|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Free-For-All Friday for January 24, 2003
Aired January 24, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE, just three days before weapons inspectors report on their progress in Iraq to the U.N. and anxiety is building.
A chilling threat from Saddam Hussein's son. We'll tell you what he said and find out if his warning will affect U.S. efforts to win support for a possible war.
The president may still have some convincing to do at home. We'll fill you in on the latest polls.
And, it's Super Bowl weekend. Security is tight, so tight in fact people are already being arrested, which has at least one Arab- American group using the word "ethnic cleansing." Details of Operation Game Day coming up.
The talk begins right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Across the nation, the threat of terror has people on edge this weekend. It's evident in preparations for Super Bowl Sunday, preparations for President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday. And today the Department of Homeland Security has its first secretary, Tom Ridge, and we're going to go live shortly to coverage of Tom Ridge's news conference, which is expected shortly.
In the meantime, we are going to be joined today by radio talk show host Blanquita Cullum in Washington. Hello, Blanquita.
CULLUM: Hi, Arthel. How are you?
NEVILLE: Good.
And from New York, we have IE America radio talk show host Curtis Ellis. Hello, Curtis. Nice to see both of you.
CURTIS ELLIS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Nice to see you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: So, Blanquita, I'll start with you, but you know I'm going to dip into that news conference shortly so I'm going have to interrupt you, OK?
CULLUM: No problem.
NEVILLE: In the meantime, will you feel safer by the new Homeland Security Department?
CULLUM: Well, I think they're going to be doing something. We had a period when people weren't coordinating efforts, and I think that's the beginning.
I think right now you've got a lot of plans in place, you know, right here where a lot of it's going on. And I think there's a more coordinated effort and a lot of things are going on behind the scenes that the public is not aware of.
So I do feel a bit more safer.
NEVILLE: What about you, Curtis?
ELLIS: No, I don't feel any more safe at all. In fact, I feel less safe. Because knowing how large bureaucratic organizations work, most of the people in the department are now busy figuring out who do they really talk to to get around the bureaucratic hurdles which are always in place in any new organization.
And they're trying to figure out how the phones work, where's the fax machine, and stuff like that.
CULLUM: That's not exactly right. I mean, frankly...
NEVILLE: Guys, let me interrupt you now. Mr. Ridge has taken the podium. And we're going to dip into that news conference now.
TOM RIDGE, U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I do have a brief statement. Then I'd be very pleased to take your questions.
Today marks another step in this country's efforts to secure the homeland. Since the president signed the Homeland Security act of 2002 into law 60 days ago, the transition staff has worked around the clock to develop the organizational framework needed to refocus and reorganize the department's workforce to accomplish the unified mission of protecting America.
Much of what has been accomplished can be best described as behind-the-scenes planning. Things that you don't write about, and a lot of people aren't interested in, but it's absolutely critical these things be done and they be done well, and a lot of work in that regard has been concluded, even in preparation of this very first day.
It includes such things as developing the necessary information technology systems, and human resource processes, and the general management practices that will enable the men and women from 22 different agencies to perform their jobs when they move in to the new department on March 1.
So let me provide a few highlights on what takes effect today and our plans for next week.
First, effective today I have resigned as the president's Homeland Security adviser. I privately and, again, publicly express my gratitude to the president of the United States for the confidence and the opportunity he gave me to serve with him as a member of the staff, as assistant to the president for Homeland Security. He's given me an opportunity to work with him, and an extraordinary team that he's assembled during these critical times in America's history and I'm very proud and grateful for that opportunity.
I also reiterated to the president my commitment to do everything I can and to harness the energy and the creativity and the will and the commitment of 170,000-plus people to do everything they can every single day to accomplish the mission of Homeland Security. And that is to do everything we can to prevent a terrorist attack, to reduce our vulnerability, to prepare for an attack, to respond as quickly as possible, to do it to our very best ability every single day.
