Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Positive Comments from Senators on Alito; Fallout of Rule 21 Secret Session in Senate
Aired November 02, 2005 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's 4:00 p.m. here in Washington and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information from around the world are arriving all the time.
Happening now, the president's Supreme Court nominee on Capitol Hill. Caught in the cross-fire between Republicans and Democrats, will Judge Samuel Alito pay a price for yesterday's emotional meltdown in the Senate?
Also this hour, Charles and Camilla, they are here in Washington, as President Bush faces one battle royale after another. It's hard to believe that just one year ago he was celebrating his re-election.
And bring on the noise and the dancing, too. Politicians are trying to grab voters' attention with just six days until the 2005 elections. Stay right here to find out who's on the line and what's at stake.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
This hour, Judge Samuel Alito may feel like someone who happened to walk in on a husband and wife while they were arguing. Tensions still are high on Capitol Hill about the Democrats' secret session surprise and the fireworks that followed. And Alito's high court nomination is only adding to the strain, at least right now.
Let's get some more, our congressional correspondent, Ed Henry. He is standing by. Ed?
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, that's right. Republicans still smarting from yesterday's showdown and Democrats are rattling the saber, saying this meltdown was not just about Iraq, but also that they're serious about a potential filibuster of Samuel Alito.
But I can tell you that despite all the finger-pointing and controversy, it appears the Supreme Court pick is picking up steam here on the Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY (voice-over): After meeting with Judge Samuel Alito, a key moderate Democrat suggested he does not believe a filibuster would be justified.
SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: But at this point in time, I have a comfort level that I'm satisfied with that he wants to go to the bench without a political agenda.
HENRY: That's significant, because Ben Nelson is a member of the bipartisan Gang of 14 moderates who earlier this year prevented a nuclear showdown over judicial nominees. His comments followed Tuesday's declaration by a Republican member of the gang who flatly said Alito should not be blocked.
SEN. MIKE DEWINE (R-OH), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: It's hard for me to envision that anyone would think about filibustering this nominee or that anyone would think that this would constitute what our group of 14 termed extraordinary circumstances that would justify a filibuster.
HENRY: Alito's schedule was packed with no less than seven closed door meetings, a full-court press from a White House that was much more cautious about Harriet Miers' visits to the Hill. In addition to the positive words from Nelson, the nominee won the vote of a maverick Republican.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: I think the president has chosen wisely, and I am very proud of this nomination. I think it is one that is distinguished, and I look forward to a strong, positive vote for Judge Alito in the committee, and on the floor of the Senate.
HENRY: The momentum for Alito comes despite the heightened tension in the Senate after Democrats forced the chamber into secret session to highlight allegations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in the buildup to the war in Iraq.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: It means from now on, for the next year-and-a-half, I can't trust Senator Reid.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Now, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin also met with the Supreme Court nominee today and had some pretty nice things to say and also said any talk of a filibuster is pre-mature. Now Democrats privately telling me what that is all about is they want to keep their powder dry on Alito. They say there's no point in taking pot shots while he's doing these courtesy calls. The hearings are weeks, maybe months away. They'd rather focus instead on Iraq, like they did yesterday. They feel the administration is vulnerable and they are going to continue to pounce on that instead.
Wolf.
BLITZER: Are you hearing anything from the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter or Patrick Leahy, about a schedule, when they might be ready for hearings?
HENRY: They're keeping that very close to the vest. At the earliest possible, would be mid-December. But I can tell you a lot of senators on the committee privately saying they think it's much more likely it will be January. That's what Democrats are pushing for. They want much more time. But also just given the holiday schedule, it would be hard to start the hearings before the holidays, interrupt them and restart them in January -- a big push for January instead. Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Ed Henry, thank you very much. Senators clearly are divided over the president's latest high court nominee, but what about the American people? Our senior political analyst Bill Schneider is joining us with some new poll numbers.
What are the American people saying, Bill?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Wolf, it's like your mother told you, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Now, what's the public's first impression of President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): The public's first impression of Samuel Alito is mildly positive, 43 percent call Alito an excellent or good choice for the Supreme Court, slightly outnumbering the 39 percent who say only fair or poor. Alito's 43 percent positive is about the same as people's first impression of Harriet Miers. But not as good as their first impression of John Roberts back in July.
President Bush did accomplish one thing with the Alito nomination, he united his party. Seventy-six percent of Republicans praised the choice, almost as high as the 79 percent who felt good about Roberts' nomination. But Alito has noticeably less support than either Miers or Roberts among Democrats and Independents.
