The Web    CNN.com      Powered by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SERVICES
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SEARCH
Web CNN.com
powered by Yahoo!
TRANSCRIPTS


 

Return to Transcripts main page

PAULA ZAHN NOW

What Now For Middle East?; Scott Peterson Found Guilty

Aired November 12, 2004 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening and welcome to PRIME TIME POLITICS. Thanks so much for joining us. Paula is away this evening. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Why the incredible adulation for the man that so many people called a terrorist? We're going to look at Yasser Arafat and what the Middle East will be like without him, while, in Washington, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair talk about whether it is time to get even more deeply involved in the Middle East. And the prime minister faces this question, is he President Bush's poodle?

Also, a new movie called "Kinsey" about the controversial sex researcher, it opens up a new battlefront on moral values. What would Dr. Ruth say about this? We'll ask her.

There is certainly plenty of politics to discuss, but, first, late this afternoon in California, a jury convicts Scott Peterson of killing his wife and his unborn child. It ends a five-month trial that truly held the nation's attention. Cameras not allowed in the courtroom, but we learned tonight that Scott Peterson stared straight ahead, expressionless, as a jury read the verdict.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: State of California vs. Scott Peterson. We the jury in the above entitled cause find the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the crime of murder of Laci Peterson. We the jury further find the degree of murder to be that of the first degree.

We the jury in the above entitled cause find the defendant Scott Lee Peterson guilty of the crime of murder of baby Conner Peterson. We the jury further find the degree of murder to be that of the second degree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared around Christmas Eve 2002. Prosecutors argued that her husband killed her because he was having an affair. Now, Scott Peterson could get the death penalty.

Our David Mattingly was actually in the courtroom for the verdict. He joins us now from the courthouse in Redwood City.

David, I'm sure most people are dying to know what it was like inside the courtroom as that verdict was read. DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Rick, there were people literally sitting on the edges of their seat in that courtroom leaning forward, straining to hear every single word as that verdict was read. There was a great deal of tension, not an empty seat anywhere.

The Rocha family, Laci Peterson's family, sitting in the front row on the right, as they always have, the Peterson family sitting in the front row on the left, as they always have. And there were 14 uniformed officers scattered throughout the room.

As soon as that verdict was read and everyone heard the word guilty, there was an audible gasp that went out through that room, particularly from the area where the Rocha family was sitting, who then got very emotional throughout the rest of the proceedings today.

SANCHEZ: A gasp because people weren't expecting that?

MATTINGLY: I think there has been so much talk about this, people didn't know what to expect by the time that verdict was read, but there was a great deal of anticipation. And, again, the gasps seemed to be strongest where the Rocha family was sitting, a family that had been going through this since Laci had disappeared in December of 2002.

SANCHEZ: Well, what about Scott Peterson himself? Did you get a glance at him at the time that the verdict was read?

MATTINGLY: When Scott Peterson came into the courtroom, he actually seemed to be a little relaxed, smiling and talking with his defense attorneys. When the verdict was read, he sat very still and looked forward, not seeming to react emotionally at all to this verdict.

The same thing for his family, not getting very emotional at all as this verdict was read, again, suggesting that they might have been anticipating this kind of bad news.

SANCHEZ: I know there has been so many cases in California, and particularly in that area. How big was this one? Was the local reaction, was this something people were following there on a daily basis?

MATTINGLY: Everybody that we've talked to has been following this trial. In fact, there was more of a reaction outside the courtroom than there was inside.

When the verdict was read -- you just heard it -- there was a cheer that went up from some people who were seeking a guilty verdict for Scott Peterson. And when Scott Peterson's family attempted to leave the courthouse and go to the car that was waiting for them, there were some taunts. One woman you could hear shouting: I hope you're proud of your son.

The Peterson family did not acknowledge that crowd, but you could see Mrs. Peterson mouthing the words: I am proud of my son. SANCHEZ: That sounds cruel, to be saying something like that to the mother of a person who has just been convicted, as if she had anything to do with it.

By the way, David, what happens next?

MATTINGLY: What happens next, a week from Monday, the jury we have now is still not done. They will come back to the courtroom and, at that time, they will hear arguments in the penalty phase of this case. Scott Peterson's attorneys will literally be fighting for his life as the jury must now decide whether or not he gets the death penalty.

The best-case scenario for Scott Peterson right now is that he would get life in prison without the possibility of parole -- Rick.

SANCHEZ: David Mattingly following it for us -- thanks so much, David, for bringing us the latest on that.

Joining us now to discuss this guilty verdict in the Peterson trial and the public reaction as well are former prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. He is with me right here in New York, as a matter of fact.

Hi, Jeffrey.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: And, in Washington, Pamela Hayes. She's a defense attorney and a former prosecutor.