I will continue to meet with the president, as I've done as an assistant to the president, but I will now meet with him in the morning during the daily briefing sessions that we have. That includes, obviously, the vice president, George Tenet, the CIA, Director Mueller, the attorney general, and others.
Now, yesterday the president signed an executive order that includes amendments to -- this is some of the paperwork, you're probably not going to spend too much time writing about, but the paperwork involves 16 executive orders that will give me, as the newly sworn-in secretary, specific authorities so that I may more effectively undertake the responsibilities of leading this new department.
The executive order assigns to the secretary of homeland security the responsibility for coordinating any domestic response, if an attack occurs between today and March 1. Remember, today is a milestone, because it creates the office of the secretary of homeland security.
The agencies and departments begin moving in on March 1, and most of them legally become part of that department. We have that intervening five weeks, we want to make sure that we all understand everybody's role and responsibility, and it will continue to be my responsibility to coordinate any response in the event of a terrorist attack between now and March 1. Thereafter, it's obviously my responsibility by virtue of being the secretary of the new department.
The other authorities include provisions and amendments ranging from providing the secretary and his team with the ability to consult through the committees that have been established, over at state and treasury and the attorney general. Again, just formalizing some of the day-to-day contacts that we have as individuals, as well as respective members of our staff.
The executive order also officially identifies the department's information and analysis and infrastructure protection as the newest member in the U.S. intelligence community. You are well aware there's a new unit within this department. It is the information analysis and infrastructure protection unit. And the executive order recognizes that this unit and this department is now a formal member of our national intelligence community.
As you already know, initial headquarters will be located at Nebraska Avenue Center in Northwestern Penn -- Northwestern Washington. Sorry about that. Try to get it up to my home in Northwestern Pennsylvania, in Erie, PA., but since they have two or three feet of snow, they decided to keep it down here.
We're very pleased to move to this facility. We have had the opportunity to work with the navy out there for some time. We have a threat monitoring center out there, our coordination center out there, our incident management center is out there. So for the time being, we will be located and we are prepared to commence operations immediately.
This includes and again, one of the reasons we're moving out there, they've got the computers and the secure communications and equipment that connect us with the rest of the federal agencies, that connect us with the governors, connect us in many instances with the emergency management agencies of the respective states and territories. This facility also meets the security requirements of the new department, as I mentioned before, currently houses much of the infrastructure of the office of Homeland Security that we've built up and work with on a day-to-day basis.
Our new web site, the www.dhs.gov, went up last night at midnight. Gives you a chance to take a look at it. It will be an indispensable tool as we continue to build and then sustain the partnerships we need with the states and the local governments, with the private sector, as well with citizens. And we expect that we'll get very constructive feedback over the weeks and months ahead, and it will be one of our primary information-sharing tools that we will employ on a day-to-day basis.
You will also note that we have a -- an e-mail system ready to go, to connect us. One of our larger challenges, obviously, when you bring these 22 departments in is to make sure as we set up a 21st Century department, that we equip it with the technology of the 21st Century, so that we are better informed internally, and in turn, are better equipped with that knowledge and information to work with our strategic partners in both the public and the private sector.
We realize that today marks one step in the process of building, not only the new department, but continuing on a daily basis to better protect our fellow citizens and our way of life. We also realize we have a long way to go.
And we look forward to building on the relationships we've developed over the past 14 months, from the work we've done since the Office of Homeland Security was set up on October 8 of 2001. And we're certainly looking forward to March 1 when most of the 22 departments and units become a formal part, a legal part, of the new department of Homeland Security. Now, seated to my left are some of the extraordinary men and women who've volunteered to be part of our team, our management team. We still clearly have positions to fill. We're going to move as quickly as possible, but we want to move quickly. The first priority is to move and do things right rather than do them quickly.
I signed an order this morning that will enable those who have not been confirmed by the United States Senate to move into the new department as effective today, and to serve as acting secretaries. Of course, we know Lisa Hutchinson was confirmed last night as under secretary for border and transportation security.
But another example is Jana Haile (ph), the undersecretary of management, and held a Senate confirmed position. But as of today, she's in an acting position, acting under secretary within our department.