The public is more divided over Alito than they were over President Bush's last two nominees. The public's initial impression of Alito is that his views on important issues are not too extreme. The key issue in this confirmation battle will be abortion. The Senate Judiciary Committee is examining the tea leaves in Alito's record.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: His dissent in Casey does not signify disagreement with Roe versus Wade.
SCHNEIDER: That will be debated. Most Americans say if they were convinced that Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade that would oppose his confirmation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: Would he or wouldn't he? That's what the confirmation battle is likely to be about, even though the nominee is unlikely to answer that question.
Wolf.
BLITZER: Surprising, Bill, given some historic perspective?
SCHNEIDER: Well, you mean that he won't answer the question?
BLITZER: Well, yes, some of the numbers about the American people thinking that they're generally favorable, inclined to support this nominee?
SCHNEIDER: No, they're more or less in line. People are willing to give the nominee the benefit of the doubt usually, they come out at least first mildly positive. They have to get a lot of information that's negative before they'll decide this nominee is not worth confirming. But the initial impression of most nominees tends what be exactly what it was in this case, mildly favorable.
BLITZER: All right. Bill Schneider, thank you very much.
Let's move on now. The latest on that CIA leak saga. The former vice presidential chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby, is scheduled to be arraigned tomorrow here in Washington on charges he lied about his role in the leak. He's expected to plead not guilty.
During a briefing last hour, the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, was asked whether Libby's absence from the administration was hurting the president's foreign policy team.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Scooter Libby is a fine person, and he has served the president and the vice president well. There is now an indictment, and he is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence. The president in any administration makes foreign policy, and it's particularly true in this administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: No other White House officials who reportedly were investigated in connection with the CIA leak have been indicted, including Stephen Hadley.
In our next hour, we'll talk more about the leak case and other flashpoints for the Bush White House. Joining us live will be the White House communications director -- actually the White House counselor, Dan Bartlett, used to be the communications director, got a promotion not that long ago.
President Bush, meanwhile, could ask his guests of honor today about their past PR problems and attempts at damage control. That would be Prince Charles and new his wife Camilla, who had lunch at the White House as part of their U.S. debut as a married couple.
A short while ago they planted a tree at a local school. Later they'll head back to the White House for a black tie dinner. We'll have live coverage here in THE SITUATION ROOM. That's coming up during the 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour. And in our next hour, we'll look closely as Prince Charles and his often prickly relationship with us. That would be the news media.
Time for our news media representative, Jack Cafferty, who's looking at some other stories. He's got a little prickly relationship with the news media, Prince Charles. I think that's fair, isn't it, Jack? JACK CAFFERY, CNN ANCHOR: I don't know about the news media, but they did a poll that said 80 percent of the American people don't care about this visit here with the woman that Diana used to call "the rottweiler." And I would be included in that 80 percent.
BLITZER: You are not following this visit at all? Because he was in your city, New York City yesterday, got a lot of buzz.
CAFFERTY: There are a lot of people in New York City every day. And most of them are eminently more interesting to me than Prince Charles is.
BLITZER: So what about Camilla?
CAFFERTY: I have less than no interest in either of them.
BLITZER: OK.
CAFFERTY: OK?
BLITZER: What are you interested in?
CAFFERTY: Well, this hour we're interested in Karl Rove. There could be more bad news for the Bush administration. Some conservatives now are calling for a shakeup at the White House. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and the head of the Cato Institute, William Niskanen, yesterday questioned whether Karl Rove should keep his job as deputy White House chief of staff.
Rove is still under investigation in the CIA leak case. So far the White House has brushed off calls from Democrats that they need to clean house, but one Republican strategist told Reuters that any changes would be gradual so it doesn't look like the White House is panicking.
So here's the question, should Karl Rove keep his day job? CaffertyFile@CNN.com. We'll read some thoughts on that in a little while.
BLITZER: And I'll ask Dan Bartlett that same question in the next hour, he's the counselor over at the White House. Thanks, Jack, very much.
Coming up, the session was secret, the showdown, though, very public. Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California is standing by to weigh in on the theatrics and substance of what happened in the U.S. Senate 24 hours ago.
Also ahead, what a difference a year makes. Remember when President Bush was planning ways to spend his political capital after his re-election victory exactly a year ago? We'll consider how different his situation is right now.
And later, a star-studded funeral for a legend of the civil rights movement. Is it an appropriate place to campaign for president?
