. But you're right. George Bush looks pretty formidable. But, again, we're two years away.
VAUSE: Two years away.
And the other surprise, I guess, announcement today, John Edwards, the senator, who basically is a self-made millionaire, the son of a textile workers. Tell us a little bit more about him, a fairly inexperienced candidate, though.
CROWLEY: Well, absolutely.
Prior to 9/11, you will remember that there was this great yearning in the Democratic Party for a fresh face. There was all this talk that Al Gore was yesterday's news, that the Democrats really needed a fresh face. Well, here you go, John Edwards.
He is in his fourth year as -- in fact, he's into his fifth year now in January of being a U.S. senator. It's the first political office he has ever held, the first political race he has ever been in. So, this is a political neophyte. And he is a fresh face. But the problem many see for John Edwards at this point is going to be to convince the nation that he, in fact, has the -- and we're going to use that word we used a lot when George Bush was running -- has the gravitas to go ahead and lead a country that now is in a very different world.
This is a post-9/11 world. And it may have changed what voters want in a candidate. George Bush had four years as the Texas governor. At the time, voters were willing to sort of look past that, look at the man, and say, OK, we want him. Now, in the post-9/11 world, would they look at John Edwards' four years of experience in the Senate and say, OK, it doesn't matter? That's very tricky for him, because he is up against a lot of experienced U.S. senators.
VAUSE: And Candy, you mentioned just a short time ago various degrees of support.
We've got a Gallup poll there we want to bring in. This was conducted December 16 and 17. It found Senator Lieberman with the most support at 25 percent, followed by Senator Kerry with 21 percent; Congressman Gephardt, 14 percent; Senator Daschle, just 10 percent.
What does that say? Is that just name recognition? Everybody knows who Joe Lieberman is?
CROWLEY: Pretty much, at this point.
You know polls go up and down. Politicians can fall off stages and it changes things. So, certainly, that's an early look at it. You would expect, with Al Gore out of the running, that Joe Lieberman would come up No. 2 in the polls. Joe Lieberman's problem, many Democrats think, is that the Democrats are looking for someone a little more left of center. Joe Lieberman is pretty center. He supported the president on the war. He's been one of his strongest supporters. And in the Democratic primary, you get more liberal Democrats than there are in general, just as, in the Republican primary, you get more conservative Republicans. So, they've got to get past that first step. It isn't surprising that Joe Lieberman is out there. I think, at this point, he looks very strong.
So does John Kerry. He's got a bundle of cash that he can use. He's tall. He, too, is telegenic. He's served in Vietnam and then he protested Vietnam. He has very good foreign policy credentials. So, you have a guy there that in fact has -- and he's got a boatload of money as well.
So, you have some people here that are very interesting that you could make a case for all of them. And so much happens between now and then, not just about who these people are, but about what happens in the news. Will there be a war in Iraq? Will they come out and criticize it? Will they support it? Will it be successful? What's going to happen with the economy? So, any number of these things changes the dynamic of the race and, thus, those polls.
VAUSE: OK, Candy Crowley, thank you very much for that. Just two more years of this fun and games to go, huh?
CROWLEY: Great.
VAUSE: OK, well, joining us now to share their thoughts on the Democrats and the 2004 race, syndicated columnist and radio talk show host Armstrong Williams; and Christy Agner, who is with the Young Democrats of America, the official youth arm of the Democratic National Committee.
OK, guys, we'll bring you in. Who do you think's going to be the best candidate for the job?
Armstrong?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Wow. I'm certainly not the person to ask.
I think we've got the best person for the job in the White House right now, our sitting, President George Bush. It's kind of fun watching these guys sort of duke it out and maneuver for ground and positioning in this party. It will be interesting to see whether former Vice President Al Gore supports his former running mate, Joe Lieberman.
I think that would make world of a difference, because Al Gore still enjoys widespread support among the party faithful. And he also has the ability to raise money. And he has great support among the grassroots of Democrats around the country. So I think, obviously, Joe Lieberman, given the fact that he was a former running mate of this man, is the early favorite.
And I don't think you can count out Tom Daschle, like Candy stated. He's well loved and respected by the Democratic Party machine. So, as far as I'm concerned, I think those are two candidates, and then John Kerry. The fact that we're in sort of a military mode right now, John Kerry has an outstanding military background.
Obviously, he has that presidential look. He has lots of money. And he who has lots of money has all the chances of winning in a Democratic primary.
VAUSE: But, Armstrong, you don't think much of Senator Edwards as a candidate, do you?
