|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Free-For-All Friday for January 3, 2003
Aired January 3, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: North Korea says, can we just talk? North Korea says they are offering the United States a way out of the nuclear standoff. Find out what North Korea wants and why the White House isn't budging.
And was the media duped? Anyone waiting for proof to back up Clonaid's claims that they cloned the first human may need a lot of patience. Hear what the head of the Raelian movement is now saying. Tell me if you think the whole thing is just a scam.
And, are you bowled over yet? Does the number of pigskin postseason classics have you stocking up on the beer and buffalo wings? Or, is the glut of sponsors and bowl competitions giving you a case of TV heartburn?
TALKBACK LIVE begins right now.
Hello, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish, in for the vacationing Arthel Neville. I can usually be heard on WPHT talk radio in Philadelphia. As a matter of fact, today's show is being simulcast back there on the Big Talker, 1210 AM.
Well, it was an emotional scene in a California courtroom today for the sentencing of David Westerfield. He's the man convicted of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. A judge went along with the jury's recommendation, sentencing Westerfield to death.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE WILLIAM MUDD, SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT: It is the judgment and sentence of the court, Mr. Westerfield, that, for the crime of murder in first degree, committed under the special circumstance that the murder was committed during the course and scope of a kidnapping, that you shall be put to death within the walls of the California State Prison at San Quentin in the manner prescribed by law upon a date to be fixed by this court in a warrant of execution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Danielle van Dam's mother angrily lashed out at the Westerfield result over the loss of her little girl. Give a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRENDA VAN DAM, VICTIM'S MOTHER: You sat by smugly as thousands of people frantically searched for Danielle and her family anguished over finding her. It disgusts me that your sick fantasies and your pitiful needs made you feel that you needed Danielle more than her family. You put your needs over the needs of her entire family, an entire community, an entire nation to find Danielle. What could make one human being murder another? This is a question I will forever ask myself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: So, did Westerfield get what he deserves?
Let's hash this one out. Joining me today are syndicated columnist Terry Jeffrey. He's the editor of "Human Events"; and talk show host Amy Goodman. She's from the Pacifica Radio Network.
Amy, let me start with you. Did Westerfield get what he deserves?
AMY GOODMAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Westerfield committed a heinous crime, but I don't believe the death penalty is the answer. I think what we learned and what we already knew is that killing is wrong. And I don't think the state should do it either.
SMERCONISH: Bottom line then, I guess, is that you are never a believer in the death sentence? Because if there were ever a case in the death penalty, you'd think it would be this one.
GOODMAN: Well, this certainly was a horrendous crime. But I do believe that, when the state kills, it sets and example and it says sometimes killing is OK. And I don't believe that's the case.
SMERCONISH: Terry Jeffrey, do you agree with that? Do you think that the death sentence in inappropriate in the Westerfield case?
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": No, I couldn't disagree more, Michael.
I think that Westerfield got the sentence he deserved. Now, the question is whether that sentence will be carried out. I actually grew up in San Rafael, California, which is the site of San Quentin Prison. When I was a kid, I played little league baseball games inside the prison on a diamond, where trustee inmates actually umpired the games.
But I think that, in the entire time I was growing up, there was exactly one execution in that prison. And California has a long history of both heinous murders, like the one that Westerfield committed, and people getting convicted and sentenced to death, but never being actually executed.
JEFFREY: So, I think what the people of California need to demand now from their judicial system and from Democratic Governor Gray Davis is to expedite this guy's case, so he actually ends up being executed, as he deserves.
SMERCONISH: Terry, I have got some data that supports exactly what you've just said. It says that 611 individuals are on California's death row. That's the largest death row population in the nation. And since the death penalty came back in 1976, only 10 individuals have been executed in that state. You think that demands some legislative change.
JEFFREY: Well, Michael, another thing that happened in California, back in the 1970s, they had a liberal chief justice named Rose Byrd, who had been appointed by Moonbeam Jerry Brown, who systematically turned away every death penalty case on appeal, so that people didn't get executed. She was actually impeached and removed as the chief justice of California from the people of that state.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFREY: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
SMERCONISH: Go ahead, Amy.
GOODMAN: What we have to look at right now, I think, is another figure that is very important.
And that is, more than 100 people have been exonerated from death row, because they were wrongly convicted. And now we have DNA evidence and testing. And that concerns me a great deal, that people could be put to death. And people like the retired state Supreme Court judge from Florida, Kogan, has said he fears that he has ruled on the execution of people who were, in fact, innocent. And I think is a very serious problem.