I ask this because I have watched you all the way along, Mr. Toobin. Were you surprised by the jury's verdict?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: I was very surprised by how fast the verdict was.

I mean, after two replacements in the course of two days, this jury, these 12 people only deliberated for about six hours together. That's a very short time for a five-month trial. As for the verdict itself, I was not terribly surprised. Even though there was no murder weapon found, even though there was no eyewitnesses, even though there was no cause of death established, Scott Peterson was the obvious and only suspect from day one. So, the verdict itself was not a terrific surprise.

SANCHEZ: Ms. Hayes, how big was it when they suddenly took out jurors No. 5 and No. 7 and replaced them?

PAMELA HAYES, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I thought it was pretty big, because I think it was clear to most courtroom watchers that these were the holdout jurors, and that's why it's somewhat concerning and there's a lot of talk about whether they committed gross misconduct and, thereby, you know, should have been thrown off the jury. But...

SANCHEZ: Well, let me stop you there for a minute. Gross misconduct, now we're getting into some pretty heavy arguments here. Define for us what they would have had to do to not just be removed, but for somebody like Geragos to come in now and say, wait a minute. You took away my jurors.

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: The big issue on appeal will be whether it was appropriate to dismiss this juror. One of these jurors, it's worth remembering, Geragos agreed to remove. So that won't be an issue on appeal.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Yes, but not the last one.

TOOBIN: But not the last one.

And the issue there is, did this juror -- was this juror removed because he was looking at evidence in the case that was not in evidence, surfing the Internet, visiting sites? That's an appropriate reason to get rid of someone. But was this person thrown off because he was simply a holdout for the defense? That would be inappropriate and an issue on appeal.

SANCHEZ: Sure, because it is like cherry-picking at the last minute.

TOOBIN: Right.

SANCHEZ: You can't do that, right?

TOOBIN: Right.

HAYES: Precisely.

TOOBIN: But Judge Delucchi is not a dumb guy. He knows the legal issues there. And I don't believe he would throw this juror off unless there was awfully good reasons. But we don't know and that's something that, when the records are unsealed, we'll look at.

SANCHEZ: Ms. Hayes, do you agree?

HAYES: Oh, I absolutely agree, because, once a juror is sworn, there are only certain reasons you can throw them off.

And, like I said, if it wasn't gross misconduct and, like Jeffrey said, something that we know that violated their oath as jurors, it would have been a real -- it's a real problem and it's reversible error. And I'm sure they have case law in California that's directly on point for that. So, you know, I think the judge tries to do what he has to do, but they better have some good reasons.

SANCHEZ: Let me ask you about these two things. And I'll give both of you some reaction to this.

I'll start with you, Ms. Hayes. Boat and the whole coincidence of him being in the same area where his wife's body turned out and Scott's personal life, were those the two clinchers, you think, for this particular jury, because they had no physical evidence, right?

HAYES: I think it was more about the boat being in the place where the bodies turned up.

He told them that's where he was. And I think that was his undoing. The fact that he had an affair didn't do anything for me because I don't think he was actually leaving Laci and Conner for Amber and her daughter. I mean, it was the same type of situation. Consequently, I think the jury focused on -- they didn't have any other evidence to focus on. I think they looked at Mark Geragos to do something. And, unfortunately, the defense case didn't change anything for them, so they just went with what they had.

SANCHEZ: Let me ask you both this question before we go. And I'm getting a wrap, so we have got to kind of make it as brief as we can.

Why was America enthralled with this particular murder when there are murders all over the place in this country every day?

TOOBIN: Rick, I have struggled with that question.

I think it was a combination of things. It happened on Christmas Eve at a time when there was not much other news, so it grabbed the public's attention early on. It had the elements of a mystery that unfolded gradually. First, Scott Peterson was the grieving husband. Then Amber Frey appeared. Then Laci's body was found. That gradual disclosure of interesting, salacious facts I think kept people interested.

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: And it built it. And, but, you know, I have to say, I was somewhat baffled at the extent of the public interest. There was a lot of it.

SANCHEZ: Yes. It's amazing what America want to watch, right?

TOOBIN: That's right.

SANCHEZ: Jeffrey Toobin, Pamela Hayes, we thank you both for your insight on this.

You know there's a lot more right ahead right here on PRIME TIME POLITICS.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ (voice-over): Yasser Arafat buried in Ramallah. Will his death mean a new Middle East?

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look forward to working with the Palestinian leadership.

SANCHEZ: Or the same old problems with a brand new face?

Also, in a country divided on moral values, a movie sets off conservative rage.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you expect?

SANCHEZ: Fifty years after his pioneering sex studies, Dr. Alfred Kinsey is making a new generation of enemies. Tonight, sex, science and politics.

And that leads to our voting booth question. Should the U.S. government fund research on human sexuality? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Paula.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We welcome you back. Today marked an end and perhaps a beginning.