WILLIAMS: No. Well, you know, I'm a Southerner. And I don't think he has a chance of winning the South. The South is very conservative.
I think the fact that Elizabeth Dole won in North Carolina eclipsed him. He has no experience. He was manufactured by the media, because they thought he was another Clinton. America was willing to deal with a Clinton, let's say, eight, 10, several years ago. But that has changed now since 9/11. Also...
VAUSE: Just hold it there. I just want to get Christy's response to that.
What do you think about this, Christy? What's your opinion of basically the candidates who are up for grabs, especially John Edwards?
CHRISTY AGNER, YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA: Wow. Well, that's a great question to ask me, as a fellow North Carolinian. I'm actually very excited to join Senator Edwards this weekend and hope that we're hearing some good news about his ideas for leadership.
I actually think a fresh face and a good vision is exactly what Democrats are looking for right now. I'm anxious to see what Senator Daschle will do. And I'm also anxious to see what Senator Lieberman will do, because, from the perspective of young people, we're ready to go.
(BELL RINGING)
VAUSE: OK, ready to go, and so are we. We're going to go to a break.
But, first, Senator Edwards will be a guest on INSIDE POLITICS tomorrow. So, that will be at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. That's with Candy Crowley.
So let us know what you think about which Democrat will actually make the best presidential candidate. Call us at 1-800-310-4CNN or drop us an e-mail at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And when we come back: Liberal leaders plot to weak another Republican stronghold -- Rush and the conservative media in the Democratic crosshairs. We'll have that when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAUSE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
There's a story in today's "New York Times" that says that Democratic leaders are actively searching for just the right voice to pit against conservatives in the media. Now, high on their hit list, it's hardly any surprise, but talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who has railed on the radio against liberal positions for at least a decade. Now, Democrats with influence aren't just looking for Limbaugh's liberal counterpart. They're also floating the idea of a liberal version of the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.
Well, can Democrats build a liberal alternative?
Armstrong Williams and Christy Agner are still with us. Now, rounding out our panel, we have Ben Ferguson, who is in fact a college junior hosting a syndicated talk show on Radio America, just 21 years old; and Curtis Ellis, a radio talk show host, who is joining us from New York.
But I want to first go to Ben.
And I want to ask you, as a talk show host and as a conservative, why is it that conservatives hit the mark? Why can't the liberal talk show hosts pull it off?
BEN FERGUSON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think we have better ideas.
No, I think it's tough to get an audience that size. But I think that conservative talk show hosts have been entertaining. And we go straight to the point. We don't beat around the bush. And that's what people like to hear. And Democrats, it's not like they're being pushed out or they don't have a chance. It's just they don't make the ratings and they don't have the callers and they don't have the listeners. And they get kicked out.
VAUSE: Well, liberals will say they don't need to tell their audience want to think.
FERGUSON: Well, obviously, America, we watch TV and we do different things. So, obviously, they want new ideas.
And I think that Republican talk show hosts or conservative talk show hosts give better ideas. And we give ideas that make them think about the politics. You can say that it's preaching and it's influencing. And that's what we do. We influence. We give our opinion. We give our ideas. And, obviously, somebody likes what we have to say.
VAUSE: OK, Curtis Ellis, what's your take on this?
CURTIS ELLIS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, first, let me get right to the point. If the Democrats or anybody is looking for a fighting liberal, look no further. You found him right here. I'm on the barricade with a broken bottle leading the charge every day.
But let's get serious here. Let's look at the facts. One company, Clear Channel Radio, owns 1,200 radio stations. They also own "The Rush Limbaugh Show," which they put on those stations. Sean Hannity works for ABC. He started on ABC Radio in New York. He's put on every ABC radio station in all the major markets. So, if the Democrats want to get liberals on the radio, they are going to have to deal with this reality.
They can have great talent, like me or somebody else. But they're still going to have to deal with the structural reality. There is a way to deal with that. And call me, Curtis Ellis. I'm listed in the phone book in Manhattan. And I will tell you how to do it. But that's the reality.
FERGUSON: The bottom line is, if you don't make your ratings, you're fired.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: But just because Clear Channel owns all those stations and they put out Rush Limbaugh's show doesn't mean -- obviously, he's got the audience. It's not this propaganda. It's not that they're a Republican network. He's popular. He get ratings. And that's what they want.
(CROSSTALK)
VAUSE: I want to hear from Christy over there.