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's go to CNN's Zain Verjee at the CNN Center in Atlanta for a closer look at some other stories making news. Zain?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, the funeral for civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks drawing thousands of people in Detroit. Former President Bill Clinton was among those speaking. Parks is credited with helping spark the civil rights movement by refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus to a white man 50 years ago.
Let's listen for just a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I remember well when she sat with Hillary in the box of the first family at the State of the Union Address in 1999, and how the entire Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, rose as one.
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man in the South where segregation extended even to the close confines of the city bus,
I remember as it were yesterday, that fateful day 50 years ago, I was a 9-year-old southern white boy who rode a segregated bus every day of my life....
(AUDIO GAP)
She made us see and agree that everyone should be free. God bless you, Rosa. God bless you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VERJEE: Rosa Parks died last week at 92.
A suicide car bombing has left at least 20 people dead in the Iraqi city of Musayyib, about 45 miles south of Baghdad. It happened near a Shia mosque in a busy shopping area filled with people stocking up for celebrations called Eid that marks the end of Ramadan. In addition to those killed, police say at least 60 people were hurt.
The U.S. military says two Marines were killed when their helicopter crashed this morning near the Iraqi city of Ramadi. These are pictures of U.S. aircraft flying over the area afterwards. No word on what caused the chopper to go down, but Marine Corps officials say a U.S. fighter jet carried out an air strike on a nearby insurgent base just hours later.
Australia's prime minister is warning of a specific terror threat to his country. John Howard told a national TV audience he couldn't give details because it could hamper the response by authorities. The announcement comes as the country's parliament considers anti-terror legislation some say could infringe on civil liberties. Wolf.
BLITZER: Zain Verjee reporting for us. Zain, thank you very much.
You heard the hard feelings right here in THE SITUATION ROOM 24 hours ago. Republicans, though, still smarting a full day after the Democrats paralyzed Senate business by forcing a secret session.
A short while ago the Senate's number two Republican, Mitch McConnell, rejected Democrats' suggestions they move an investigation of pre-war intelligence in Iraq forward.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY WHIP: What they got with the committee was what they were going to get anyway, which was that the Intelligence Committee chairman was going to continue the investigation and compete it as soon as possible. So they got absolutely nothing out of this that they weren't going to get in any event except to get on the front page of the "Washington Post" and the "New York Times" and to have you and I still talking about it 24 hours later.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Let's get the Democrats' side of the story right now. For that I'm joined by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
You're part of that now gang of six, three Democrats, three Republicans, members of the Intelligence Committee, that are going to try to patch things back together, Senator Feinstein. But can you? Is there too much bad blood right now after what happened yesterday?
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Oh, I don't think there's too much bad blood. What you saw was the frustration of Democrats who have been slow-rolled on this for some 18 months, because the fact of the matter is, as of last week, there was no intention to really continue this investigation. It wasn't on the agenda. I checked. I was told it wasn't.
Now we have three on the Democratic side, three on the Republican side. We'll sit down. We'll bring to the Senate on the 14th of November the progress that's been made in the investigation, and the timeline. And this will go before the full Senate. And the full Senate will have an opportunity to evaluate whether there's sufficient progress. I hope there will be.
BLITZER: Because Senator McConnell, Senator Pat Roberts, your chairman, Republican of Kansas, they basically say -- insist that, you know what? They're going to do now what they were doing already, and that the stunt, as they call it, that you did yesterday really caused nothing to change.
FEINSTEIN: Well, they can say anything they want in that regard. The point is that we now have some forward momentum. We didn't have that forward momentum before. The vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, wrote several letters, I wrote a letter, imploring that we move on with this second part of the study, which was the use or misuse or manipulation of intelligence, and I think that's very important to do.
Now, what's difficult about it is that we have a House dominated by Republicans, a Senate dominated by Republicans and, of course, the White House. So whether you can really have a full scale open investigation of how this intelligence was used -- I mean, we know the intelligence was off...
BLITZER: Well, let me interrupt, Senator Feinstein, because at the core of the issue is a simple question. Was the Bush administration -- the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States -- were they the victims of bad intelligence that was prepared by the CIA and other intelligence agencies who simply miscalculated the WMD, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and forced them to go to war? Or did the president and the vice president deliberately mislead, misuse that intelligence and lie, in effect, to the American public about the threat facing this country? Where do you stand on those two issues?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I think statements were made in major public policy addresses prior to the Senate vote that clearly stated that with a matter of certainty, that Saddam possessed a nuclear weapons program, or was on his way to developing a nuclear weapons program. The fact of the matter is, there was no evidence of that, we have subsequently found.