SMERCONISH: Amy, I'm unaware of a single case in the United States where it's been proven that someone's been put to death who did not do the crime. And you know how it is. On death row, everybody says that they're innocent and they are wrongly accused.
GOODMAN: No, no. We're talking about 100 people who have been taken off death row because they were innocent of the crime that they were convicted of.
(CROSSTALK)
GOODMAN: That is a very grave concern to people in this country, that 100 innocent people would killed.
SMERCONISH: Let me show you an e-mail from the audience that I think sums up the sentiments of a lot of folks in the country: "I think that once a person has been convicted beyond a doubt for such a crime that David Westerfield is accused of should get the death sentence and put to death immediately after the trial." The's Walter in Atlanta.
How many in the studio audience agree with Walter in Atlanta?
(APPLAUSE)
SMERCONISH: I mean, enough is enough, right? If we're going use the death sentence, it would seem to me that David Westerfield is a guy who should be put down. Do you agree with those sentiments?
GOODMAN: I think David Westerfield should be punished. I don't think the answer is state killing.
SMERCONISH: Let me ask about another aspect of this case. And I'll ask you, Terry.
It came out in the course of the trial of David Westerfield that Mr. and Mrs. van Dam had a lifestyle that was, at least to way of my way of thinking, a bit unusual, that they were players, so to speak. Was it a legitimate part of the defense of David Westerfield to introduce those elements to the jury?
JEFFREY: Well, personally, I think his entire defense was illegitimate, because the guy was guilty. If he had wanted to do the morally correct thing, Michael, what he should have done was confess his crimes before trial, pled guilty and accepted the punishment that was just for that crime.
The fact that he forced the state of California to conduct an expensive and intensive trial that gained all kinds of national media attention showed that the guy was not repentant for this heinous crime, which is another reason why he deserves death. So, I think his entire trial was illegitimate.
SMERCONISH: Well, it's a touchy subject. And the last thing that I want to do is disparage the parents, who have lost this 7-year- old baby girl. But don't they share some culpability for the outcome, given that they had a lifestyle that was aberrant?
JEFFREY: Yes, I believe that.
I think that, any time anybody goes and does something -- goes into a bad neighborhood -- and this is a sort of bad neighborhood -- they're going to have to expect consequences. I think people are personally responsible for whatever acts they take. And if you take acts that introduce risks to your children, I think you're doing something that is, in fact, wrong, no question about it.
SMERCONISH: Let me ask Raymond from Georgia.
Where in Georgia are you from, Raymond?
RAYMOND: Smyrna.
SMERCONISH: Sir, you've heard what we have said about the case. They introduced some elements here that the family, the parents led an aberrant lifestyle. Do you think they hold any culpability themselves for the outcome here?
RAYMOND: Maybe not. But, you see, a proper defense lawyer has to check every avenue. If, after doing so, the accused is condemned, then he's properly condemned.
SMERCONISH: Because you believe that everybody in this country is entitled to a defense, and the defense lawyer was within his rights to try and persuade the jury with the introduction of this evidence?
RAYMOND: Precisely so.
SMERCONISH: OK, Amy, do you agree with that? What's your reaction to the whole lifestyle question and the way that it was used in the van Dam-Westerfield trial?
GOODMAN: I don't believe that you blame the victims.
I think what is absolutely critical here, though, is, when someone like David Westerfield is found guilty, he should be punished. But we should not use the example of what he did, which was killing this little girl, and do exactly what he has done. And that is kill him.
It's why, in most industrialized countries -- all industrialized countries outside of the United States have abolished the death penalty. I think we have to be better than criminals like David Westerfield.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Go ahead, Terry.
JEFFREY: If I could quickly address that, there's a logical fallacy there.
She said that the state, by executing this murderer, would be doing the same thing that Westerfield did by murdering an innocent girl. That's not true. What he did was murder an innocent person. What the state would be doing, after a process that was just, is executing a murderer. Those are quite distinct things.
SMERCONISH: Let me try and get Gordon in here from my neck of the woods, Pennsylvania.
Go ahead, sir. You're on TALKBACK LIVE.
CALLER: Yes.
