Return to Transcripts main page
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Arizona Immigration Law Showdown
Aired July 28, 2010 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight immigration showdown. A federal judge tells Arizona not so fast. Blocking key parts of the state's anti- immigration law from going into effect tomorrow.
Did she gut the whole law? Or just doing her job?
Plus, President Obama's view on the daytime talk show. Kind of historic first. Driving critics crazy.
And then Jack Hanna, face-to-face in the wilderness with three bears, big ones. Could have killed him in an instant. What did he do? Tell us all about it, Jack.
Next on LARRY KING LIVE.
KING: Good evening.
Jim Gilchrist is founder and president of the Minuteman Project. Their aim, to prevent illegal immigration across the southern United States border. Jorge Ramos is an anchor of Univision and author of "A Country for All: An Immigrant Manifesto."
They're on opposite sides of the immigration issue. It came to a head today when Judge Susan Bolton granted a temporary injunction that prevents police from questioning people about their immigration status.
She's also blocked a provision that would make it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers. All for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work.
These provisions were to go into effect less than 24 hours from now in Arizona.
You disagreed, I guess, with her decision, Jim. Why?
JIM GILCHRIST, FOUNDER, THE MINUTEMAN PROJECT: I certainly disagreed. I feel the statement she made to the American public is that the United States is no longer a nation governed by laws. The rule of law essentially is meaningless. Certainly to Jane and Joe average America out there. And I believe there is a lot of pandering being involved here that's coming down from the Obama administration. And that is to --
KING: That has nothing to do with the federal judge's decision.
GILCHRIST: I -- I think --
KING: You're not questioning a federal judge, though?
GILCHRIST: Not really, not -- but I do believe there's certainly some influence coming down from Obama for her to defeat Arizona's attempt to re-establish itself as a sovereign state.
KING: It was -- Jorge, I gather you agree with this. It is, Jorge, though, just a temporary injunction. It can be released in two days if they file an appeal to it, right?
JORGE RAMOS, ANCHOR, UNIVISION: Right, and it can change anytime. The important thing is that for Hispanics and for immigrants, it's a step in the right direction, but it is simply not enough.
Because what we're doing right now, Larry, is managing a problem, not finding a long-term solution.
President Barack Obama promised that he was going to have an immigration bill during his first year in office and he broke a promise. Democrats don't have the political courage right now to push for immigration reform in Congress.
And Republicans -- Republicans are missing in action on immigration. Where are the 11 Republicans that voted for immigration three years ago?
So this is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. This is an American issue. And we don't have immigration reform right now. So the news today -- and that's the tragedy. The news today is that nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed.
Everything is still the same. And I still can't believe that the most powerful country in the world is persecuting the most vulnerable -- 11 million people.
KING: George Bush also supported immigration laws that you would have disagreed with.
GILCHRIST: Certainly did.
RAMOS: That's true.
GILCHRIST: I was a staunch opponent --
KING: Hold it. Go ahead, Jim.
GILCHRIST: I was a staunch opponent of President Bush, as well as Obama. KING: One of the things in this law that's puzzling that she pointed out is -- and a police officer was on a recent show discussing it. You can just stop a person on the street and just question who they are based on the way they look or their appearance?
GILCHRIST: No. No. Larry, the misconception from coast to coast on this law that was written by and crafted by one of the most well-renowned scholars in immigration and constitutional law, Chris Coback -- what has been missing is that the rule of law is absolutely blind to race, color, creed, age, sexual preference.
RAMOS: But it's not a misconception --
GILCHRIST: Whatever --
KING: So why were so many cops upset with this, saying they -- it would put them in a difficult position?
GILCHRIST: I'm sorry. Who is upset?
GILCHRIST: Police? Some police? Perhaps they don't want to enforce the rule of law. Perhaps they --
KING: But the rule of law is it's OK to stop a citizen and question them?