Now, the president receives certain intelligence that we don't get. We do not see the Presidential Daily Briefs. So there always was the question, did the White House know something with respect to intelligence that was not shared with those of us on the Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate? So we never really knew. And what we're trying to do is find out, was there intelligence not shared with us that clearly stated that Saddam was on his way to a nuclear weapons program? That's just one example.
BLITZER: Because on the basis of that intelligence that the president was provided and that you were provided as a member of the U.S. Senate, you voted to authorize the use of force to go to war. Do you feel you were duped?
FEINSTEIN: Yes. And had I known then what I know now, I never would have cast that vote, not in a thousand years. I read, re-read the intelligence, read the classified versions, tried to get briefings, read open source, listened to the speeches, did everything I could to inform myself, and when I cast that vote, I was convinced that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to this nation, with respect to biological weapons, with respect to an unmanned aerial vehicle that was capable of being launched with chemical or biological weapons aboard.
None of that turned out to be true. And that's what bothers many of us, because we now believe that the impetus for the American use of force essentially was regime change, pure and simple -- not the cause that was sold to us, which was weapons of mass destruction, and their immediate threat our country.
BLITZER: Well, let's see if your committee can come to a conclusion, and come up with a specific answer on this very important question. Senator Feinstein, thanks very much for joining us.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much.
BLITZER: Good luck with the investigation.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you.
BLITZER: Still ahead, the Senate is open today, but both sides still steaming about yesterday's showdown that closed the chamber to the public. What was it really all about? We'll talk about that in our "Strategy Session," that's coming up next.
And what are they saying about the story online? We'll check in with our Internet reporter.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: It's been 24 hours since Democrats in the U.S. Senate effectively shut it down for a few hours to protest what they said was a Republican attempt to stonewall, to get to the bottom of intelligence information that they say would show that the Bush administration -- that Bush administration effectively misled the American people about the reasons for going to war.
Twenty-four hours later let's check in with our Internet reporter, Jacki Schechner, to see the situation online. What is the latest there, Jacki?
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, Senator Harry Reid wants a further probe into the Senate Intelligence Committee report, that you can read for yourself online at intelligence.senate.gov. There is actually a 30-page summary which easier to swallow than the full 500-something-odd-page report.
Now Senators Roberts and Rockefeller have their own Web site, those are the chairman and vice chairman of the committee, where you can see the official press releases that they put out pertaining to yesterday's events. But more interesting in that is that the two party leaders in the Senate are taking the fight online via blogs.
At giveemhellharry.com, this is Senator Harry Reid, he has a blog, the site has been up since the end of September, he's blogging about yesterday, essentially telling people to ask President Bush to be accountable and now it's time to change the course in Iraq.
On the other side now, we have Senator Bill Frist at volpac.org. His blog post has to do with the Supreme Court nominee and the possibility of using a nuclear option. But he did respond to yesterday's events in his "latest news" section, and what he says there is that this was, at best, a political temper tantrum. So essentially, we have the conversation is continuing online, via blog by the politicians themselves.
Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Jacki, thank you very much.
Coming up, we'll have much more on the fight on Capitol Hill. Our "Strategy Session" is next. Paul Begala, Terry Jeffrey standing by.
Plus, supporters and detractors are drawing lines over the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Could Senate Democrats pull out a filibuster from their arsenal of weapons?
And the California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, seems to be often campaigning these days. Next week is ballot day. And though Schwarzenegger's name is not on the ballot, his political reputation will be on the line.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Yesterday, the Senate became a chamber of secrets as it closed its doors to discuss prewar intelligence used in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Today, we want to talk about what that rare maneuver was really all about, and could the Senate hit another brick wall over the Judge Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination?
With us, CNN political analyst Paul Begala, he's a Democratic strategist. Terry Jeffrey, editor of the conservative weekly Human Events.
Thanks very much, guys, for joining us. Listen, Paul, to what Senator Sam Roberts -- Pat Roberts, excuse me, Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on AMERICAN MORNING this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: There's nothing that hurts the case so much as stretching it. As far as I'm concerned, it was a blind-side attack. That's not the way to run the Intelligence Committee. We really politicized it and I think that's most unfair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Didn't the Democrats, with this strategy of trying to shake things up the way they did, really run the risk of politicizing the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has been over the years sort of above politics?
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: They believe, and I think they're right, that the committee's already been politicized. That the so-called investigation they did before was partial and incomplete. The chairman, Mr. Roberts, promised a second phase, he's never delivered on it. There's been reporting in the National Journal, the vice president's office withheld documents from that.