Our good friend, the fabulous secretary of the navy, is now our deputy secretary, in an acting capacity. We hope shortly and unanimously he'll be confirmed by the men and women of the respective job he's done at navy. Soon. Tomorrow I hope. Today. Monday, I don't know. But we're ready.
We're not worried about the confirmation. We're ready to go to work and have that that's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be. So I thank you for the opportunity to share these few comments with you and would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.
Sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir. What is going in first in your priority of agencies coming in?
RIDGE: I will tell you, I guess it's really what is not going in. Just about all the major components. The customs move in. TSA moves in, Secret Service, Coast Guard. There are some of the smaller units, like the animal, plant, health and inspection service would move in in June. But I would say, if I recall correctly, 18 or 19 of the units move in as of March 1.
So we will be robust and up, basically, just about everybody in every department on March 1.
Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Secretary, this has been compared to trying to overhaul the engine of an airplane in mid-flight. Very difficult job. What do you address first in terms of the vulnerabilities that face the country?
RIDGE: Well, every day I think the president's charged us with responsibility to build capacities. We're going to do things differently; we need to do things differently. We build on the existing capacity we have. We've got 170,000 men and women who go to work every day trying to protect America. They work at the borders, they work at the airports, they work at labs.
And this new department gives us a chance to do a better job of putting them together where we think consolidating some of their work will make our borders safer, doing things differently with information sharing so that more people, empowered by more information, can do a better job of preventing a terrorist attack or reducing vulnerabilities.
So I think the first challenge we have is just building up new capacities and, in that effort I think we look to begin simultaneously working with the men and women who work there, you know? We are going to build a new human resource management system. We want these men and women to be empowered.
I really feel good about their jobs. I've been at the borders. I've been at the airports. I've been in the labs, I've been on the vessels of the Coast Guard. They have enormous pride in what they do, and I think they should, because they go to work hard every day. They go to work hard every day trying to make a difference.
Now, listen, some of these agencies have been criticized for what they did or did not do. But I know in the heart and mind of everybody that goes to work with me in the Office of Homeland Security, they're going to do the best they possibly can.
So we're going to talk about training. We're going to talk about incentives, we're going to talk about...
NEVILLE: OK. We've been listening to Tom Ridge talk to the press regarding his new post as head of the Department of Homeland Security. In the meantime right now, I have to take a break. So stay right where you are.
And when we come back, find out what New York Senator Hillary Clinton thinks of the new Department of Homeland Security. She will be talking to Judy Woodruff today on "INSIDE POLITICS" at 4 p.m. Eastern. So stick around for that.
In the meantime, coming up later on our show, we'll talk football. Who do you think will win the Super Bowl? The Oakland Raiders or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? The audience, they're are all for Tampa Bay here! That's our question of the day. Let me know what you think. Go ahead and e-mail us at CNN@ --TalkBack@CNN.com. What's the e-mail address, Arthel?
Don't go anywhere. We're back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Just three days before chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix and U.N. nuclear agency head Mohammed ElBaradei deliver their report to the Security Council. We're getting a glimpse of what's to come.
A spokesman says ElBaradei plans to give Saddam Hussein a B, saying his cooperation is quite satisfactory, though there's room for improvement. And he'll ask for more time to carry out inspections.
In the meantime, Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, had a frightening message if the United States does go to war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UDAY HUSSEIN, SADDAM HUSSEIN'S SON (through translator): If they used air strikes against us, then what happened on September 11, it will look like a joke. They will know the real price they are going to pay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. We want to expand our panel right now. Former congressman and now radio talk show host Peter Blute joins us from Boston; and John Moyers editor of the online political magazine TomPaine.com joins us from Washington.
Want to welcome to both of you.
And John, you heard those words, very strong. Are they empty words or loaded warning?
JOHN MOYERS, EDITOR, TOMPAINE.COM: I think empty words. From my perspective, it seems like he is taking his opportunity to rattle the saber, but I don't think anybody's really impressed by that.