I'm not necessarily unhappy with the death penalty, but I think that's too kind for this guy. I think what would be better is a life lived in prison as a known rapist and child murderer and the general population of -- you know, take the toughest prison you've got.
SMERCONISH: Because, you know he'd be at the low end of that prison totem pole, if that's the outcome that came his way.
CALLER: Ultimately, the death penalty would come.
SMERCONISH: But, Gordon, Terry made a great point, which is that this is all a joke. California doesn't carry out death sentences. So, the outcome that you're looking for I think you're going to receive, or, I should say, Mr. Westerfield is going to receive.
You can hear more from Brenda van Dam tonight. She'll be a guest on CNN's "LARRY KING LIVE" at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
Coming up later in the show: 28 and counting. Are there too many college bowl games? That's our "Question of the Day." And I want to know what you think. Send an e-mail or call me now at TALKBACK LIVE.
And next: the Raelians. Are the media being duped by the religious sect that claims the first human clone is alive? After all, they believe in space aliens and they think that clones are the path to eternal life. So, why are the media so hot for this story?
More when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back. I'm Michael Smerconish.
It's the wackiest story of the new year and it's getting more and more bizarre every day. I'm talking about the Raelians and their claims of the world's first human clone. Are they tricking the media?
The head of that religious sect says he's now urging the head of Clonaid, the company that claims had cloned baby Eve, not to allow DNA tests on the child. Despite all the hype, there has been no evidence that a cloned baby exists. But a Florida attorney has filed a suit asking the courts to appoint a legal guardian for this alleged clone. And that's prompted Rael to call for a halt to DNA testing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAEL, RAELIAN MOVEMENT LEADER: But a judge in Florida signed a paper saying that to protect the child, it has to be take away from the mother. And I cannot understand why something like that should happen. And I think every family in America, if there is a healthy baby, even if it's cloned with the mother, I don't see why this would be separated.
I called her, and I said, if there is any risk that this baby is taken away from the family, it's better to lose your credibility. Don't do the testing. Because what is important is the child and not to prove the world that you are right. And I think she agree with me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Hey, what do you think? I think that guy's been dipping into Michael Jackson's wardrobe. Are the media being taken on a heck of a roller-coaster ride courtesy of the Raelians? Let me ask my guests.
I'll start with you, Terry Jeffrey.
JEFFREY: Yes, Michael.
I think they're being taken on a heck of a ride over the issue of cloning. But the biggest ride isn't given by the Raelians. It's being given by members of the United States Congress and by researchers. More than a year ago a company in Worcester, Massachusetts, called Advanced Cell Technology claimed that it cloned human being, cloned human embryos. They just let them die.
You have senior members of Congress in both parties, including Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, Senator Tom Daschle, who used to be the senator majority leader, who want it to be legal in this country to clone human beings and then kill them while they are still embryos, so you can use their pieces as spare parts in Dr. Frankenstein-style medical experiments.
So, the media ought to focus on Tom Daschle and Orrin Hatch and Advanced Cell Technology and not these sci-fi characters, the Raelians
SMERCONISH: Amy, do you agree that perhaps a silver lining from this -- would you be willing to call it a scam? Are you with me at that stage in saying, yes, I think the whole thing is a bunch of bunk?
GOODMAN: I think we can't at all know right now what's going on.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: All right, you're wishy-washy on it. That's all right.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Let me follow up what Terry said and ask you this question.
Is a silver lining of the Raelians -- I have to remind myself that it rhymes with aliens -- is one silver lining perhaps the fact that Congress now will get involved in the whole cloning debate and put down some law?
GOODMAN: Well, I think what's important here is that we should have a national discussion about the issue of cloning, because it is going to happen, whether or not it's happened at this point. And we also have to draw distinctions between therapeutic cloning and human cloning.
SMERCONISH: Let me ask Danielle from Montreal.
Danielle, give me your sound bite here on these Raelians. What do you think as you watch this on TV?
DANIELLE: Well, I think it's an entire scam and that they are just trying to get publicity and get more people into their sect. And I just don't understand why they are out there in the media thinking that they have this baby that they have cloned and we don't even have the baby.
SMERCONISH: One of the conclusions I've reached is that, if you put on, like, a George Jetson getup and you call a press conference and you say something goofy, you're going to get on national TV.
DANIELLE: And that's right. And it's working for them. But, also, there's an issue at hand here. And it's this cloning. And a lot of people have to be aware of what's going on here. Are we going to use this to actually progress in our medicine and our research?