So, I think substantively what Reid did was really smart and it was right. Politically, it was brilliant -- and I think even more brilliant than maybe Harry Reid intended because it not only moved Judge Alito off the front pages and moved Iraq and these war issues onto them, it coalesced the Democrats. That's something that wasn't just because of Harry Reid, it was because of Bill Frist. The Republican leader got so steamed, he got his panties in such a wad, he attacked Reid in a very kind of nasty way.
Now all of the Democrats have pulled together to make it much harder for President Bush to pull off some of those Democrats to vote for Judge Alito.
BLITZER: It certainly did rally the Democratic base, as you have to admit, Terry.
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, HUMAN EVENTS: Yes, I think however, it was a desperation move. In the last few weeks, we've been talking about how low the Republicans are politically. I think that analysis was correct. And I really think this shows the bankruptcy in terms public policy of the Democratic Party.
I think what Reid's trying to do and the Democrats are trying to do is make an issue out of the war on Iraq, which is understandable. The war is unpopular. The problem, they have, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, a lot of the senior Democrats in the Senate, they voted to authorize the war.
BLITZER: But they say they were misled by the intelligence, and it was deliberately manipulated by the vice president, the president, in order to justify going to war and they want an investigation. The American people, they say, deserve answers.
JEFFREY: Right. And if that were true, it would be an outrageous thing. And obviously, the American people deserve an answer to that question. In large part we've already got it.
I think we have to remember, Wolf, the CIA director at this time was George Tenet, appointed by Bill Clinton. He vouched for all of this intelligence. The intelligence that Dianne Feinstein used when she voted to authorize that war in October of 2002, provided -- a national intelligence estimate, provided by the CIA, directly to the Senate. We know already from the Senate investigation, it was the same information the president and vice president had. It was bad intelligence, but the Senate and the president had the same intelligence, it came from the CIA.
BLITZER: In that first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, that long report that they released, that unanimously approved by the Democrats and Republicans members of the committee, they said they interviewed hundreds of intelligence analysts and not one of them said that they were forced to come up with a specific recommendation or an analysis -- that there was no political pressure that they felt.
BEGALA: But where the investigation stopped and the reports stopped was a question of what did the White House do with that information once they had it? And that's what Democrats are saying we need to take a look at. A whole lot of people believe -- and I think there's ample evidence, frankly -- that the White House took information, left some in, put some out.
BLITZER: That's a fair point, that they're cherry-picked, the argument that they cherry-picked and they only told the Congress, really, what they wanted the Congress to know in advance of that.
JEFFREY: Well, that's not true. We do know the information that the Senate got is the same that the White House got.
BEGALA: That's not true.
JEFFREY: If you go to the Congressional Record, which anybody can get, go on the Web and look at the floor debate in the Senate when they authorized the war. I think one of the most persuasive arguments made was made by John Kerry. I thought he made a more powerful argument for intervening in Iraq.
BLITZER: He voted for the resolution.
JEFFREY: He voted for the war. He made a powerful argument based on the intelligence the Senate was given, not by the White House, but by the CIA.
BEGALA: First off, the White House is who provides the intelligence to the Congress. And the notion that the Congress sees the same intelligence as the president is nonsense. I used to work in the White House and I used to work on the Congress. I can tell you, presidents and this president especially, treats Congress like a mushroom factory, keeps them in the dark and feeds them manure.
JEFFREY: If you look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report that they've already done, that Wolf referred to, it walks through the information...
BEGALA: A sham.
JEFFREY: ... it walks through the information that was provided to the president, for example, in the State of the Union address, the source of it, who vetted it, how it got there. There's no mystery about this, it's already public information.
BLITZER: Let's talk briefly about Samuel Alito. It looks like the White House strategy in trying to get him confirmed is to go after what they called those red-state Democrats -- Democratic senators who are coming from largely Republican states. A pretty smart strategy, if you will?
BEGALA: It's a very smart strategy, it's their best strategy. Again, you can't just do one thing at a time in politics, right? When you say you're targeting red-state Democrats and they go and visit guys like Tim Johnson from South Dakota, a very, very red state, at the same time, they're attacking Harry Reid, who's been a very popular successful leader for the Democrats. That makes it harder, not easier, for those moderate Democrats to break ranks. They've already broken ranks once to vote for Judge Roberts. It's much harder to do it again.