NEVILLE: Peter, empty words or a loaded warning?
PETER BLUTE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, it's reminiscent of when his father during the previous war referred to the mother of all battles, and that didn't quite turn out to be quite as accurate as he might have intended it to be.
No, I think they're throwing some rhetoric out. It's not going to work. They need to come forward, put their cards on the table. They haven't done that yet.
CULLUM: It's like Mini Me. He's like 666 Damien, the "Omen." He's the evil son. You know, there's such a severe regime, those kids are brought up killing people. I mean, that was their, kind of, playing cops and robbers, except they really killed people. And in the cabinet meetings, I mean, you have Saddam Hussein killing people.
I mean, there used to be a character called Mr. Bluster. He's Mr. Bluster.
BLUTE: It seems like it's meant for domestic consumption, I think. Domestic consumption and then the Islamic world, perhaps.
ELLIS: I wouldn't worry about what Uday Hussein says. I would be concerned about what George Tenet has said. The head of the CIA said if we attack Iraq they're more likely to launch terrorist attacks against us. And as Gary Hart put it, "No American soldier should cross the border into Iraq until we are prepared here at home to prevent the inevitable retaliation."
NEVILLE: And Curtis, I want to follow up on that with you, but I have to take a break right now.
Coming up next, the Bush Administration makes a sales pitch for possible military action in Iraq. Are you convinced?
And Super Bowl Sunday is two days away. Who do you think will win? It's our question of the day. Stick around. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
We're talking about strong words from Uday, Saddam Hussein's son. He says listen, if any U.S. military personnel set foot inside of Iraqi borders, then September 11 will look like a picnic.
And Curtis, you believe that this is -- these are just empty words you were saying, I think, before the break.
ELLIS: Yes, well, I was saying I'm not too concerned about what Uday Hussein says, because they just love this fiery rhetoric.
But George Tenet has said that if we attack Iraq and Hussein, it looks like he's going to lose, he's more likely to launch terrorist attacks or launch weapons of mass destruction or pass off whatever crummy weapons he has off to terrorist gangs.
NEVILLE: Which brings me right to my next question, Curtis, and that is, is this proof that Saddam Hussein, indeed, has contacts or power over terrorist cells that might happen to be right here in the United States?
ELLIS: Well, I'm sure that he has a way to get in touch with them if he wants to. Remember, now, Hussein is a secularist, he is not an Islamic fundamentalist. His biggest threat is Iranian fundamentalists. He would not give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who are Islamic fundamentalists, because they're very likely to use them against him.
But if it looks like he's going to go down in flames anyway, he just might give the store away, hoping that they'll use it against the Americans, since he's dead anyway.
NEVILLE: Blanquita, you're saying no. Why?
CULLUM: Yes. Because I do agree in one respect, that you have enough people in the Middle East that really hate Saddam Hussein. In fact, one of my correspondents today said that they are very concerned about the weapons of mass destruction, that the Massad (ph) has been talking about -- that they do have them, and for some reason we can't seem to get the goods on.
But I would tell you, I think that if there are terrorists that are going to work around, I mean, certainly they would be different, independent and they might want to write it off because of wanting to get Saddam Hussein.
But I think any war, even based even upon the correspondents that I've talked to around the country and around the war basically say it would be quick, in and out, that we certainly have the capabilities to make it a fast war.
NEVILLE: So what about the threat that perhaps there might be terrorist attacks here on U.S. soil?
CULLUM: We've got -- look, we've got terrorist attacks that have already happened in this country. We've got terrorist...
NEVILLE: Bigger -- As big as or bigger than September 11?
CULLUM: Oh, as big as. I mean, right now, what do you think the concern for even trying to create a larger Homeland Security? Why do you think what's going on trying to make sure that the Super Bowl is safe? Why do you think we're concerned about the cells that exist in Canada? Cells that exist in this country, and Northern Virginia, that exist in New York, that exist in different parts of the country?