GILCHRIST: I would say no. No, I would hold a line -- if that person is conducting him or herself in a manner that would require law enforcement to question that person or intercept that person, certainly. DUI driving. Responding to an officer no ablo English, Gringo, go back to Europe.
Obviously, there's an issue there that probably the person may be illegal and perhaps the officer should pursue that.
KING: Jorge, you don't want more illegal immigrants coming in, do you?
RAMOS: Well, first of all, I don't call them illegal immigrants because many people, by using the term illegal, they might think that they're criminals or they're terrorists. I think we can agree on many things. We can agree that the system is broken, responding to your question.
Nobody likes undocumented immigration, not even undocumented immigrants. But I think we can also agree with the fact that we cannot separate families. I think we can all agree that we can't deport 11 million people. And I think we can agree that we have to do something about it.
He was talking about what happens with Latinos and with immigrants in this country. It's not a misperception. If you are African-American or Hispanic in New York, you are more likely to be detained by the police according to "The New York Times" and according to ACLU.
Here in Arizona, if you're Hispanic, you're simply more likely to be detained also by the police simply because of the color of your skin or maybe because an accent just like mine, an accent in English.
So the fact that they're immigrants -- again, something has to be done on immigration. And the decision taken today in Arizona is an important one. But it is simply not enough. Again, this --
KING: Jim, is it -- isn't it --
RAMOS: -- country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, Larry, and right now there are many, many millions of people in the United States who are not being treated equally.
KING: Jim, isn't it a federal problem? Not an Arizona problem?
GILCHRIST: No, it's an Arizona problem. It's a California problem. It's a problem for every state in the union. All 50 states, the United States, are now border states. Don't believe me? Ask --
KING: So therefore isn't is a federal problem?
GILCHRIST: Ask Representative Peter Colombo from Providence, Rhode Island or the Rhode Island area, who's putting together the very first delegation of Republican politicians and Democratic politicians -- this man is a Democrat -- bringing them to Arizona to tour the border and hopefully to have an audience with Governor Brewer to show their support.
This is -- I would call it a phenomenon. Both parties historically have fought each other over this issue. Now we've got this Peter Colombo from Rhode Island who's bringing both parties together to solve this problem under the rule of law.
KING: You think it's pretty sure we're going to the U.S. Supreme Court on this?
GILCHRIST: Absolutely. It will be tested at the U.S. Supreme Court and I think the U.S. Supreme Court will show that Arizona was correct.
KING: Jorge, you think it's going to the Supreme Court, too?
RAMOS: It might go to the Supreme Court but I'd really -- I would rather have it go to Congress. I mean, they -- if they have enough -- if they have 60 votes to extend unemployment benefits, if they have 60 votes for financial reform, if they have 60 votes to get a new judge in the Supreme Court, how come they can't get 60 votes for immigration reform?
Now I don't think it's an Arizona problem. I don't think it's a California problem. It's an American problem that has to be resolved --
KING: We're going to devote a lot more time to this. We've got a lot of guests.
Thank you, Jorge, thanks, Jim.
RAMOS: Thank you.
GILCHRIST: Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Jorge.
KING: Two Arizona sheriffs face off over the ruling next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: A victory or defeat for the state of Arizona today?
GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: Well, it's -- obviously it's a little bump in the road, I believe. And that -- you know, until I get my whole arms around it, we don't really exactly know where we're going to go.
We knew regardless of what happened today of course one side or the other side was going to appeal.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
KING: By the way, some aspects of the law will take effect tomorrow.
And joining us now are Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik. He is sheriff of Pima County, Arizona. And Sheriff Larry Dever, sheriff of Cochise County, Arizona. He and another sheriff, by the way, were named in the ACLU's lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of Arizona's immigration law.
All right, Sheriff Dupnik -- Clarence, what did you make of that ruling today?
SHERIFF CLARENCE W. DUPNIK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: Well, I think most of us anticipated that that's precisely what was going to happen. And it did.
KING: Did you agree or disagree?