BLITZER: Listen to what Ken Salazar, a Democratic senator from Colorado, quoted in the "New York Times" as saying, "it" -- referring to a filibuster - "certainly is a possibility. It may include some Republicans, as well as Democrats. America deserves better than what we got here".
Ken Salazar, one of those Gang of 14 Democrats and Republicans who came up with ground rules, what would constitute justification for a filibuster.
JEFFREY: I think it would be a huge mistake for the Democrats to try to filibuster. We've heard already from Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina and Mike DeWine, the Republican from Ohio, they are part of that Gang of 14, that they will not abide by a filibuster of this nominee. They would support the nuclear option on judicial filibusters.
By the way, I would point out that the reason that Tom Daschle is not the Senate Democratic leader today is because he filibustered George Bush's appellate court nominees. That's why Thune beat him. Tim Johnson of South Dakota only won by a couple hundred votes.
BEGALA: It's a 65 percent Republican state.
JEFFREY: That's what the Democrats are going to do to Harry Reid, what they did to Tom Daschle. They're going to make him into a blue- state Massachusetts liberal. Nevada's going to kick this guy out of office if he does it.
BEGALA: I think Salazar is sounding a sound warning. There's a lot of Republicans in blue states in the northeast who could who lose if they get out there on a far-right nominee. And Alito looks like a far-right nominee.
BLITZER: All right, guys. Thanks very much. We'll continue this down the road. Paul Begala, Terry Jeffrey, thank you very much.
Coming up, do Democrats have their dancing shoes on in New York? You wouldn't think so if you're following big elections this coming Tuesday. We'll tell you what all the hoofing is all about.
And, stirring the pot. New election results are raising eyebrows. We'll tell you what's going on.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Election Day is less than a week way. And politicians with stakes in the November 8 contest are taking their campaigns down to the wire.
Right now let's take a tour of some of the hot races and the ads that are making voters sit up and take notice.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice over): Our first stop, Virginia and a nail-biter of a governor's race that many state Democrats are framing as a referendum on President Bush.
The latest poll shows Democrat Tim Kaine leading Republican Jerry Kilgore by just three points in their battle to replace term limited Democrat Mark Warner.
And then there's Russ Potts, an underdog independent candidate trying to bring a little noise and comic relief to the campaign.
On to New Jersey, where two multi-millionaires are running for a governor's seat now held by a Democrat. Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester are shattering spending records, forking out $14 million last month alone, much of it in their own money. Senator Corzine has the money advantage. He's been outspending Forrester two to one, and he leads recent polls, but by varying margins of four to 12 points.
Moving on to New York City. Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg appears poised to win re-election in a landslide. So, why is a prominent supporter of his Democratic rival, Fernando Ferrer, dancing?
The Ferrer campaign is looking for some ad excitement in the waning days of the campaign. This was the spot Democrats were buzzing about and Republicans were complaining about yesterday, trying to use President Bush against Bloomberg.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll run right to your side.
BLITZER: Jumping coasts to California, where Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in peril, the political kind. He's not up for re-election, but he's staked his reputation on four initiatives on the ballot Tuesday, and new polls suggest all four measures are heading for defeat.
Schwarzenegger has a GOP celebrity on his side, Senator John McCain. But Hollywood actor/directors Warren Beatty and Rob Reiner, are working with Schwarzenegger's opponents. Beatty is even starring in a new radio ad.
WARREN BEATTY, ACTOR: Hi. I'm Warren Beatty. You know, rather than settle these issues in the legislature as he could have done, or in the upcoming June election, the governor has demanded on November the 8th a very expensive extra election that's been deliberately designed to produce a low voter turnout. Schwarzenegger and his big- money backers are counting on you to not get out and vote.
If you're not rich and these propositions win, you lose.
Instead of tackling the real problems of our schools, Schwarzenegger attacks school teachers. Instead of attacking the cost of healthcare, he attacks nurses. Instead of increasing our safety, he attacks police and firefighters.
Don't give him more power. Let's stand up for our nurses and our teachers and our police and our firefighters. Let's stand up for our state. Get out and vote no on November 8. Proposition 73 through 78, vote no.
Remember, you haven't said no if you didn't show. This was paid for by the California Nurses Association.
BLITZER: Also, on our "Political Radar" somewhat surprising election results. At a time when the national trend has been toward tax cuts, Colorado voters agreed yesterday to let the state keep an extra 3.7 billion dollars in taxes. The goal to help pull the state out of recession.
But, today Republicans and Democrats are arguing over how to spend the extra money.