We've known they've been there, but now it's time for us to get off the diamond and do something about it.
MOYERS: Well, you know, we got to stick with our -- We've got to really stick with our allies.
I heard the senior member of the Labor Party in Britain yesterday on CBC say that major, prominent, retired members of the British military are saying out loud in Britain this week that they are very concerned with the lack of support that the United States has given, a lack of proof, that the United States is offering. And they are predicting out loud that public opinion in Britain will turn decidedly against any action in Iraq, unless there's really solid justification for it.
And that's coming from, remember, strong members of retired military men, several of them.
BLUTE: Public opinion in Britain is already leaning against a war, but Tony Blair is leading that country, and he knows something that, perhaps, we all don't know yet, that the Iraqis are hiding weapons of mass destruction.
They, for 11 years, have violated all of the agreements they've made with the United States at the end of the war, with the U.N. Eleven years of this! They're firing on American and British jets on a regular basis over the no-fly zone.
NEVILLE: All right, Peter. There's the bell, so we'll have to move on. Sorry about that. Coming up next, moving on to another topic, Super Bowl Sunday is two days away, but Operation Game Day has already begun. We'll get a live report and find out why Arab-Americans aren't cheering.
And our question of the day, which team do you think will win the Super Bowl? The Oakland Raiders or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? That's all coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Super Bowl security will be super tight this year. Operation Game Day is part of a crackdown to protect San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium during the big game. And CNN's Josie Karp joins us now live from San Diego to check on the extraordinary precautions for Sunday's game -- Josie.
JOSIE KARP, CNN SPORTS ILLUSTRATED CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Arthel. You know last year was really unprecedented at the Super Bowl. It was the first Super Bowl after 9/11, and there was a national security special event status that was given to the Super Bowl that had never been given to a sporting event before. It also was extended to the Olympics in Salt Lake City.
It's a little different this time around here in San Diego. They don't have that federal designation, where at the national level they are in charge of security. Instead, it's the San Diego police in charge of security at Qualcomm Stadium on Sunday. They're working with 20 agencies, though, ranging from FEMA to the FBI to Secret Service. And what they're trying to do in effect is make the game site as secure as possible.
People who go to the game have to understand that there's going to be a little bit of a different circumstance than they're used to when going to a regular Chargers game. First of all, they're not going to be allowed to park at the stadium. If you're a fan going to Super Bowl XXXVII, you have to find another way to get there. There are buses, there are trolleys, there are limousines, there are taxis. And then once you do get there, there are 90 metal detectors around the stadium.
Security officials say that every single person who enters Qualcomm Stadium is going to be screened in some way or another. And they're asking people, hey, if you want to get in quickly, don't bring devices like cell phones and pagers, because that's going to slow things up.
Another thing that they're doing to try to make the place as secure as possible, there's a no-fly zone that extends seven miles above the stadium. It's going to look a little different, Arthel, because you're not going to be seeing the blimp shot...
NEVILLE: The blimp, exactly.
KARP: ... that you're used to seeing at the Super Bowl. Now when you're in an indoor place like the Superdome in New Orleans, you don't notice that as much. But it's something that people at home, anyway, might be able to say...
NEVILLE: Yes, we like to see that.
KARP: Yes. And then there's a way people at home can see it if the security different and that it's in effect. Again, because the San Diego police are in charge, it's a little different than last year, when it went all the way up to the federal level. But what they're saying is you probably as a fan are not going to notice necessarily any difference in the number of police officers. But the truth is, at the stadium there are going to be three times as many police officers, but a lot of them will be plain-clothed police officers.
Another thing that they don't want people to notice, but people should probably be aware of, there are 50 surveillance cameras. Actually, 50-plus surveillance cameras that are going to be taking pictures inside and outside of the stadium. That's something they started doing back in 1994 when the World Cup was here, and it's something they're instituting again at the Super Bowl -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: So Josie, if they can't park at the stadium, I guess no tailgating parties, huh?