DUPNIK: I agree with it. I -- I don't think the states should preempt the federal constitution. And I think President Obama or any other president for that matter has a responsibility to protect the constitution. He intervened in my opinion appropriately. And so far a federal judge agrees with it.
KING: Does this law -- had it gone into effect -- make it tougher on your law enforcement officers?
DUPNIK: In one sense it would. But let me say this, Larry, for the last two months, we've had scores of lawyers poring over this particular piece of legislation and ultimately have given us several options.
And one of the options was that there's nothing in the law that preclude us from enforcing the federal law which in my case we've been doing for 52 years. If we enforce the federal law, we run across illegal aliens, we turn them over to the Border Patrol, and the Border Patrol takes care of it.
This law --
KING: Sheriff Dever --
KING: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Finish what you were saying.
DUPNIK: If we enforce this law, instead of turning them over to the Border Patrol, we'd have to put them in the Pima County jail. We'd have to subject the criminal justice system locally to dealing with these hundreds and thousands of people ultimately.
We would overwhelm the system. We would put the jail into a crisis. And at the end of this, which is a minor misdemeanor, we would have to turn them over to the Border Patrol and send the taxpayers a huge bill. Now why would we want to do that?
KING: Sheriff Dever, what do you make of what Sheriff Dupnik had to say?
SHERIFF LARRY DEVER, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA: Well, couple of things I disagree with. One is, and based on the fact that since -- since September 11th, the federal government, Department of Homeland Security, has been on a mission to reach out to state and local law enforcement agencies to partner, to empower us, to help support homeland security mission.
And if it has to do with drugs, it has to do with firearms, it has to do with terrorists -- if we become engaged and involved and identify and take action on any of that, we get commendations and awards. And we stood up and said wonderful.
Now it comes to illegal immigration and we're not supposed to act or do anything? There's something fundamentally wrong with that.
I do agree with Sheriff Dupnik, and that is that we have -- sheriffs at least have sufficient authority to enforce the law as it stands. That's been vetted through the courts as it is. The problem is, when you get away from the border, police chiefs, police officers and sheriffs don't have the luxury of having thousands of Border Patrol agents in their counties to turn people over to.
We've been doing that for 34 years I've been in this business. Clarence has been in a lot longer than I have. But I did that the first year of office when I was a deputy. We'll continue to do it today. Regardless of what the statute says.
But the practical application of it and the benefit was about to occur in the interior of the state where other organizations saw their way clear to help partner -- help partner with the federal government in securing our homeland.
KING: Sheriff Dupnik, that sounds like it makes sense. There aren't a lot of Border Patrol agents to turn them over to in the middle of the state.
DUPNIK: Well, ultimately, they have to be turned over to ICE or the Border Patrol after the local system is done with them.
DEVER: And that's true. If -- but ICE also has the discretion and option to accept them or not. And I think this law put them in a position where they felt like, and rightfully so, they were going to have to expand and extend their efforts to resolve this illegal alien problem that we have.
KING: The judge said today there was a substantial likelihood it would result in wrongful arrest of legal residents.
Sheriff Dever, do you agree with that?
DEVER: Not at all. We haven't -- we haven't had any of those claims except for maybe a handful in the 34 years I've been in this business.
KING: No, but she said if that law passed that would happen.
DEVER: Why would it? Police officers are trained from the very first hour, the very first day, in police training 101. The basic tenants and understanding -- basic tenants and constraints of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
That law -- this law didn't change any of that. That was still required and actually emphasized under this law that those conditions have to apply. There has to be a precipitating event, that a stand- alone immigration charge is not going to work under this existing legislation.
KING: Thank you for the all too brief time. We're going to spend a lot more time on this in the days ahead when we expect to have both sheriffs back on maybe for a longer time to discuss this.
The debate's just beginning. A panel joins us next.
KING: We welcome our panel. Ben Stein, economist, attorney, former presidential speech writer, columnist for "Fortune" magazine, and author of "The Little book of Bulletproof Investing." Our pal, Stephanie Miller, progressive talk radio host of her own program. Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principals. And Aisha Tyler, actress, author and activist.