Or are we going to use this to create -- I mean, to go with our sense of self and say that we are going to create what we want in life and not just let the miracle of life just take its course?
SMERCONISH: I agree. Tough debate. Thank you for your comments.
Ann is in New York City, I believe.
And, Ann, go ahead. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
CALLER: Thank you very much.
Here's my comment. I think that the media has picked up on this in such a big way because we're about to hear from the radical right a whole slew of new legislation to ban all stem cell research, which I think is a legitimate avenue of inquiry to cure genetically transmitted disease.
SMERCONISH: But wait a minute. I can't buy into that. You're telling me there's some giant conspiracy in the media.
CALLER: No, no. Of course, not.
SMERCONISH: And now they're saying, oh, let's give the Raelians a lot of press, because we'll do in the right wing.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Come on.
CALLER: There's a people with an eye to the main chance. I just think that a lot of people are friends all on the same golf courses. And they're saying, let's scare people.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Terry, I think she's talking about your golf course. I'm not sure.
JEFFREY: Yes, well, let me shock her some more, Michael.
I would actually argue that, if the Raelians have actually succeeded in doing what they say they've done, cloning a human being, bringing that human being to term and being born, they have done something that would be morally superior than what Senator Orrin Hatch and Tom Daschle and Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy advocate as a matter of law.
They want scientists to be able to create human beings in a laboratory through cloning for the specific purpose of killing those human beings, so they can take out their cells and transplant them back into someone else. I believe that is a form of cannibalism.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: I got to move on, but thanks for the reaction. A Florida reporter is twiddling his thumbs on the sidelines today. He's in trouble for adding to the controversy sparked by this cartoon. What did the reporter do?
More on that on the other side of this break from TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back. I'm Michael Smerconish, from the Big Talker 1210 in Philadelphia.
Most of us are pretty free with what we put in our e-mail, right? Well, that's created a world of trouble for Bill Cotterell. He's a political writer and a columnist for "The Tallahassee Democrat." Take a look. This controversial cartoon asking the question, "What would Mohammed drive?", sparked an angry e-mail from one reader.
Cotterell answered it, referring to Arabs squatting around a camel dung fire and putting their bottoms in the air five times a day during prayers. Cotterell is now on suspension. Too harsh or is it just punishment?
And let me start with you, Amy, and ask you, on Pacifica Radio, do you ever get into these kind of angry exchanges with any of your listeners via e-mail?
GOODMAN: That's a disgusting comment that the reporter made. And I think it reflects an overall climate in this country that is targeting Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans and people of South Asian descent. And it starts at the very top, with John Ashcroft of the Justice Department and the president of this country.
SMERCONISH: Oh, now, wait a minute. Now, hold it. You're blaming John Ashcroft for the fact that this cartoon exists and this writer went off half-cocked down in Florida?
GOODMAN: I'm blaming John Ashcroft for setting a climate in this country where, just in the last few weeks, in Los Angeles, they ran out of handcuffs because of the number of people who voluntarily registered at the INS who were then taken and arrested, Iranian- Americans and other Arab-Americans. This is a grave concern to Arab- Americans, Muslims and people who care about justice all over this country.
SMERCONISH: Let me ask you this question, because I have to believe that not everybody who listens to you agrees with you and that you receive -- because I get my share in Philly -- that you get your share of angry e-mail. When you get an angry e-mail, do you respond to it?
GOODMAN: I don't make disparaging comments about...
SMERCONISH: But do you respond to it? That's all I want to know.
GOODMAN: I respond when I can. And I respond to the issue. I do not characterize a whole population of people in a derogatory way.
SMERCONISH: Terry, how about at "Human Events"? If you get something in your syndicated work that people don't like, do you respond to the angry e-mails?
JEFFREY: No. If someone clearly has an animus against you, I think it's probably unwise and unproductive to respond.
But let me respond to what she said about John Ashcroft. What she really ought to be blaming John Ashcroft for, Michael, is that, since September 11, we have not had another major terrorist attack on this soil. And that is because of the outstanding job John Ashcroft has done as attorney general, without violating anybody's rights.
I think there ought to be a distinction made on this show and in her reasoning between a foreign national that comes to the United States illegally or stays here illegally and Arab-Americans or Muslim- Americans whose rights must be protected, just like any other American.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Hey, listen, I think it's all a little bit of P.C. stuff that's gone crazy.