What's the problem? You're a Democrat. Why don't the Democrats ever work on radio? They're described as Milquetoast.
AGNER: Absolutely. I think we do work on radio. And it's just a matter of, just as my colleague said, of being able to get on the radio.
But to go back to what Ben said, I think that conservative talk show hosts do exactly what he said. They engage in politics. And politics is motivated by fear, greed and anger. And those are the things that drive voters to the polls, which is why we see negative politics, despite the fact that people say they don't want it.
I think that the country as a whole will have to embrace policy discussions for maybe liberal or more progressive people to be successful in radio and TV.
VAUSE: Armstrong, is this the case or is it just liberal whining because they lost the midterms and they're trying to find something to blame?
WILLIAMS: It's so much more than that.
You know, people like Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives like myself, sure, you've got to entertain in your broadcast, because people want some of that. But, beyond that, conservatives, whether it's radio, whether it's television, but also in terms of conservative columnists, they do very well.
And the reason they do very well is because many conservatives identify with the values of many Americans in this country, advocates of the right to bear arms, advocates of pro-life positions, that we've reached a point in our society in 2003 where a person should rise or fall on their own merit. We should not have affirmative-action-based entrance into an institution. A person should get there based whether they passed an exam or whether they have the bad grades.
We also have a position here in this country where less government. We believe in a strong military. So, these are the kind of issues that many Americans identify with.
(CROSSTALK)
VAUSE: No. We want to hear from Glenn up in the audience.
Glenn, what have you got to say?
GLENN: Well, traditional media is the voice of the liberals. The liberals have a voice. And if you read the newspapers, "New York Times," "Washington Post," this network, CBS, other networks, they're the voices of the liberals. And I think this whining that we're hearing from the liberals now is because this talk radio is providing some balanced voice.
(APPLAUSE)
VAUSE: Thank you.
We want to take a call on the radio. We have Joe on the radio.
Is that right? Joe?
CALLER: Yes.
VAUSE: Joe from Georgia, let's see what you have to say.
CALLER: Yes, it's Joe from Georgia.
I've listened to Rush Limbaugh since he's been on the air. I think he's great. He's a great taxpayer champion, a champion for free enterprise. I defend him heartily. And I am just so proud of him for standing up for the American taxpayers. We need less government and less taxes. And Rush Limbaugh is fantastic for America.
VAUSE: Curtis, do we need more Rush Limbaugh on the radio?
ELLIS: Well, that's what the radio programmers think, because if you can't get Rush because he's already taken by one station, they get a Rush copy and a Rush wanna-be. But radio programmers are not exactly the most original thinkers.
(CROSSTALK)
(BELL RINGING)
VAUSE: OK, that's the bell.
ELLIS: More people voted for Al Gore than for Rush Limbaugh.
VAUSE: We've got to take a break. OK. OK. We've got to take a break.
Up next: a defiant New Year's message from North Korea that upped the ante in the nuclear standoff with the communist nation. We'll tell you what they said and ask: Who's the bigger threat now, North Korea or Iraq?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAUSE: And welcome back.
Another volley today in the war of words between North Korea and the United States. In its New Year's message, the communist north called on South Korea for support in its confrontation with the United States over its nuclear program revival.
President Bush, meantime, has laid out his reasons for considering military action against Iraq, but not North Korea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's strong consensus, not only amongst the nations in the neighborhood and our friends, but also at the international organizations, such as the IAEA, that North Korea ought to comply with international regulations. I believe this can be done peacefully, through diplomacy. And we will continue to work that way. All our options, of course, are always on the table for any president. But, by working with these countries, we can resolve this.
An attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy. My biggest job and most important job is to protect the security of the American people, and I'm going to do that. And I had made the case, and will continue to make the case, that Saddam Hussein -- a Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the security of the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: Well, the Bush administration is continuing military preparations for a possible war with Iraq. Still, President Bush says his New Year's resolution is to do all he can to settle this conflict peacefully.
OK, I'll go over to Ben now.
Who's the bigger danger here, Iraq or North Korea?
FERGUSON: I think, obviously, North Korea got their feelings hurt when they were put in the axis of evil. And they wanted to say, well, hey, if we're going to be in the top three, we might as well look like it.
And I don't think they're as near a big of a threat as Saddam Hussein, because Saddam Hussein, obviously, he has gone against his people. He has against nations close to him. And he speak through his actions more than his words. And I think he's a bigger threat to not only Americans, but also to the rest of the world than North Korea is.