In one the most troubled parts of the world, just hours after Yasser Arafat was buried in the West Bank town of Ramallah, the leaders of U.S. and Great Britain said they are standing by to help the Palestinians establish their own country somehow. However, there are conditions.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ (voice-over): The pomp and ceremony of Yasser Arafat's funeral in Egypt and, in stark contrast, the chaos and frenzy of his burial in Ramallah, images fresh on everyone's mind as President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair met at the White House to recommit themselves to establishing a Palestinian state next door to Israel.

BUSH: I believe we've got a great chance to establish a Palestinian state. And I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state.

SANCHEZ: There are several big ifs. If the Palestinians renounce terrorism, if they establish a democracy, and if Israel helps.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: In the end, it is only if the two states that we want to see living side by side are, indeed, democratic states, where the rule of law and human rights are respected in each of them, that a just peace could be secured.

SANCHEZ: Prime Minister Blair wants an international conference on the Middle East, but the president did not exactly endorse the idea.

BUSH: I'm all for conferences, just as long as the conferences produce something.

SANCHEZ: As for the ongoing violence in Iraq, both leaders insist they will not back down.

BLAIR: We have to complete our mission in Iraq, make sure that Iraq is a stable and a democratic country. And I have no doubt at all that whatever the difficulties that terrorists and insurgents, supporters of Saddam Hussein may pose for us, that we will overcome those difficulties.

SANCHEZ: But the president has a warning about Iraq's national elections scheduled for January.

BUSH: As those elections draw near, the desperation of the killers will grow and the violence could escalate.

SANCHEZ: There was also a light moment when a reporter asked Mr. Bush about the British media lampooning the prime minister as the president's poodle.

QUESTION: I was wondering if that's the way you may see your relationship? And perhaps, more seriously, do you feel for the...

BLAIR: Don't answer yes to that question.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

BLAIR: That would be difficult.

SANCHEZ: But President Bush gave a serious answer, calling the prime minister a strong, capable man who means what he says.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: And with me now here is CNN contributor and "TIME" columnist Joe Klein.

Mr. Klein, thanks so much for being with us.

JOE KLEIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hey, Rick.

SANCHEZ: Did you see those pictures today in Ramallah when they took the casket off? Were you as stunned as I was by the outpouring of affection?

KLEIN: No, not stunned. The first time I saw Yasser Arafat in the flesh in 1978 was in South Lebanon. It was the same kind of emotion. I mean, he is revered by those people.

SANCHEZ: But doesn't that create a huge disparity? Here, the United States of America calls him a terrorist, won't even talk to him, will not engage in any way, shape or form. And yet, to the Arab street, if that is what was representative, what we saw today, he is adored.

KLEIN: Well, it demands on what our position is going forward. If the president goes back to the position that Bill Clinton laid out in 2000, which is a peace deal that almost everybody, most Arab countries, most European countries, and most rational Israelis and Palestinians...

SANCHEZ: It's the best deal they've ever gotten and probably the best deal they'll ever get.

KLEIN: If we go back to that, then what the Bush administration said about Arafat in the first term won't matter.

SANCHEZ: Yes, but, see, they say East Jerusalem is just too important to them and they weren't going to give up on East Jerusalem. Of course, you and I know there's like 170,000 Israelis that are living there, right?

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, they're saying no. They're saying that they did not get a fair shot at East Jerusalem in what Mr. Clinton and Mr. Ehud Barak had presented them.

KLEIN: Look, the map was drawn on a street-by-street basis.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

KLEIN: It was a fair deal. The Palestinians got part of East Jerusalem. The Israelis got to keep the communities that they built in that area.

And the question is, No. 1, is there a Palestinian leader who is going to emerge who is strong enough to sell that deal to that street that we saw today? And, No. 2, are the Israelis willing to go back to where they were in 2000? Ariel Sharon is not Ehud Barak. And he's never shown a real willingness to give up all the settlements involved.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Let me ask you this. It's kind of a blunt question, but we're blunt here.

KLEIN: Speak for yourself, Rick.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: OK, I will. Should the United States after 9/11 had priority one go into Afghanistan and get al Qaeda and the Taliban, priority two, settle the situation in the Middle East once and for all, and then maybe priority three, go into Iraq? Did they put Iraq in front of what should have been a priority for this administration?

KLEIN: Well, it's the old road question, whether the road to Baghdad goes through Jerusalem or the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. There are differing opinions on this.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, but is Iraq going to democratize the Middle East, as Wolfowitz says?

(CROSSTALK)

KLEIN: No, no, clearly not.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Problem.

KLEIN: But it was going to be very, very difficult to make peace in the Middle East in the years immediately after 2000 because of the second intifada, the incredible number of terrorist attacks, and then the Israeli movement into the West Bank.