KARP: Absolutely. There are no tailgating parties. You know they gave out a list also of all the different things you are not allowed to bring in. And there are obvious ones, like explosives. But we've been talking a lot -- I'm sure you have, too -- about Raider Nation, the fans of the Oakland Raiders who like to go to games all dressed up wearing crazy, sometimes scary things, putting metal -- you know, things that could be used as a weapon, perhaps, in another circumstance on their body to act the part of a Raider fan.
And what the security officials are saying is, on a case-by-case basis they'll decide whether or not the costume can be seen as something potentially harmful. So that's something that the Raider Nation might have to deal with separate from other fans.
NEVILLE: OK. Josie Karp, I hope you have tickets to the game.
KARP: Well I think I'll have a pretty good seat.
NEVILLE: All right, good.
Well is pre-Super Bowl security in San Diego a little too tight, or perhaps what someone might call misplaced? The "San Diego Union Tribune" reports that dozens of security guards and drivers from other countries have been arrested by immigration officials as part of Operation Game Day. Now the paper says some are suspected of immigration violations. Others will be deported because of criminal records. And that has one Arab group labeling the security precaution "ethnic cleansing." Many other groups are worried.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES ZOGBY, PRESIDENT, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: The danger in all of this is that we've seen a number of initiatives since 9/11 where people are held, people are deported, people do not have either the right to counsel, the right to know what the charges are against them. And in many cases, their family members don't even know where they are. And in this instance, the only crime that these people committed is that they happen to be Arab or Hispanic and they happen to be working at the Super Bowl. And because they happen to have a wrong job at the wrong place at the wrong time, they're in danger of being deported, and they don't know why.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. Blanquita, necessary precautions or unnecessary harassment?
CULLUM: Absolutely necessary precaution. And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I have had on my show. The thing they're that saying here is that many of the people were, you know, avoiding going back and trying to get their immigration, you know, visas fixed. Some of them have -- were here for criminal violations.
And frankly, if something happens at that Super Bowl and they say well, gee, you mean you didn't check that guy? And he didn't have a visa, and he was here, and he had a criminal violation, that is not harassment. It is precaution. It's doing their job.
NEVILLE: John, how do you see it?
MOYERS: Well, it's hard to say what's enough. You know? If something were to happen, we would ask, of course, was enough precaution taken in advance. So who knows if it will be enough. Hopefully nothing will happen. I wonder, though -- and it wasn't in part of your report -- I wonder if that facial recognition technology will be enforced there, and if so, who they'll be identifying and whether people have a problem with it.
CULLUM: But they've been doing that for a long time, and they've been doing that at a lot of games. In fact, they've been doing that in places like Florida. But the question is, if you've got your family member there, do you want that precaution? And do you think illegal immigrants who are here with a criminal background, should they stay in the country? Do we have one standard or do we have another standard because they're working at the Super Bowl?
NEVILLE: Before I go break, let me get Peter and Curtis in there. Go ahead, Peter.
BLUTE: Can't we agree that in the post-9/11 environment that if you're an illegal alien, you're an illegal alien and you have to answer for that? The system has to work to either get you legal or get you out, but we can't just look away at people who are illegal aliens anymore.
ELLIS: I agree entirely. I don't think there is any right for an illegal alien to be here. For someone to be here illegally in violation of their visa. But at the same time, let's be clear. If the INS was doing "Operation Every Day," doing their job every day, there would be no need for Operation Game Day. But for the past 20- some years, since Ronald Reagan started badmouthing government and starving the government for resources, the INS and the government has not had the resources...
CULLUM: Oh please.
NEVILLE: And there is the bell. And here comes the break. Coming up next: from TV talk shows to the halls of the U.S. Senate, could Jerry Springer become the next Ohio senator?
Also, our "Question of the Day." Which team do you think will win the Super Bowl, the Oakland Raiders or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? Don't sit on the sidelines. E-mail me or give me a call. The "Talk" continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Jen (ph) in Ontario sending in an e-mail. Thank you so much. And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Talk show host Jerry Springer is thinking about running for the Senate from Ohio. Now Springer, a Democrat, says he'll decide by summer whether to challenge Republican George Voinovich next year. The former Cincinnati mayor is well known for exploring topics on his show, such as "My boyfriend is a girl," and "Your lover is mine."