But let me ask Sean here from Canada.
How you doing, Sean? And what do you think about this?
SEAN: I'm doing good.
I think, first of all, the comments that the journalist replied with were probably off base. But, first of all, the cartoon itself should never have made it into the paper, because it just promotes racism, stereotypes, which have run rampant in this country.
SMERCONISH: Well, now, wait a minute. Hold on now. That cartoon, what it sparked was debate. And that's the role of a cartoonist. This is not stuff that goes on the front page. This is stuff that goes on the editorial page.
SEAN: It doesn't matter if it's on the last page, if it promotes racism, especially with the tensions the way they are in the world today. Many of the countries have backed away from the U.S. because of this type of propaganda.
SMERCONISH: All right, hey, listen, I think I'm in the minority on this one.
Anybody think this is just a bunch of P.C. stuff that is going crazy in our country, or am I alone? Uh-oh.
You, sir. Thank goodness, the guy back there in Florida.
How about you, Jesse, in Georgia? Give me a quick reaction to this. JESSE: I think it's somewhat hypocritical for people to be talking about what he can say and what he cannot say in a nation where we're supposed to have free speech and where people argue that Eminem can rap about this and that. No doubt, it's unfortunate that he said that, but I don't...
SMERCONISH: Well, he may have been stupid, but it's just two people sending e-mail communication back and forth, like a lot of folks do at the job.
JESSE: Certainly, yes. I agree.
(CROSSTALK)
GOODMAN: No one is asking whether he had the right to say it. It's whether it was right to say it.
And I think what's going on here is, he's saying it in a climate where there's really a war going on at home. And it's targeting certain members, certain populations in this country, just as the war is going on abroad, the threatened U.S. invasion of Iraq, which is also wrong.
SMERCONISH: I want to thank and say so long to my panelists, Terry Jeffrey and Amy Goodman.
In a moment: North Korea, nuclear weapons, and why the White House is saying, no deal.
Stay with us on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish.
North Korea is calling for a little dialogue to help cool rising tensions over its nuclear program. North Korea's ambassador to China suggested that his country might scrap the nuclear program if Washington signed a non-aggression treaty.
So far, Washington isn't taking them up on the offer, saying that it won't bargain with the communist nation.
And today, President Bush remained steadfast.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We must, and we will, protect the American people and our friends and allies from catastrophic violence, wherever the source, whatever the threat.
In the case of North Korea, the world must continue to speak with one voice to turn that regime away from its nuclear ambitions. In the case of Iraq, the world has already spoken with one voice.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SMERCONISH: Is there any solution in sight? Let's get into it.
Joining me now, WLIE radio talk show host Ed Tyll and Radio America talk show host Alan Nathan.
Let me start with Ed Tyll and ask you, should we sign a non- aggression pact with North Korea just to get them to the bargaining table?
ED TYLL, WLIE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, Michael, absolutely not. It's a blackmail offer, at best. The United States has to exercise enormous responsibility and caution, but certainly cannot be seen to be making a deal after a treaty and an agreement has been repudiated, such as the North Koreans have.
SMERCONISH: But we're never going to invade North Korea. So I mean, what the heck? What are we really giving up?
TYLL: Well, never's a long time. I don't know if I could foreclose never. I do remember there was a Korean war in my lifetime.
In addition to that, the world is so much different, and it continues to change. The geopolitical balance in Asia becomes more and more important to the United States, a) as a factor derivative of trading, and certainly the United States still stands as the leader for world peace.
SMERCONISH: Ed, you've got to help me sort something out.
You've got a situation, first of all, in Iraq, where war appears to be imminent. Big buildup of U.S. troops overseas, and so far, Hans Blix and company haven't found squat.
On the other hand, in North Korea, you know that they've got the nukes, but there's no military presence, there's no buildup, and nobody is talking about going into North Korea.
Why the dichotomy? Why the split?
TYLL: Well, I had the very same question myself a few days ago, and as I've listened to and have read what many scholars have said, one was published yesterday in a New York City newspaper and I think made an excellent attempt at answering that question.
The surrounding areas to North Korea are so much different than the areas that surround Iraq, that, certainly, the weapons that we know North Korea has and the weapons that we're searching for in Iraq might be equal, but the geopolitics is not.
We do have some check and balance on North Korea. We're not the only ones interested in containing the nuclear threat.