And that's why I think the president is taking a diplomatic approach to it and saying, OK, look, we're going to try everything we can. We're not going to attack him right now, whereas, with Saddam Hussein, that's what's going to happen in the long run.
VAUSE: But, Christy, we've got North Korea as part of the axis of evil. They have weapons, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction. We don't know if Iraq has nuclear weapons. Why is it that Iraq is considered the bigger threat? What's your take on this?
AGNER: Well, I would have to agree with Ben in that the leader of Iraq has demonstrated against his own people and he's not demonstrated to be a friend or a reputable, credible partner in the Middle East. And so that's where there's a concern.
And I can tell you that a lot of people in my organization, Young Democrats of America, serve in the National Guard. And many serve in the armed services. So, we are obviously looking at those situations with a very personal look. And we are hoping that our president and the secretary of state do proceed with caution.
VAUSE: And, Curtis, what about you? Are we going to have three people here agreeing on TALKBACK LIVE? Iraq or North Korea?
ELLIS: No.
VAUSE: No? Good.
(LAUGHTER)
ELLIS: No.
Iraq is considered the biggest threat because it's easier for us to attack Iraq, because they don't have a nuclear weapon yet. North Korea does have nuclear weapons. They can lob artillery shells into downtown Seoul. And so, if we attack North Korea, it's over.
Now, the Bush administration has taken a very ham-handed approach to North Korea since it got in office. And you can tell by the way the South Korean president got elected on anti-American platform. Now, the fact of the matter is, it's all about saving face. All North Korea wants is a treaty that says America will not attack North Korea. This is what John Kennedy did with Cuba to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. But we want to save face. And we will not sit down and negotiate with a little pipsqueak country like North Korea that has a nuclear bomb and has made the major superpower of the world look impotent. So, we want to save face and not talk to them. Meanwhile, North Korea wants to save face and say, give us a nice way out of this and we can end the whole thing.
FERGUSON: Curtis, George W. Bush is not as shallow as you're portraying this picture of him, that we're going to pick on the little guy instead of the big guy, because we're scared of him.
The last I have checked, most Americans, we are very confident in our military. We have a strong military. We have a strong nation. We've obviously been diplomatic with Saddam Hussein in the past. It hasn't worked. Even Bush has strained all efforts this time to go the diplomatic route with him. And it's not working. That's why we're going to attack him.
VAUSE: Let's hear from someone from our audience.
We have Ponzi (ph) here from Georgia?
PONZI: Yes, sir.
I think it's kind of a mistake to call North Korea a pipsqueak country, since they have one of the top five standing militaries in the world. I spent seven of the last 20 years in South Korea in the Air Force and just retired. And as I much as I know about it, I'm also smart enough to know that what I do know is a sliver of what's out there in information. and I'm trusting the folks that do know more to take care of us on that. But North Korea is certainly a bigger threat.
VAUSE: How about that, Armstrong? Is North Korea a bigger threat than Iraq? And is the United States only going after Iraq because it's a soft target; it can be taken?
WILLIAMS: Well, in Iraq, we're pursuing to see whether or not they have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. North Korea has declared that they have nuclear weapons. And North Korea is already distributing weapons of mass destruction to countries like Yemen and others. If North Korea starts doing the same to rogue nations around the world, it certainly is a problem.
But, also, North Korea has not used its weapons of mass destruction to destroy its own, where Saddam Hussein has. I think, with most Americans, they're all the same. North Korea, Iraq, they're all the same. They're terrorist nations. They pose a threat to the United States and to the rest of the world.
And I don't think it bothers America less or more as to whether we take one out or take them all out, because they're all the same. They pose a threat to our way of life. And they all have to be dealt with.
(BELL RINGING)
VAUSE: OK. We are going to take a break. That's the bell.
Still to come: new laws of 2003. We'll look at one in Virginia that some civil libertarians say crosses the line between police work and privacy.
You're watching TALKBACK LIVE on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAUSE: And welcome back.
A huge crowd here at CNN Center.
Well, the first of the new year typically meant enactment of new laws which were passed last year. Now, one new Virginia law that takes effect today is attracting a bit of attention. It allows the State of Virginia to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested and charged with a violent felony. Now, that's arrested and charged, not convicted.
Supporters say the statute is a crime fighting tool that will help solve and even prevent some crimes. Critics, though, have raised concern that is goes too far and could violate privacy rights.
We want to go to our panel now. Well, let's go straight to Curtis.
Curtis, what's your take on this?