Another controversial decision in Colorado. Denver voters made it legal for adults over 21 to carry up to an ounce of marijuana within city limits. Opponents say the vote will have no real effect, since state and federal laws against marijuana possession still apply in Denver.
And we told you earlier about Rosa Parks' funeral and the stars who turned out for it. We couldn't help but notice the two top presidential prospects in 2008 had high profiles at the service.
Senator Hillary Clinton spoke, so did Senator John Kerry. They reflected on Parks' importance to the civil rights movement and to the country as a whole.
Up next in here THE SITUATION ROOM, for better and worse. What a year President Bush has had. We'll take a closer look at the state of his political fortunes then and now. One year after the election.
Plus, should Karl Rove keep his job over at the White House?
Jack Cafferty asked that question. He's standing by. He'll be back with your answers.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: On this day one year after his re-election, President Bush just may wish that he could turn back the time a little bit. To say that his political fortunes have changed since then would be an understatement.
Let's go to our White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux. What a difference a year makes. Suzanne?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, you're absolutely right. And, of course, many presidents have experienced second term slumps.
But even White House insiders acknowledge that at least some of Mr. Bush's wounds have been self-inflicted, some not. One thing they all agree on is that despite this rough patch, that they are ready to move on.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice over): One year ago, President Bush seized the White House for a second term, bolstered by his win of the popular and electoral vote.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.
MALVEAUX: With Republicans having widened their majorities in both the House and the Senate and the White House controlled by the GOP, Mr. Bush declared his 51 percent win a mandate, and projected an air of invincibility.
STU ROTHENBERG, ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT: He was widely regarded as a strong, effective leader, who brought the international coalition together to fight terrorism.
MALVEAUX: Early on, the White House did have a series of legislative successes, with agreements on free trade, energy and transportation. But the president's centerpiece of his domestic agenda, overhauling Social Security, gained little traction.
BUSH: We got a problem with Social Security.
MALVEAUX: After six months of traveling across the country, trying to sell his plan, Mr. Bush was forced to admit it was doomed.
BUSH: Seems to be a diminished appetite in the short term. But, I'm going to remind people that there is a long-term issue that we must solve.
MALVEAUX: But with rising gas prices and sinking approval numbers, the president was asked whether he still had the political capital to get much done.
BUSH: Plenty. I'm going to spend it in the short term on getting a budget out.
MALVEAUX: But the short term for the White House has been difficult, as the bloody insurgency in Iraq reached a grim milestone, marking 2,000 Americans dead. And a hurricane named Katrina forced Mr. Bush to acknowledge the government's inadequacies in handling a national disaster.
BUSH: To the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility.
MALVEAUX: Taking responsibility was part of Mr. Bush's pledge when he first campaigned for the presidency. BUSH: I will swear to uphold the dignity and the honor of the office to which I have been elected.
MALVEAUX: But, now the Republican leadership is accused of wrongdoing. And a CIA leak investigation has one of the president's top advisers facing trial and another in legal limbo. While the president's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court pleased both Republicans and Democrats, alike. His pick of Harriet Miers caused near mutiny from his conservative base, forcing her withdrawal and many believe weakening his presidency.
STU ROTHENBERG, ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT: I think the president began his second term thinking he had a lot more power and influence than he did.
MALVEAUX: But with Sam Alito as his new Supreme Court pick, Mr. Bush is already seeing his conservative base return.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: And his strategy, of course, is try to build on that support by focusing on issues like tax code reform, as well as immigration and bird flu.
Wolf.
BLITZER: Suzanne at the White House. Thank very much, Suzanne Malveaux.
Our Zain Verjee meanwhile standing by at the CNN Center in Atlanta with a closer look at other stories making news. Zain?
VERJEE: Wolf, new numbers from Pakistan are revealing the tremendous scope of last month's earthquake. The country's quake relief commissioner now says more than 73,000 people were killed by the magnitude 7.6 earthquake and more than 69,000 were injured. In addition, Pakistani officials say that more than three million people were left homeless, more than half of those children.
French police are bracing for another night of violence. Rioting has broken out for the last six nights. It started in a Paris suburb, but now it's spread to other towns, dozens of miles away. The violence initially was in response to the deaths of two teenagers. They were running from police that they thought were chasing them. They climbed a fence surrounding a power station and then they got electrocuted. But police say they weren't chasing the teens.
Thousands of Iranians demonstrated against the United States today, marking 26 years since the takeover of the U.S. embassy by militant students. The seizure started a hostage crisis in which 52 Americans were held for 444 days. November 4 is the actual anniversary, but the annual demonstration was moved up because of Ramadan.