However, when you look at Iraq's neighbors to the north, east and northwest, you'll see that all of these nations could be trouble, and, also, do not have the ability to intimidate Iraq, like North Korea's neighbors may have to put pressure on it.
SMERCONISH: Let me get Alan Nathan in on this dialogue.
Alan, should we sign a non-aggression pact with the North Koreans so we can bring them to the table and put this to rest?
ALAN NATHAN, RADIO AMERICA TALK SHOW HOST: Well, Michael, it's a little odd to even consider that.
You might recall a few weeks ago, it was reported in "The Washington Post" that, in response to having discovered that North Korea was indeed in violation of that 1994 agreement, it said not to worry. We'll not take military action. However, let's go ahead and sign a non-aggression pact, to which the North Korean government responded, no, I don't think so. That's just a precursor to, you know, nuclear arms talks.
Now they're demanding that which we were originally prevailing upon then to do. I'm afraid they're just a bit too schizophrenic for my taste.
SMERCONISH: Alan, I believe that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. I believe that we'd all be better served if Saddam Hussein were not in control of Iraq. And I believe that Saddam Hussein wishes bad things for my four kids.
But I do not believe that the president has made a case for military intervention in Iraq. Do you believe that he's made a case for intervention in Iraq right now?
NATHAN: He's made a phenomenal case. It's just overwhelming, the case that's been made.
SMERCONISH: Well, tell me what it is, please. Because I need to know. I want to support him. Where's the beef, is what I'm left asking?
NATHAN: The beef is ascribable to the following: he has violated 16 U.N. resolutions thus far. How often do you go ahead and allow people to unilaterally violate resolutions without suffering some kind of consequences?
We're not being unilateralists. Look, all we wish to do is implement consequences for non-compliance, as rooted in these rather multilateralist documents called U.N. resolutions.
SMERCONISH: But if we want...
NATHAN: If you don't bring consequences to bear, then you're never to be believed in the future.
SMERCONISH: But hear me on this. We have bought into, wrongly, but we've bought into this U.N. weapons inspection program.
Hans Blix and company, they're over there, they're running around. On a day when they went into one of Saddam Hussein's palaces and had unfettered access and didn't find anything, I heard our president, a guy that I support, say, well, things aren't looking so good over there.
I mean, Ed Tyll, you tell me if I'm wrong, but I want to support the president on military intervention in Iraq. He hasn't given me anything yet.
TYLL: Michael, again, we find ourselves asking the same questions and almost sharing the same wish. I, like you, want America to speak with one singular strong voice and I want, when we make an entourage across the world with a coalition, I want us to know what we're doing and I want us to know why we're doing it and of course, the beginning, middle and end game.
SMERCONISH: Well, let me ask my friends down here...
TYLL: The case hasn't been made.
SMERCONISH: Let me ask my friends down here in Atlanta. Here's the question, and I want to know by a show of applause. Has our president convinced you of the need for military intervention in Iraq right now? Applaud if you say yes. Applaud now if you say no.
I'm telling you -- guys, I am not one of these left-wing loonies. I'm for this president. I voted for him once, I think I'm going to probably do it again, but he's got to give us something.
TYLL: Michael, it's the toughest thing he can do.
NATHAN: I want to make a point here...
TYLL: Our premise is to not let Iraq have nuclear weapons; a) Can we be sure that they do and how will we prove a negative to the American people, to satisfy them that a country as large as Iraq is scrubbed of nuclear weapons?
SMERCONISH: Well, Alan Nathan, you respond, but we've set this dynamic up so that now we've got to prove a positive. Did we set up the world to find the weapons?
NATHAN: No, you're forgetting something. You're forgetting. Look, we don't want to take a peripheral observation and infer it as if it were an inclusive analysis.
I'm somebody who was originally against the Vietnam War, still proud to have been against it. This is a very different story.
This government violated the original terms of surrender, the original agreement to cease fire. Once they did so, we then had the right to resume military activity, whether or not we can show a 9/11 connection.
If you say to somebody, go this far and no farther, and if you don't, we're going to deliver consequences, but then fail to deliver those consequences, we're playing a very dangerous game.
SMERCONISH: Well, you're supporting me now. We never should have started down this road to begin with.
NATHAN: What we're doing is we're allowing him to violate and commit dangerous crimes with impunity. You can't do that.