Ben, what did you think of the judge's ruling today?
BEN STEIN, ECONOMIST & FORMER PRES. SPEECHWRITER: Well, she's just a person who puts on a robe. She doesn't really necessarily know any more than the next person. There'll be lots and lots of other --
KING: She's the same as a Supreme Court judge.
STEIN: Exactly right. There'll be lots of other --
KING: What's your point then?
STEIN: My point is this is just the beginning of a long complicated process. It'll be decided by the principles of the next set of judges. And it's incredibly unbelievably difficult problem to solve. No judge is going to solve it overnight. No legislature. Not even the Congress.
KING: So you have no opinion on the injunction?
STEIN: I think the injunction was silly. I think it was silly but I don't put much faith in it because it's not going to last very long. Somebody will dissolve it and put in a new set of principles.
The Supreme Court will almost certainly at some point overrule it. It's a gigantic super problem. We've got this big rich country here and a very poor set of countries right next to us. People in the poor countries want to come in here. It's a giant problem.
KING: So what do you do, Stephanie?
STEPHANIE MILLER, PROGRESSIVE TALK RADIO HOST: Well, Larry, what he means is she's a person in a robe that made a decision that is other than what Ben Stein would have decided.
MILLER: So clearly it must be wrong.
STEIN: I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was different from what the next decision is going to be.
MILLER: What -- the right wing is always screaming, Larry, about we were a nation of laws. We're a nation of laws. Well, guess what, we're a nation of laws. And this is unconstitutional --
KING: But they can disagree with it.
STEIN: The next -- the next judge --
MILLER: But this is unconstitutional. You can't -- STEIN: The next judge will say it is constitutional. That's my point. Judges don't make laws. And it hasn't been set in iron.
MILLER: You cannot have a patchwork quilt. You have to have comprehensive immigration reform. I say --
STEIN: Well, the next judge will say we can have a patchwork quilt. That's how judges work. Judges are not all --
MILLER: Well, then she'll be a judge in a black robe that you agree with.
KING: I'll come back to the two of you in a minute. Alfonso, where do you -- where do you stand on this?
ALFONSO AGUILAR, LATINO PARTNERSHIP FOR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPALS: Look, I agree with the decision. Immigration is a federal issue. And we don't want to see, as Stephanie says, a patchwork of immigration.
KING: So you're a conservative who agrees with the decision?
AGUILAR: Yes. But because of preemption, I don't agree with Obama's argument that the law would have led to a massive discrimination. That was his argument publicly. But he files a lawsuit -- lawsuit his Justice Department arguing preemption, not discrimination.
And why did he do it? The lawsuit is a political ploy. Obama's concerned the Latinos are losing faith in him because he promised he was going to do something on immigration the first year of his administration and he didn't do it.
He talks about he's for immigration reform. He gives a speech at American University in July of an election year.
Is he really committed? Of course not. And he talks about legalization but says nothing about a guest worker program.
MILLER: Please, do you really think he's going to get one iota of cooperation from the Republicans on immigration?
MILLER: Oh please.
AGUILAR: If he shows presidential leadership, you'll have the Republicans step forward.
AGUILAR: George Bush got over 25 Republicans supporting immigration --
(CROSSTALK) AGUILAR: -- because of Obama.
STEIN: But Alfonso, what would it be --
MILLER: Wait, I'm sorry. Immigration reform didn't pass under George Bush because of Obama when he was a senator?
MILLER: Because of Obama? Because of one senator?
KING: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
KING: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. We're losing the host. When you lose the host, we're in trouble.
Aisha, what do you think?
AISHA TYLER, ACTRESS, AUTHOR AND ACTIVIST: I think -- I think there are three points to make here. First of all, if you are strict constructionalist, which most conservatives are -- this was a constructionalist decision. It was based on constitutional principles, a preemption. And the state stepping in an area that is not their jurisdiction legally.