SANCHEZ: Point well made.

KLEIN: So it was going to be -- these things are not easy.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

KLEIN: And the president says he really wants to act on them, but it is going to take an awful lot of attention to detail and stick- to-itiveness. There's a real opportunity now, but it's going to take a lot of work.

SANCHEZ: And it has to be massaged, doesn't it?

KLEIN: Absolutely.

SANCHEZ: Joe Klein, thanks.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Appreciate it. Appreciate the engagement, to use a term that we've been suing throughout the day.

An extraordinary outpouring of grief today for Yasser Arafat. What we learn from it, if anything. With the Palestinian leader gone, can the peace process work again, and how? That, we delve into when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: The pictures are nothing if not dramatic, thousands of mourners rushing towards Yasser Arafat's coffin on the way to his final resting place in Ramallah.

This was part of a tumultuous outpouring of grief as the Palestinian leader was buried at his West Bank compound. Though the transfer of power to the former prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, and the current one, Ahmed Qureia, has gone smoothly so far, no one seems to know what is in store for the Palestinian people and, we should say, the search for peace.

Walter Rodgers reports. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Palestinians furiously firing rifles at Yasser Arafat's funeral. Out of this Palestinian grief, anger and defiance, Western leaders speak of rebuilding a framework for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

BUSH: I mean, we'll do what it takes to put a strategy in place and advance it and call upon other nations to develop -- to work with us.

RODGERS: Conventional wisdom holds, Yasser Arafat was the obstacle to peace and with him gone new opportunities will arise. But Israel's fight with the Palestinians is more about God and land than about Arafat. Still, with him dead, some Israeli hawks are sounding slightly more dovish.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI FINANCE MINISTER: Now that he's gone, I think for the first time that there's a chance, just a chance.

RODGERS: Yet, the new Palestinian leadership is weaker than Arafat. They may well fight among themselves. The catalyst, perhaps, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from settlers and troops from Gaza. That divides and weakens Palestinians politically and geographically, Gaza vs. the West Bank Palestinians fighting over Arafat's legacy.

Looking into a possible abyss, Palestinians sound almost desperate.

SAEB EREKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: Help us with the elections. Help us resume a meaningful peace process. And I would urge the Israelis to take the high road, the road of courage and wisdom.

RODGERS: But Sharon has shown less interest in finding a peace partner than in making Israel more secure. Privately, Sharon has said the idea of a Palestinian state should be postponed 25 years. Although he knows some Palestinian entity will emerge, he wants to control the terms. Reality checks, however, do not extinguish enthusiasm.

JAMES BAKER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think if the United States and Israel put our -- and the Europeans as well -- put our shoulders to the wheel and did everything we could to make it possible for the Palestinians to hold elections to pick their new leader, that's the best way to forestall chaos or violence in a power struggle to succeed Arafat.

RODGERS: Yet, violence is what has been driving the Middle East recently and there is simply no longer a constituency for peace among Israelis.

The same can be said for a majority of Palestinians. They no longer like, nor trust the United States. Arafat's Oslo peace process failed them, too. And events seem increasingly to play into the hands of radicals.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: And that was Walter Rodgers.

Now, to discuss the prospects for peace after Arafat, I'm joined by two guests, from Ramallah, Daoud Kuttab. He's a Palestinian journalist who directs the Institute of Modern Media at Al-Quds University. And from Washington, David Makovsky. He's a former executive editor of "The Jerusalem Post" who is now with the Washington Institute.

Gentlemen, thanks so much there being with us.

I want to ask you about what happened today in Ramallah. It was an extraordinary scene from beginning to end, the moment the helicopter arrived, the people rushing the helicopter, the casket being taken out. Name me one other Arab leader who would have that type of reaction.

DAOUD KUTTAB, PALESTINIAN JOURNALIST: Well, I can't name any other leader. And I think it's a very popular response to a very popular leader who others have said that he was not democratically elected, and the U.S. is talking about democracy in the Middle East, yet, the one democratically elected leader, they refused to talk so.

So I think this was an answer to these attempts to sideline Arafat and it's a reaction by the public to a person who they feel have put the Palestinian cause on the map.

SANCHEZ: I think it's an interesting question to pose. Here we have Arafat, who the United States and obviously Israel, for reasons that we all understand, have made the bad guy. And, yet, what when he shows up today, we see this adulation, that he really is adored by these people. Maybe we don't get it. Maybe we don't understand why. But does it pose a problem in the future?

DAVID MAKOVSKY, WASHINGTON INSTITUTE: Well, look, I would argue the following.