Iran's hard-line, conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is shaking up his government. The foreign ministry says 40 ambassadors and other diplomats will be removed from their posts. No names were given, but it's believed that the purge will include many who support warmer relations with the West. The move comes amid increased tension, Wolf, with Europe and the United States over Iran's nuclear program.
BLITZER: I guess he really is hard-liner, Zain, if there were any doubts.
VERJEE: Absolutely. And it's being seen as part of his strategy to promote a harder line foreign policy.
BLITZER: Zain Verjee, reporting. Thanks, Zain, very much.
Still to come here in THE SITUATION ROOM, should Karl Rove keep his day job? That's Jack Cafferty's question. We want to hear what you have to say about it, as well as the Supreme Court controversy. We'll go that subject online.
And Judge Samuel Alito's advocates and opponents are battling it out on the Internet with emails advertisements and petitions. We'll tell you where to look.
Later, was Saddam Hussein ready to go into exile on the eve of the Iraq war? Could the war have been averted? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Jack Cafferty is standing by in New York with the "Cafferty File." He's got some answers to his email question this hour. Jack?
CAFFERTY: Some conservatives are calling for a shakeup at the White House. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and the head of the CATO Institute, William Niskanen, yesterday questioned whether Karl Rove should remain in his current position as deputy White House chief of staff.
So the question we're asking this hour, should Karl Rove keep his day job?
Martin in Santa Rosa, California: "Rove should go. At the very least, President Bush should regretfully accept the resignation that Rove submits because he doesn't want his presence to distract from the administration's work."
Lisa in Washington writes: "I'm an American who believes in innocent until proven guilty. But shouldn't he be put on leave, paid or otherwise, until the whole mess is sorted out?"
Lynn in Largo, Florida, writes: "Karl Rove should absolutely keep his job. He's not accused of anything. He and Scooter Libby are more essential to this government than Valerie Plame or that jerk she's married to will ever be." That would be the ambassador, I assume, she's referring to.
Scarlet in Tampa, Florida: "Of course Karl Rove should keep his day job if the president wants to see his approval numbers keep heading in a downward spiral. 2006 is coming fast, and it wouldn't surprise me if some moderate Republicans start distancing themselves from this White House unless Mr. Bush can make some needed changes."
And Darin writes, "Should Karl Rove keep his day job? Yes. Should Jack Cafferty keep his day job? No."
BLITZER: You're going to keep your day job, Jack and you're also going to keep a little evening job as well, because we're going to have a special SITUATION ROOM tonight at 7:00.
CAFFERTY: I can't hardly wait for that.
BLITZER: So don't get going yet. Day job, evening job or whatever. Thanks, Jack.
Interest groups are gearing up for a battle online over the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our Internet reporter Abbi Tatton is here. She's joining us with the situation online. Abbi?
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, groups on both sides are mounting aggressive online campaigns this week, both to support or oppose the nominee, groups like the conservative Family Research Council, for example, have been webcasting their press conferences in support of the nominee.
On the other side, the liberal People for The American Way have been sending out hundreds of thousands of emails. Three quarters of a million emails went out to their members, urging them to sign this petition to stop Alito.
Now, it's -- this kind of rapid response has been a long time in the planning. If you type in stopalito.net into your browser today, you'll be redirected to this site, from the abortion rights group NARAL. They are asking for your emergency contributions to oppose this nominee. That's because NARAL, some two-and-a-half years ago, bought this domain name, this Web address in order to oppose this nominee should it ever come about.
On the other side, judgealito.com, this is the conservative Progress for America group that are also doing their own Web tactics. One of them, if you missed their ad online -- if you missed their ad, I'm sorry, on the television, you can download it to your video iPod. They're calling this alito2go.
Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Abbi, for that. It's almost 5:00 here in Washington.
And you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where news and information from around the world arrive in one place at the same time.
Happening now, it's almost 1:00 a.m. Thursday in Iraq where Saddam Hussein faces trial, but now we're learning of an 11th hour exile deal that could have prevented the entire war, perhaps. We'll show you why it apparently fell through.
And it's 5:00 p.m. over at the White House, under growing scrutiny and pressure from the CIA leak probe. We'll talk about it and more with the counselor to the president, Dan Barlett. He's standing by to join us live.
Also here in Washington, Britain's Prince Charles and his wife Camilla preparing right now for a black tie dinner over at the White House, as they court the American news media. We'll show you the latest sign of the royals' love-hate relationship with the press.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