Viewers love him, but would they vote for him? OK. Let me start with John on this. John does Jerry have a shot?
MOYERS: Welcome to politics in America. You know I think as long as long as he has a scantily-clad young woman at his side at all times, and maybe in the debate hits his opponent over the head with a chair, then he has a chance.
ELLIS: Well you know, as a student of American history, fist fights were once pretty common on the floor of the Senate. Maybe Jerry Springer will bring that back. Whatever it takes to get people involved in politics, I'm for it.
CULLUM: But Curtis, he doesn't have what Jim Traficant had. Jim Traficant was from Ohio. And the thing is -- I mean, I think people love to hear Jim Traficant.
Jim Traficant one time he called the members of the Congress prostitutes and they threw him out of the Congress. And they said, well, are you going to go back and apologize? This is what the press said. And he said, yes, he wanted to apologize to all the prostitutes for comparing them to the members of Congress.
ELLIS: That's right. And there was another famous Ohio congressman who was caught with a secretary who was a call girl. Now Jerry Springer just might fit right into the Ohio mold. Remember he was caught paying a prostitute with a check.
CULLUM: With a city check, actually.
NEVILLE: Prostitutes take checks?
ELLIS: That qualifies him for service in Washington. Most of our congressmen are whores.
CULLUM: Oh, no. I don't agree with that.
BLUTE: If you look at the senators elected in Ohio, they tend to be pretty stayed, modest people, like John Glenn and Taft and others. It's doubtful...
CULLUM: From Ohio?
BLUTE: ... that Ohio would turn to Jerry Springer.
CULLUM: Ohio has had some fun, great members of Congress.
BLUTE: At the Senate level.
CULLUM: But the Senate, once they leave the House and they go to the Senate, they become a bit more demure. And if Jerry Springer thinks that he is going to get elected and all of a sudden do his antics, and let's say for some fluke he (UNINTELLIGIBLE), do you think he'd act like himself in the Senate?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Let's ask Dion (ph) here. First of all, let's answer Blanquita's question. Do you think Jerry would act like himself in the Senate?
DION: Probably. You know, I don't think -- I think that kind of shows what you state the world is in, when you can allow somebody with that type of value or morals to just (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
NEVILLE: We live in a democracy.
DION: Absolutely, I agree. But a decision-making position, I mean you should have some type of morals. Display some type of morals when you're in the public eye. You know what I mean?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: There is the bell. You know what that means. We are going to take a break. And coming up next, we're going to take a detour into some other stuff in our "Flash Round." Many people think the best part of the Super Bowl is the commercials. Well, the mayor of Las Vegas begs to differ. We'll tell you why he's upset when we return.
Also, in the "What was he thinking" department, an 80-year-old man lets out his rage with a shopping cart. That story's coming up and much more. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: It's time for our Free-For-All "Flash Round." First up: the NFL won't be showing ads for Las Vegas during the Super Bowl, saying they promote gambling. But the mayor of Las Vegas says the ads don't show gambling. He says the NFL should be worried about beer ads. Is he right -- Blanquita.
CULLUM: Oh, I think that we're all going to turn flush on this one. If we can watch beer, we should be able to see gambling ads. What's the difference?
NEVILLE: OK -- Curtis.
ELLIS: Oh absolutely they should run these ads. As he said, the ads don't show gambling, they don't show in-room massages, they show everything else you can get in Las Vegas, which is still a part of the U.S. Let them advertise.
NEVILLE: Peter.
BLUTE: I think the NFL has every right to protect the sanctity of its game by keeping out influences that could truly hurt the game if people thought the games had anything to do with sports betting.
NEVILLE: John.
MOYERS: I'm sure nobody will bet on the NFL games on the Super Bowl this weekend because there's not that advertisement...