That is, I think it's indisputable that he brought the Palestinian cause to the world stage. And there is definitely an outpouring of gratitude towards him. But, unfortunately, I feel he was a revolutionary who couldn't live without a revolution. And, objectively, he didn't succeed in establishing a Palestinian state. And, in a certain way, by turning down the offers in 2000 -- and I don't want to get into all the details here.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

MAKOVSKY: But I think the key is, in a certain way, the occupation could have been over. The settlements could have been taken down. And part of his legacy, unfortunately, is that -- the perpetuation of both.

SANCHEZ: Well, how do we do this now? Let's go to the future. Let's suppose it's Mahmoud Abbas who is going to be filling the shoes of Yasser Arafat. How do we create a situation where we don't, by making him the bad guy, in essence, make him another martyr, another hero to the so-called Arab street

KUTTAB: Well, I think Mahmoud Abbas was prime minister about a year or so ago. And he failed simply because the Israelis were very difficult with him as well.

And so, I do believe that, unfortunately, the Arafat issue was an excuse, rather than a real reason. But let's put that aside. Mahmoud Abbas needs to succeed. Everyone wants him to succeed. The Palestinians, even the militant Palestinians want him to succeed. The rest of the world wants him to succeed. In order to succeed, he has to do a few things.

He has to deliver a change of lifestyle. Palestinians have lived under four years of a repressive lifestyle, the closure, the ban of movement. The houses have been demolished, assassinations. We need to have a better life, and that's the first order of business. The second, he needs to find a way to stop the cycle of violence, both Palestinians attacking Israelis, but also Israelis assassinating Palestinians.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Let me just stop you there. Let me just stop you there, if I could, Mr. Kuttab.

On that end, you have some extreme radical groups who truly are doing everything that is opposed to what both the United States road to peace, which I know has been somewhat abandoned, and what the Israelis have asked for, are continuing to do. How does he do what Mr. Arafat was not able to do, and that is rein in some of these groups?

KUTTAB: I will tell you very quickly. We need a cease-fire.

And I think he can get a cease-fire from the Palestinian militants. They're very willing and ready to have a cease-fire on one simple condition, that their leaders are no longer assassinated. I think the conditions are so that it's possible that, with help from the U.S., we can get the Israelis not to assassinate Palestinian leaders and we can get Mahmoud Abbas to convince the Hamas to give a cease-fire a chance.

SANCHEZ: Let me ask you this. Should the United States reengage. Mr. Kuttab, we begin with you, yes or no?

KUTTAB: Absolutely.

SANCHEZ: Should the United States reengage in the Palestinian peace process with the Israelis?

MAKOVSKY: Absolutely, it's essential. It's a no brainer. It has to be done. SANCHEZ: Thank you gentlemen. We have at least some agreement on that. It's been a pleasure talking to both of you. Interesting insight. Daoud Kuttab and David Makovsky. Thank you, both.

When we come back, home-grown politics and the new movie about pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. A new moral values battleground. We'll be there when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: It's a film that opens today in New York and Los Angeles and soon in theaters all over the country. It's guaranteed to rile up a lot of people, many of whom, by the way supported President Bush for reasons of stated morality, as we've seen in all these exit reports we've been hearing about. The film is called "Kinsey." It's about sex, it's about science, and, oh, yes, you'd better believe, it is about politics. Here now, Tom Foreman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sex sells. Sex appeal, sex is everywhere and one person often given credit or blamed for spurring the sexual revolution is Alfred Kinsey. Now a controversial new movie explores the life of this radical researcher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why offer a marriage course? Because society has interfered with what should be a normal biological development.

FOREMAN: The film looks at how in the 1940s and 50s, Kinsey shocked the nation by interviewing people about sex and concluding that half of all married men cheated on their wives. Half of all women had premarital sex and more than a third of men had a homosexual experience. His findings are still disputed, especially by conservatives.

ROBERT KNIGHT, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Kinsey may have died in 1956, but his cold, dead hand is still on the throttle of the sexual revolution and is still harming lives.

FOREMAN: Robert Knight runs the Culture and Family Institute for Concerned Women of America.

KNIGHT: Look at how society has promoted casual sex and what the results have been. The results have been heartbreak, more disease, broken marriages, you name it.

FOREMAN: Kinsey's methods, the film admits, were questionable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw this coming.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are we to you? We're just lab rats? Is this just another part of the project?

FOREMAN: He was criticized for having sex with his own assistants and for relying on a disproportionate number of interviews with prison inmates, homosexuals and child molesters to develop his picture of average sexual practices.

DANIEL FLYNN, AUTHOR, "INTELLECTUAL MORONS": Kinsey's work has never been duplicated before, it's never been duplicated after and that's because his work was a fraud based on faulty numbers and cooked books.

FOREMAN: But the makers of this film say all his work cannot just be thrown aside.

BILL CONDON, DIRECTOR, "KINSEY": People have tried to malign him and destroy his reputation in order to somehow prove that the science was wrong and then somehow make the last 50 years disappear.