ELLIS: Well, look, I don't trust the government. That's what conservatives are supposed to say, but I'm a liberal and I say I don't trust the government. I don't believe that these records are going to disappear if somebody's acquitted. This is a very simple case of records that could be around forever. This information gets disturbed everywhere and you just start arresting people. And I want government off my back. I want them out of my jeans. I don't want them taking DNA samples and just keeping them on file forever.
VAUSE: And you, Armstrong?
ELLIS: But I'm very suspicious. I want to see safeguards.
VAUSE: Armstrong, for or against?
WILLIAMS: Well, let me tell you this, I don't trust criminals. And when you're out there -- OK. And when you're out there raping and murdering people, as far as I'm concerned, you lose your rights.
ELLIS: Yes, but these people haven't been convicted yet, Armstrong.
WILLIAMS: I did not interrupt you...
ELLIS: These people haven't been convicted yet, Armstrong. WILLIAMS: I did not interrupt you.
The fact that they're accused is enough for me. And I wouldn't take any chances of the fact that they may do it again and you can cross reference with other states and save lives. That is the bottom line here, is to save lives and committing people who are possibly criminals, violent criminals from committing further crimes. I think it's a very good idea and I think the rest of the country should follow suit. Again, I don't trust criminals.
ELLIS: Why don't we take samples from everybody, then? Why don't we just take samples...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But Armstrong...
ELLIS: Why don't we take samples from everyone and have a better database of everybody?
WILLIAMS: Because we all are not murderers. We all are not rapists and we all are not thugs. We, most of us...
ELLIS: Well, these people haven't even been convicted yet, Armstrong.
WILLIAMS: ... abide by the law.
ELLIS: These people haven't been convicted yet.
VAUSE: OK, OK, OK, OK.
Armstrong, what about the point, though, this evidence will be thrown out once the case has been acquitted or the person found not guilty, but sometimes cases do go to trial, but they're not followed through. The prosecution just leaves the case. So the system, the evidence could still be in the system. What about that?
WILLIAMS: As I said, and I respect the law, I have little sympathy for criminals and people who perpetuate crimes on innocent people. I'd rather worry about people who obey the law. That's where I will leave my emotions for. And I don't have, that's, those are not my concern. Let the government do the best job that they can do to present, to protect innocent people who go about their daily lives trying to do their work, take care of their families and not protect those who come in and interrupt and disrupt our lives and cause us this emotional pain for the rest of our lives.
VAUSE: According to the people in Virginia, the authorities in Virginia, they say that as of October, the DNA has helped solve more than 100 homicides, more than 200 rapes...
WILLIAMS: Admit it.
VAUSE: ... more than 450 burglaries. What do you say to that, Curtis?
ELLIS: Oh, well, there's no question that DNA is a great crime solving tool. We have exonerated hundreds of people or dozens of people that have been on death row unjustly accused of crimes they didn't do because of DNA. It's a very good crime fighting tool.
What I say is conservatives are people who don't trust government unless it's a cop or somebody who wants to lock you up and suddenly they trust that the government is never going to make a mistake and they can have access to your genes and everything else.
FERGUSON: Curtis...
ELLIS: I say let's have some safeguards.
FERGUSON: We have people out here that are rapists, that are murderers, that are being looked at. If you're charged with that crime for the safety of my generation and my children and my grandparents that are out there, yes, I don't mind if you take evidence. I don't trust the government either. But if they're going to throw it away, if it's going to save lives and it may...
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: ... and other things...
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: ... it's worth it.
VAUSE: OK, I want to go to Charlie
now. OK, Charlie, what were you going say?
CHARLIE: If you're arrested, aren't you fingerprinted?
VAUSE: Yes. Yes.
CHARLIE: Aren't these fingerprints put on file then?
VAUSE: Yes.
CHARLIE: So what is the difference philosophically between being fingerprinted and having your DNA taken?
VAUSE: Curtis?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good point.
ELLIS: That is a good point. My question is who will get to see the DNA? Where will it go? How far does this go? If you can assure me that it is going to be, that it's going to be safeguarded and not spread around every place, it, there might be a value to this.
WILLIAMS: I will tell you the difference. Many times when people who commit crimes, they're very slick and they're experts at what they do. Many times they don't leave fingerprints. They learn from the first crime. What DNA is able to do, if you find semen and any other, saliva on the victims, you can take that, take it to the crime lab and then send it out to the FBI through the Internet all over the country and immediately other authorities can look at that information, realize right away...
VAUSE: OK, we...