NEVILLE: OK. Up next, a former inmate is suing the Delaware prison system over secondhand smoke. He says he was forced to share a cell with chain smokers violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Do prisoners deserve a smoke-free environment -- Blanquita
CULLUM: Are you kidding me? (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a different version of a singles bar, right? This guy, if he broke the law, he deserve the smoke.
NEVILLE: Curtis.
ELLIS: It's a scientific fact that nicotine makes people less aggressive and reduces sexual urges. He should be glad his cellmate is smoking.
NEVILLE: OK -- Peter.
BLUTE: A prison should be a smoke-free, work-heavy environment.
NEVILLE: All right -- John.
MOYERS: I have to take it serious. I don't think this guy should be subject to somebody else's smoke. I don't think you can force that on somebody, and it may be cruel and unusual punishment.
NEVILLE: OK. Well, coming up next, you've heard of road rage, right? But what about shopping cart rage? An 80-year-old Connecticut man was arrested after police say he repeatedly pushed his cart into another shopper's cart after he thought the man cut in front of him in line. Woo. OK, a sign of the times? Blanquita.
CULLUM: Oh my goodness. It's supermarket shopping basket frenzy. I think he turned out be a senior's basket case.
NEVILLE: Curtis.
ELLIS: I see a possible new reality show here. Maybe the senior division for world wrestling federation.
NEVILLE: Peter.
BLUTE: Let's be honest. We've all had the same feeling when people go through the line with too many items in the 12 or less line.
CULLUM: Oh, no. A shopping cop.
NEVILLE: John.
MOYERS: As everybody knows who watches a lot of commercial TV, violence is the solution to most problems.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, the bell is there. Blanquita Cullum, I want to thank you for being here.
CULLUM: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Curtis Ellis, good to see you. Peter Blute, nice to see you.
BLUTE: Hey, Arthel.
NEVILLE: John Moyers, thanks so much for being here, and we'll see you another time.
And still to come, our "Question of the Day." Which team do you think will win the Super Bowl, the Oakland Raiders or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? We have one Oakland Raiders' fan in the audience. We'll hear your comments after we come back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Oh yes. It is time for our "Question of the Day." Which team do you think will win the Super Bowl, the Oakland Raiders or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? Going to California, where Dan (ph) is standing by. What do you say, Dan (ph)?
DAN: Hello?
NEVILLE: Hello. You're live. Who's going to win?
DAN: I'd say that the Raiders are going to take it.
NEVILLE: All right. I am not surprised you said that. All right, Dan (ph). Thanks so much for calling.
DAN: Aren't you going to ask me why?
NEVILLE: OK. Go ahead. Why, Dan (ph)?
DAN: Here's why: the Raiders' offense is way too potent for that Tampa (UNINTELLIGIBLE). They've got nothing on (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and just take it all the way. And then we've got a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) receivers.
NEVILLE: All right, Dan?
DAN: What's up?
NEVILLE: Thank you, Dan (ph). I have to go to some e-mails right now. But have fun watching the game. Tom in Tallahassee says, "Gruden will use his knowledge of the Oakland players to rush his old team." Say, what? "Tampa Bay, 31, Oakland, 13."
Steven (ph), you say what?
STEVEN: That he needs to go back to his keyboard. The Oakland Raiders will win.
NEVILLE: Oh no. Let's see what Valerie (ph) says. What do you say?
All right, these guys are shy. They're going to be watching the game, eating chips. That's all I know. That's all they know, right?
Listen, everybody, thank you so -- oh, look, we have an e-mail coming in. Ryan in Iowa. He says, "The Raiders will prevail and prove that age is a state of mind. The only state that Sapp and company will be in is a state of shock when Gannon and the old guys run up the score."
Wow, Ryan. OK. Thanks for sending an e-mail. We are out of time. Thanks so much to all of our guests and all of our viewers.
Join us Monday for more TALKBACK LIVE. Coming up next, "INSIDE POLITICS," Judy Woodruff.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