LIAM NEESON, ACTOR: Sex is controversial and always will be.

LAURA LINNEY, ACTRESS: Well, he changed American culture completely.

FOREMAN: After all, they argue, Alfred Kinsey certainly got one thing right, America was ready to talk about sex and that conversation continues.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: That was Tom Foreman and look who's here. Do we get the right guests or what?

RUTH WESTHEIMER, SEX THERAPIST: You certainly do. That conversation certainly continues. Loud and clear.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Dr. Ruth Westheimer, by the way. I never got a chance to introduce you yet. Thanks so much for being here with us. You saw the movie.

WESTHEIMER: I saw the movie.

SANCHEZ: Did you like it?

WESTHEIMER: First of all, everybody has to go and see it.

SANCHEZ: Yes?

WESTHEIMER: Every university student, everybody across this country.

SANCHEZ: Because it's a good movie or because it has a good message?

WESTHEIMER: Both. First of all, the movie is fantastic because it shows how much college this guy Kinsey, had 50 years ago. I don't care about the statistical validity. If today we could do a study...

SANCHEZ: How can you say that? If you're a scientist you have to have statistical validity.

WESTHEIMER: Wait a minute. I have to tell you. Masters and Johnson, could not have done what they did, the ten years of observation of sexual intercourse in laboratory settings and you know what?

SANCHEZ: Let me stop you there for just a minute.

WESTHEIMER: I couldn't have done what I'm doing without this study. Go ahead.

SANCHEZ: Masters and Johnson, by many people were considered credible scientists who relied on basically fair statistics. Kinsey, this guy, was not considered by anybody who has looked at his work a credible scientist. And as you heard in the report, he used prisoners as his models.

WESTHEIMER: It doesn't matter who he used. What he did, he stood up and took the courage to talk about a subject matter that 50 years ago nobody talked about. Now, I have to tell you something.

SANCHEZ: Go ahead.

WESTHEIMER: We need a new study. There is no question. Because 50 years ago, that's a long time ago...

SANCHEZ: What do you say to these people who are saying, it opened the door for so many people who were right on the edge but then when they said, oh, well, it's perfectly OK to do all these deviant things, some of it became a little strange.

WESTHEIMER: Listen.

SANCHEZ: OK.

WESTHEIMER: Today, 2004, because of giants like Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), we have less unintended pregnancies because we talk about contraception. We have less women who don't have orgasms. Yes, it's a mike. Sure I can talk about that. That's because of people like Kinsey opening the door and saying, here is a subject matter.

SANCHEZ: Would you agree there is two sides to that sword. There's the side that says, you know what, certain people needed to be freed somewhat because they were riddled with anxiety, maybe because they were hiding all these emotions but there's also the people who think our society is so oversexualized and there's so much going on in our society and why did this guy have to open the door to so many things that maybe were better left in the closet.

WESTHEIMER: First of all, I have to tell you something.

SANCHEZ: Go ahead.

WESTHEIMER: That this guy Kinsey, all of us have to say thank you and it's amazes me that it took this great country of ours, where we have better scientifically validated data about human sexual functioning. It took so long to make that film. That amazes me.

SANCHEZ: He opened the door to the sexual revolution and you say that's a good thing.

WESTHEIMER: Absolutely. Also, I'm saying, I'm old-fashioned and a square. I believe...

SANCHEZ: Me, too. I'm married, I have got four kids, only...

WESTHEIMER: I know that and I have two children and four grandchildren. I do believe that -- in values and I believe in all of those things, but I also believe that every single person has the right to decide when to be sexually active.

SANCHEZ: Yes, but that's the problem. If you come out and you get the stamp of approval and you write a book and everyone says, "Look at this guy, he's a genius doctor who's came up with all these principals and what he's saying is a little bit over the edge and it leads people into promiscuity or maybe some sexually deviant behavior, then we have a problem.

You get the last word.

WESTHEIMER: OK. I get the last word. I'm not saying that he leads us into that. I'm saying he says this is what is available.

People make sure that you know where you stand. That's what I'm saying.

In that auditorium where they shot that film, I gave a talk a long time ago and a student just reminded me that they were all worried because I talk about masturbation. It makes me smile and happy that I was in that same auditorium saying to you, Rick, I do believe that people should love each other, they should fall in love. They should have babies, but they also should know about good sex.

SANCHEZ: Thank you so much.

WESTHEIMER: And he did it.

SANCHEZ: We appreciate you being here. It's really a pleasure talking to you.

WESTHEIMER: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Thank you for your insight and sharing it with us, although there are some differences remaining on the table, we should say.

WESTHEIMER: That's OK.