WILLIAMS: ... this is the same person that was accused somewhere else.
VAUSE: Armstrong...
WILLIAMS: It's to prevent fingerprinting (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
VAUSE: ... we're going to take a phone call.
Now, we want to go to Laurie, who is on the line in Arkansas.
Laurie, what have you got to say?
LAURIE: Well, I think if you're an upstanding citizen, you should not be worried about what, you know, your DNA, where is it going to be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.
LAURIE: Like the guy said, it's not worse than the fingerprints and you're standing -- I mean if you're not scared of it, if you're not scared to be convicted, give it to them.
ELLIS: Well, Laurie, why don't you get online and give them your DNA? Would you?
LAURIE: I would. Yes, I would.
WILLIAMS: I would give them mine.
ELLIS: Why don't we all have our DNA sampled?
WILLIAMS: Yes, they can have mine. I haven't got nothing to hide.
LAURIE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ELLIS: Really? They can clone it. I don't know.
VAUSE: Christy, are you going to give up your DNA on this?
AGNER: Absolutely.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
AGNER: Let me respond to Laurie. I think what Laurie said is a good point. If you have nothing worry about, you really should have no problem with that. But unfortunately the law enforcement system in this country has not been completely equitable to people of color. And until that can be addressed, I think Democrats should stand against these type of laws, which basically go against the basic premise of our constitution and our legal system, you are innocent until proven guilty.
And I trust law enforcement in this country, but I am concerned about the continual shall we say difference in reality for people of color in this country. And until that changes, I absolutely do not support this.
VAUSE: OK.
(BELL RINGS)
That's the bell. OK.
Coming up next, a blow for anti-abortion forces in one state. A federal judge will not allow specialty license plates with the message on "choose life." Is it unconstitutional or not? That question up for debate when we come back on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAUSE: Welcome back.
In South Carolina a federal judge has declared a new specialty license plate is unconstitutional. The plate, like these from Oklahoma and Florida, bears the anti-abortion slogan, "choose life." Now, they are approved by the South Carolina legislature in 2001. Planned Parenthood challenged them and an injunction was issued preventing them from being made.
Now, a U.S. district judge in Columbia says the plates violate the first amendment because abortion rights supporters don't have a license plate of their own. Now, the state attorney general's office says it will appeal that ruling.
I want to go to Ben first.
Is this freedom of speech or is this government interference?
FERGUSON: I think it's what makes America great. I mean in America we have Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we have Ducks Unlimited, we have lots of different personalized license plates by the different organizations and if we want to have one that says "choose life," I think it's fine. But with Planned Parenthood taking this to court, if you're giving money to Planned Parenthood, it's supposed to be to give guidance, not to fight license plates. And they even, it contradicts what they say.
They say that abortion, you know, if you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, get counseling. But now all of a sudden when it comes up and the truth of the matter is they basically obviously completely don't like the idea of choosing life.
VAUSE: OK, let's go to Christy. What's your take on this, Christy?
AGNER: Ben, that's actually not so at all. Go Planned Parenthood for sticking up for this issue. Planned Parenthood has nothing against choosing life. As a matter of fact, I do not to this day understand how people...
FERGUSON: What? ? Have you seen where their money goes?
AGNER: ... how people who think that having a choice...
FERGUSON: Are you kidding me?
AGNER: ... people who think that having a choice about reproductive rights somehow means that choosing life isn't an option, which it is. So let's first state that.
But just on concept, specialty license plates were never meant for anything of this issue base. When we initially started talking about specialty license plates, they were to honor people who had, Purple Heart recipients, people who supported a certain college or whatnot. And the limited funds that came in for those plates went to specialized things in states like wildlife preservation or to plant wildflowers and promote tourism on the highways.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) an escape route.
VAUSE: OK, let's go to someone in the audience now. Let's go to Roger.
ROGER: My name is Roger. I live in South Carolina for 10 years. I was arrested three times in front of an abortion mill. I think to ask us the question we should allow Planned Parenthood have a card label with the name "choose death" and this will be the approach that will fit Planned Parenthood.
Thank you.
VAUSE: Armstrong?
WILLIAMS: Hey, listen, all I can say is just consider the source. If you believe that Planned Parenthood does not have a problem with choosing life, then you don't understand Planned Parenthood's history and its founder, Margaret Sanger. You know, people have a right for their personal license plates to choose whatever they want. They pay taxes on it. It's their personage and they can do whatever.