SMERCONISH: Alan, hang on. Let me get my buddy Jonathan in here from Texas. Quickly, what do you think about this?
JONATHAN: Well, I want to put in a word here about North Korea. And I'm a little disturbed by the number of politicians who are throwing around the word "appeasement" as it involves North Korea, as if they're tying this in to Hitler.
I mean, this is a situation in Korea that's been going on for 50 years, it's an incredibly complex situation.
And when we have a president who draws a line, who decides we've got the good guys out there, and we've got the bad guys out there, and that's the way we're going to look at the world, it's trying to put a black and white in multiple shades of gray.
SMERCONISH: You think that the president made a mistake when he referred to North Korea as being part of the axis of evil?
JONATHAN: I think he made a grave mistake. I think he made a grave mistake, because we've been working with North -- we have been engaging North Korea for a number of years now. We have averted a crisis in 1994. I don't know about everybody else here, but I didn't want to go to war in 1994. I didn't want U.S. soldiers to be dying in North Korea in '94, and we averted that.
And we are working with North Korea. We don't have to like them, but they're there.
SMERCONISH: Jonathan, thanks. I've got to roll, but thank you for your comments. I think I'm with Jonathan on this one.
Hey, coming up, another Democrat tests the political waters for a swim to the White House. Maybe yes, maybe no. Is he in over his head?
And the most powerful woman in Congress is charting her own course. Will she provide a much needed map for the Democrats?
More on TALKBACK LIVE in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back. I'm Michael Smerconish.
Does the Democratic Party need a compass? Maybe they'll find it with new House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.
She immediately attacked the president's economic stimulus package today, which is to be unveiled next week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: But the speculation that I see doesn't indicate that there's much stimulus in the package. I think what you see is the administration perhaps using the term stimulus as the Trojan horse to wheel in some favorite tax breaks on the high end that they're so fond of, and so what remains to be seen, what the president will do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SMERCONISH: Outgoing House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt has higher goals for himself, again. He wants to be president. Monday he's going to create a presidential exploratory committee. He's not expected to formally enter the race for a few more months.
It's just one more move in the shifting landscape of the Democratic Party.
Now, I have got cooked up an unscientific survey here at the CNN Center in Atlanta. You've got to all assume that you are Democrats, ready to elect a Democratic candidate for president. Are you with me?
By a show of applause, are you for John Edwards, Dick Gephardt or Hillary? Let's start with Edwards. John Edwards? (applause) all right. How about Dick Gephardt? (lighter applause) Not too many. I'm bracing myself for this. How about for Hillary? (stronger applause) Oh, boy, oh, boy, oh, boy!
You, ma'am? How do I say your name?
JENDA: Jenda (ph).
SMERCONISH: And Jenda (ph), why Hillary?
JENDA: I think she's a very strong leader. She's proven it. She stood by her husband. Didn't really agree with that one too much, because I am a Democrat. But I think she's a very strong woman, she's a powerful leader.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Alan Nathan, love her or hate her, she's got star power. And I don't know that these others have it.
NATHAN: Michael, I'll tell you, I've always believed that the more we got to know Hillary, the more we forgave Bill. She, in my estimation is simply not deserving of the seat she has but that's OK. She won it fair and square. I say not deserving because, as a New Yorker myself, I have a problem with the way she swooped down.
But she won it, she's earned it. Anybody in this country who wants to take a shot can try. I genuinely feel she hasn't got a shot, because she's not really perceived as a centrist Democrat. And let's face it, the left wingers do not make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
SMERCONISH: And Ed Tyll, let me ask you this question.
Here's Dick Gephardt; he couldn't hold on to the position of minority leader in the House. How do you exit that position and now run for the White House?
TYLL: Well, it is called an exploratory committee. So we'll find out what the exploration results in. I wouldn't have much faith in a Gephardt national candidacy.
But you mentioned John Edwards. And of course, Hillary looms large. What I know about John Edwards and what I've seen from him and heard from him, he certainly is going to direct a campaign, if he's able to get one started, towards average Americans.
Hillary is, as your audience member pointed out, Jenda was very correct, a very powerful leader, and America and New York appreciate those qualities.
When you put them all together, I think those are your two front- runners.
SMERCONISH: Alan Nathan, in a quick sound bite, does the status of John Edwards as a former trial lawyer help him or hurt him? We've elected a lot of lawyers president in this country, but this time it seems a little different?