SANCHEZ: We'd like to see if you could possibly weigh in on this question. Our "Voting Booth" question today is this: "Should the U.S. government fund research on human sexuality?" Go to CNN.com/Paula and click on the "Voting Booth" link. We're going to show you the results of all of this. So stay with us at the end of the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Rick Sanchez, filling in for Paula.

The movie "Kinsey" touches a nerve at the heart of the cultural divide in America, which was also reflected in last week's red state majority for President Bush. Tonight we hear from each side of this divide. And we're going to get further into it.

Joining us now from Washington is Kristi Hamrick. She's a spokesperson for the Focus on the Family, a Christian group that promotes what it considers traditional values.

And here on the set, Reverend Debra Haffner. She's a director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing. She's also a Unitarian Universalist minister.

Thanks to both of you for being with us today.

KRISTI HAMRICK, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Thanks for having us.

REV. DEBRA HAFFNER, DIRECTOR, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE ON SEXUALITY MORALITY, JUSTICE AND HEALING: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: You haven't seen the movie, but I bet you're going to tell us you hate it already.

HAMRICK: Well, I haven't seen the movie, although a lot of colleagues of mine have. What is good about this movie is it gives us an opportunity to talk about the impact that Kinsey had on our society.

Kinsey embraced the mindset of a sex offender. His research, if you want to call it that, was a fraud and, basically, looked at pedophiles, looked at people in prison, looked at prostitutes and then said, "Look, all of you have the same feelings and thoughts as they do and, in fact, let's take this research and turn it into a sex education curriculum, mindset and way of life."

And it's had disastrous social consequences.

SANCHEZ: Reverend Haffner, I see you over here shaking your head, so rather than ask you a question, I will simply let you respond.

HAFFNER: Well, Kristi knows most of that's not true. Kinsey...

HAMRICK: I know all of it is true.

HAFFNER: Kinsey looked at over 18,000 people. He broke a silence in America about sexuality. He began talking about research, what it is people know and do. There were many things about his research we wouldn't do today. He was really a pioneer and leading...

SANCHEZ: Let me see if I understand you. You're saying, look, the guy was wrong in the way he handled it, even though most of his methodology wouldn't be used and wouldn't pass the muster today, he broke the ice. And you're saying that's positive? HAFFNER: He -- he was a pioneer in starting research in this area. It's not that everything was wrong. A lot of his research told us...

SANCHEZ: That's not her point. The point she's making is what he did is he opened the door to things that are negative that have not helped our society.

HAFFNER: Actually, he described what people were doing.

HAMRICK: Absolutely not.

HAFFNER: He looked at ways of...

HAMRICK: Absolutely not. No, he did not.

HAFFNER: Let's talk about that.

SANCHEZ: I'm going to get right to you, Kristi. Let her finish her point.

HAFFNER: OK. He looked at what 18,000 people reported that they had been doing sexually and told America, and America breathed a huge sigh of relief.

HAMRICK: Absolutely not.

HAFFNER: They understood what they were doing was not immoral, was not strange. There was a huge variety of sexual expression, but he also opened the discussion. And that's what is good about this movie, as well.

HAMRICK: Let's talk about what he did. Yes, let's talk about what he did.

SANCHEZ: Mrs. Hamrick, go ahead.

HAMRICK: In Kinsey's book on the human male, in table 34, he described nine men molesting children as young as two months and older and described their reactions. They're weeping, they're shrieking, their attempts to get away, as examples of orgasms with children. And from that, he said children are sexual from birth.

Now, I have to ask you, Debra, was it OK when children were molested within the confines of the Catholic Church? Was that right?

HAFFNER: Absolutely not, Kristi. Adult sexual behaviors have nothing...

HAMRICK: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. No, no, no, no. Let's talk about Alfred Kinsey. No.

SANCHEZ: Hold on, Mrs. Hamrick. You asked her a question. I think in fairness we need to let her respond.

(CROSS TALK) SANCHEZ: We'll let you finish in just a moment.

HAFFNER: There were nine pedophiles in that research. And Kinsey reported on them. He didn't do -- they didn't do the research; they didn't do studies. Kinsey spoke against it.

HAMRICK: That is not true.

HAFFNER: He reported it.

HAMRICK: Debra, that is not true.

HAFFNER: Kristi, no.

SANCHEZ: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on just a moment. Let her finish and we're going to get right back to you.

HAFFNER: That's one table in...

HAFFNER: No, no, no, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMRICK: Let me finish.

SANCHEZ: I will. I will.

HAFFNER: ... thousands of pieces of data and...

HAMRICK: No, let me finish. I have to finish this point.

HAFFNER: And what we know...

SANCHEZ: I'm going to get right to you.

HAMRICK: What we know today is that all good sexuality education and all good sexuality research is looking at how to help adults and understand adult sexual behavior...

SANCHEZ: Ms. Hamrick, to you.

HAFFNER: ... and how to raise sexually healthy children.