I'm from South Carolina, a great state. And I think it's infringing on a person's freedom of speech and freedom of expression and Planned Parenthood does not want anything out there that does not want to educate a person who chooses abortion of the emotional trauma that follows that abortion, because it's a money machine for them. It's just used...
(CROSSTALK) VAUSE: OK, OK, let's go to the phone. Let's hear from Doris from New York.
Doris, what have you got to say?
DORIS: God bless you all.
Hi, Armstrong and John.
WILLIAMS: Hi.
DORIS: Are you there?
VAUSE: They're there.
DORIS: Listen, I think that this is like free speech, all right? Free speech. Hey, Armstrong, I watch you all the time on TV, and, John, god bless you. I'm glad you're back here, Mr. Vause. God bless you.
ELLIS: Well, let me say something here please.
VAUSE: Go for it.
ELLIS: You know, this whole thing is about freedom of expression and all the judge said is that you're going to have a "choose life" license plate, you've got to have something for the other side. So maybe it should be "choose choice," I don't know.
But I'm all for letting them have their license plates. I want to know exactly which cars I should throw eggs at. Now, if you're against abortion, you shouldn't be eating eggs, because eggs are abortion.
VAUSE: Something to mention...
ELLIS: The situation the states are in, they need all the money they can get, sell these people thousand dollar license plates and says "choose life" and it'll help the FBI find some of these clinic bombers, too.
VAUSE: OK, Curtis.
Let's just hear from a couple of women in the audience. We've got Suzanne from Georgia and Patty from Illinois.
Suzanne first.
SUZANNE: I have a Georgia license plate that says "support wildlife." Now, there are a lot of people that are against money being appropriated toward wildlife conservation. So I don't understand what the different between having a license plate that says "support wildlife" but yet we can't support life in general, human life.
VAUSE: But the message is that there was no counter message from the other side and that this was government supporting one view but not supporting the other.
SUZANNE: Well, they haven't gone to get that legislated yet.
VAUSE: Yes.
SUZANNE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
VAUSE: But you're saying that there should be a license plate maybe saying "support industry" as a counter measure to "support wildlife."
Patty?
PATTY: My thought is just that the government might be afraid it might be opening the floodgates for controversial subjects like the KKK might want to say "choose KKK" on your license plates...
ELLIS: There you go.
PATTY: And then that could just open the floodgates for all hate groups or other controversial situations.
FERGUSON: But a few of the states already have this now.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: But, you know that is one issue. But what is controversial about choosing life?
(CROSSTALK)
ELLIS: I know people against the war in Iraq who might buy that license plate.
WILLIAMS: What's controversial about that?
FERGUSON: The bottom line, though, is it's freedom of speech.
ELLIS: Maybe people who are against the war will buy that license plate.
VAUSE: OK, the bottom line according to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FERGUSON: It's freedom of speech and why does Planned Parenthood have anything to do with taking this to court?
VAUSE: Well, clearly so. But what about, what about you...
AGNER: Because Planned Parenthood cares about women having rights and having their own (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FERGUSON: No, they care about people having abortions and not choosing life.
AGNER: That is (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FERGUSON: If it said "choose abortion," they would be in court supporting it.
AGNER: That is not what Planned Parenthood stands for.
FERGUSON: Not, what's...
(CROSSTALK)
AGNER: They support a woman's right to choose.
WILLIAMS: This is about money for Planned Parenthood. It's about money. They could care less about the life that's lost.
VAUSE: Curtis, what is stopping a government, a state government, from issuing a license plate that says "choose war with Iraq?"
ELLIS: Well, I don't see what the difference is. I mean if they want to start selling license plates, they should have one that says "if you can tell which side of the abortion issue I'm on, you're driving too close."
VAUSE: I'm with you.
AGNER: And maybe the message to state legislatures should be that we should be talking about policy issues instead of specialist license plates. Because the last time I checked, Medicaid and Medicare issues in the states were a real issue. And there are a lot of public (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
WILLIAMS: This wouldn't, it wouldn't be an issue...
(BELL RINGS)
VAUSE: OK, whoa. OK.
We'll take a break now. But you do not want to miss our next segment. They say you can't take it with you, so why not become something you can leave behind? We're going to show you an idea that gives a whole new meaning to the phrase that diamonds are forever.
It's here next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAUSE: Well, we're looking at how some Canadians are making a start to the new year. Well, this other story ought to make a splash, as well. This also is from Canada. It comes in our "What's The Story?" segment today.