NATHAN: Personally, I have a great loathing for lawyers, but I've interviewed John Edwards on my show before. He comes across as a centrist type of Democrat on balance. He supported the president in homeland security, supports the pending war against Iraq, very forceful in his support on the war on terror. Holds views antithetical to the far left of the Democrats.
I think he personally will take the Democratic nomination.
SMERCONISH: Alan, remind me not to tell you about my day job.
Calling all you arm-chair quarterbacks, up next: Does the glut of football bowls have you dancing in the end zone, or are they making you too tired to dip? The debate heats up when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish.
The top-ranked Miami Hurricanes and number two Ohio State Buckeyes are in Arizona today. They're exercising their muscles and undoubtedly their egos getting ready for tonight's Fiesta Bowl.
Now, I sampled the CNN Center audience down here in Atlanta and I said who's a real college football fan? Annie (ph), you told me, from Iowa, that you are a big football fan?
ANNIE: Yes. It's what I watch every Saturday.
SMERCONISH: All right. I've got a little quiz for you, because I want to know how closely you're following these bowl games. I'm going to give you some sponsor names, and I want to see if you can link them with the bowl. All right? FedEx.
ANNIE: Orange Bowl.
SMERCONISH: Oh, boy. Nokia?
ANNIE: Sugar Bowl.
SMERCONISH: Oh, she's two for two! Oh! (applause)
Toyota?
ANNIE: Gator Bowl.
SMERCONISH: Three for three!
And I think this one is the easiest one. Tostitos!
ANNIE: Fiesta Bowl.
SMERCONISH: Hey, that is awesome! You are four for four.
Annie, the reason I bring this up is because I'm so tired of these football stadiums taking on corporate names. And now the bowl games, they all have, you know, Tostito this and Toyota. Do you agree with me? Are they too commercial?
ANNIE: I definitely agree. I remember when it was just the Rose Bowl, and now it's the Rose Bowl sponsored by Playstation II. It's just gotten out of hand.
SMERCONISH: Good for you. Hey, give her T-shirt or something. Are you kidding me? Thank you very much.
Alan Nathan, are they too commercial with all these goofy names?
NATHAN: You know, you need funds to drive the sports. You've got to pay everybody off. It's sad, but I think it's the culmination of everything predictable.
What are you going to do? I mean, there's just no other option for these folks. They want the cash, they want to drive the force. I don't see any other alternative. I don't like it, but I think it's predictable.
SMERCONISH: Ed Tyll, when I was, you know, when I had a full head of hair, let's say, I don't remember all this sponsorship, do you?
TYLL: Well, first of all, you're right about the sponsorships. It really seems to be out of place. Every time you mention a great college football game, that you have to work in a corporate logo.
But more so, I remember even as a childhood college football fan the endless wait and the search for a college number one. That's what I think the bowls system is all about to those of us who have always enjoyed college football: a) we want to see if our alma mater is in the running, if we have one and we support it. Or we just want to watch the best of the best play.
SMERCONISH: Let me tell you...
TYLL: And it's become the bowl game industry instead of the bowl game competition.
SMERCONISH: We're getting rid of Veteran Stadium in Philadelphia. Now they're going to call it something financial field. And all of a sudden the vets, they get lost in the shuffle. That's not right.
Ed Tyll and Alan Nathan, thanks for joining us. You guys were great.
TYLL: Thanks for having us.
SMERCONISH: When we come back, I want to hear from you. Are you bowled out? Are 28 college bowl games enough? Is this about football or money?
TALKBACK LIVE returns after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
And now our question of the day. Are you bowled out after 28 games, or do you want some more?
Let me ask my friend Derek (ph) over here from Georgia. Are you bowled out?
DEREK: Yes, because I honestly don't think that the best teams play off. It's all about the names.
SMERCONISH: But you'll be watching tonight, right?
DEREK: I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Troy, on the telephone, real quick, my friend, tell me what you think.
CALLER: Well I think the bowl games should be a play-off situation. There's too many of them and they're too corporate. As coming from an Ohio fan, living 40 miles south of Columbus, I'm saying, go, Bucs, and I will definitely be watching tonight!
SMERCONISH: Commercial for the Buckeyes for that Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. That's all the time we have today.
I'm Michael Smerconish from the "Big Talker" in Philly, in for Arthel Neville, who's back on Monday. Thanks for watching.
INSIDE POLITICS is next. Have a great weekend. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