SANCHEZ: Ms. Hamrick, to you.

HAMRICK: What Kinsey said -- what Kinsey said is that there is no wrong sexual contact. He said, in fact, that the only trouble with sex with kids was the reaction of adults. What he said was that...

HAFFNER: Absolutely not.

SANCHEZ: We're down to 30 seconds. Your final point is everything about Kinsey, everything about his report was negative and the effect it's had on our society has been just as negative. Did I -- is that correct? HAMRICK: My final point is that Debra Haffner and groups like SECUS (ph) has used the Kinsey mindset, which was based on the findings of sex offenders, and tried to push those on our children.

HAFFNER: Absolutely not, Kristi.

SANCHEZ: We understand, and we thank you for your point.

HAFFNER: What we know is that moral people, people coming from religious background, want their people to have good information, want us to engage them in discussion and hope that this movie, once again, will help...

SANCHEZ: We'll have to leave it -- we'll have to leave it there.

HAFFNER: ... engage a dialogue about sexuality in America.

SANCHEZ: I want to thank you both for being here. I appreciate the spirited discussion. Kristi Hamrick and Rev. Debra Haffner, my thanks to you both.

Since the election, we've heard so much about how much red there is in the electoral map. When we come back, whether all that red is really drowning out the blue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back.

We know you've heard an awful lot since last week about the electoral map that swept President Bush to victory, an ocean of red framed by borders of blue along the West Coast, the upper Midwest and certainly the Northeast.

But there's more than one way to paint the picture. Here's Judy Woodruff's way.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST, "INSIDE POLITICS" (voice-over): This is your country, red almost from sea to shining sea. Red in the North, red in the South. Huge swats of red in the middle, enough to give any Democrat the blues, right?

Well, maybe not. Here's why.

What the red states have is a whole lot of land. But the blue states have a whole lot of people, and in electoral politics, people have the power.

Let's go back to our map and tweak it like three professors at the University of Michigan have done. This is your country, too, in cardigram form. The size of the states has been adjusted to reflect the size of their populations. California is not so slim any more, and America is not so red. The new map gives a better picture of why the popular vote has been so close as of late. Let's look at it another way. Here we see the Republican and Democratic counties. Again, lots of red.

Now, here's the cardigram as counties are adjusted for population. A swirly nation. But get this: red and blue is not always black and white.

The University of Michigan folks point out many red counties are barely red. In other words, they have a slim Republican majority. So, they're more purplish, really. See. Pretty cool, huh?

Wait, here comes the cardigram. Purple haze. Electoral maps for the Jimi Hendrix in all of us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: That's one way to look at it. Our Judy Woodruff.

We're going to be back with the results of tonight's "Voting Booth" question. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back, everyone.

The late-night comedians, they've taken note of the death of Yasser Arafat. Boy, have they. Here's a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": Big news: PLO chairman Yasser Arafat passed away in Paris last night. His body has been flown back for burial in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

For more on the historic event, we go to our senior Middle Eastern bureau chief, Samantha Bee. She's live in Jerusalem right now.

Samantha, I know it's -- I know it's the middle of the night out there. Tell me, what impact will Arafat's death have on the region?

SAMANTHA BEE, DAILY SHOW CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's hard to say, Jon. Arafat was a complicated figure. I mean, this was a man who spent decades as a terrorist/freedom fighter, only to rise in stature to become a statesman/charlatan.

Frankly, as a reporter, I'm very confused. I don't know whether to go with the choked up Walter Cronkite, a great man has died tone, or more like, "Hooray, Uday and Qusay are dead!"

So I decided to just create a brand new persona. Check it out. PLO chairman Yasser Arafat is dead, matey.

STEWART: That's a pirate.

BEE: Yes. I had to come up with something on the fly, John.

JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW": We lost a very good friend to this show recently. This is someone who would come here and do stand up. One of our funniest guests. You remember him, Kev?

We loved having him here, and so we thought we would just take a look back. Can we roll the tape?

(MUSIC) Memories like the corner of my mind of the way we were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Late night comedy, a place where anything goes.

Here are the results, by the way, of our PRIME TIME POLITICS "Voting Booth" question tonight. We asked, should the U.S. government fund research on human sexuality?

Forty-eight percent of you said yes; 52 percent of you said no. Remember, this is -- is not a scientific poll, just a reflection of the views of you who logged onto our web site. It's tells -- it tells us a little bit about you.

That's it for PRIME TIME POLITICS tonight. On Monday, he rode a wave of moral values to victory. A new congressman who beat George Clooney's father and his Hollywood backers on election day.

"LARRY KING LIVE" is coming up next with much more on the Scott Peterson verdict. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Rick Sanchez, filling in for Paula. She'll be back Monday. Have a great weekend, everyone, and have a good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
SEARCH
   The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.