We're going to show you how some people are choosing to keep their loved ones close, even after death. This piece was filed by Deborah Sharry (ph) of CNN affiliate CTV.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH SHARRY, CTV CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In this rustic setting, you might call Donna Thomas Tyler (ph) a diamond in the rough.
DONNA THOMAS TYLER: It's not for everybody. I know that. People that I've spoken to are, they either love it or they hate it.
SHARRY: Donna loves it, being buried in a casket or kept in an urn, that's not for her.
THOMAS TYLER: My cremated remains will become a diamond. I'll leave a diamond.
SHARRY: And the diamond will be a family jewel.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If a family wanted to let people know that this was a diamond created from a loved one, it's definitely going to be a conversation piece.
SHARRY: Definitely. But how does it work? How do you turn a dead person into a diamond? According to Life Gem, the company that makes these manmade stones, it all comes down to carbon. It's collected from cremated remains, heated, put under pressure and presto, 16 weeks later, a certified diamond.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is something that's virtually indestructible. It's beautiful. It has all the properties of a natural diamond.
SHARRY: And according to Life Gems, each body has enough carbon to make 25, up to 50 diamonds, and there are discounts for larger orders.
(on camera): Just like with regular diamonds, the cost depends on color and size. A quarter carat blue diamond is about $2,500 and the big ones can be 10 times that. A full carat red life gem would run about $30,000.
(voice-over): A lot of money for a stone that's comparable to a cubic zirconium. But Donna Thomas Tyler says the sentimental value is priceless and the diamond is forever.
THOMAS TYLER: And the love goes on forever, as well, till we meet. It makes it pretty special.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: OK, well, I want to go to Curtis now.
Curtis, are you going to come back as diamonds or are you more of a cubic zirconium?
ELLIS: Well, I know a lot of people who are real gems. Now they can literally be gems.
VAUSE: Oh, jeez.
ELLIS: Now, if you think that grandma was getting a little dim towards the end, you can make her sparkle after she's dead. This is a way that you don't have to leave your body to science, you can leave your body to the museum. I don't know.
VAUSE: Christy, are diamonds a girl's best friend when they're made out of grandma?
AGNER: I don't know where I stand on this one, fellows. Wow, that's definitely an interesting option and I'm just curious what the insurance value to something like that would be but.
VAUSE: Good point.
Armstrong, what do want to come back as? Are you a diamond in the rough?
WILLIAMS: I just wonder what the world is coming to. It's just another way to exploit people during their hour of bereavement. It's another way to rip people off. I would hate to think that I would turn my loved one into materialism.
ELLIS: This is capitalism, Armstrong. It's capitalism. Unfettered capitalism.
(BELL RINGS)
VAUSE: All right, it's the bell.
FERGUSON: I don't want to get engaged. In fact, here's my mom, you know what I mean? That's just not what I want to do.
AGNER: Dan, don't do that.
VAUSE: There we go.
OK.
Armstrong, Christy Agner, Ben Ferguson and Curtis Ellis, thanks very much for joining us all today.
WILLIAMS: Happy new year.
AGNER: Happy new year.
VAUSE: And happy new year to you.
When we come back, we'll hear your replies to our question of the day: which Democrat can give President Bush a run for his money in 2004? You can e-mail us and let us know. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAUSE: Welcome back.
Time now for the question of the day -- which Democrat can give President Bush a run for his money in 2004?
We have some e-mails. So let's go to the first e-mail. There it is. "Working class Americans feel shafted by every president. The upper economic group is going to get richer regardless of who is president." David in Tennessee.
OK, we've got Mike from Arizona on the telephone. Mike, who will be the best candidate?
MIKE: The best candidate? I don't believe that anybody is going to touch President Bush. Nobody stands a chance.
VAUSE: No one's going to get him? We have a question in the audience. We have Thurmon (ph) over here from Missouri.
Thurmon?
THURMON: I think John Kerry is going to be the best candidate because with his background in Vietnam I think he could beat Bush in any debate about foreign policy and he has more legitimacy and he wants to get some solid tax financing. And I think he'd be pretty much unbeatable with like the middle class Americans.
VAUSE: OK, we've got one more e-mail to go. Let's type it up on the screen and have a look. One more e-mail. Here we go. Al, here we go, Al Sharpton. That was sent from Al Sharpton.
OK, we're out of time.
Thanks for joining me.
I'm John Vause in for Carol Lin who was in for Miles O'Brien who was in for Arthel Neville, who is on vacation.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Voice to Take on Rush Limbaugh?>
|