That's the first thing.
The secondary thing is the reason that the government sued on those grounds because that's all they needed to sue on. They didn't need to sue secondarily on grounds of discrimination. Even if that would have been the effect of the law, all they needed to do was prove preemption which they did.
Tertiarilly (ph), I agree with you. This is a huge problem that is not -- that the last administration with the Republican president and a Republican Congress could not solve. And what you have are conservatives who are more interested in being right than doing what's right.
And if -- if they were really interested in collaborating with the president on this, you would not have all of the conservatives leaning farther to the right now --
TYLER: Move farther to the right.
TYLER: A guy that John McCain has always been pro reform is now anti-reform because he wants to get elected.
AGUILAR: But the president has not reached to the Republican leadership in House and Senate.
KING: What is -- give me -- give me --
MILLER: Like Aisha just said, who do you reach out to -- John McCain who was on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill?
AGUILAR: The Republican leadership.
MILLER: Who doesn't want anything to do with an immigration bill?
AGUILAR: When George Bush was president, he said his top Cabinet members, Secretary Chertoff, Secretary Gutierrez to negotiate directly with the Democratic leadership.
KING: I'm going to take --
AGUILAR: That is presidential leadership.
KING: We're going to take a break. When I come back, I'm going to ask the panel to give me their law. What would they say should be the law?
We'll also talk about President Obama making history on "The View" and we've got a clip coming up. Don't go away.
KING: OK, before we move to some other areas, Ben, give me a concise law.
STEIN: Close the borders except for people who are coming across legally. Spend real money on border patrol and enforcement. Allow a guest worker program so the people who are really, legitimately need low-cost migrant worker like farmers and ranchers and meat packers can get them. And do not discriminate in an unfair, unconstitutional way against people who have accents or look different.
KING: Stephanie, a law?
MILLER: Every time I come here, I want to marry Ben Stein.
MILLER: Pretty much what he said. Yes. Comprehensive immigration reform. We got to close the borders. We got to -- but there has to be a path to citizenship. I'm not as crazy a liberal as Ronald Reagan. I mean I wouldn't talk about that kind of amnesty.
But the last time we didn't pass anything, we automatically gave how many millions of people amnesty? Let's get something done now. That's what this Arizona law is. It gives us an opportunity.
AGUILAR: We need a free market solution. We not legalization with a penalty. Not amnesty. Have people come forward, said they've done something wrong, pay a penalty. We need to strengthen border security. And we need a guest worker program. Demand based. And Obama opposes a guest worker program.
KING: And those people already here illegally can stay if they agree to it?
AGUILAR: Give them a path towards legal status.
KING: But you can't deport them.
AGUILAR: Right. But at the end, the key is, go to the root of the problem, which is an incredible demand our economy has for foreign workers. The unions don't want to see more guest worker programs. That's why Obama and the Democrat leadership --
AGUILAR: -- oppose that worker --
MILLER: We have an illegal employer problem.
AGUILAR: So Latinos --
MILLER: We have an illegal employer problem.
AGUILAR: Oh come on.
MILLER: Not an illegal immigrant --
KING: Aisha, give me -- Aisha, who by the way has a new short film called "Committed" on her Facebook page. She's the voice of Alana on FX's "Archer."
KING: I got to get that in.
TYLER: Just another role in a black robe.
KING: Give me your law. Give me --
TYLER: What I -- I actually agree with most of what's been said here which is why we stick to be at this end of the panel. But --
(LAUGHTER) TYLER: And we can kind of do some kind of a polygamy thing with them later. Oh god, that was a terrible mental picture. What I would like to say is that I think the two things that I agree most with, are we doing a clear, concise, easy path to citizenship?
And we need to accept the fact that our economy does not work without cheap labor. I think people want to deny the fact that when you go to the mega mall and you want five t-shirts for a dollar and you want your carton of strawberries to be $1.99 and you want prices to be low, that requires cheap labor.
Yes, I think -- you know, we have this obstructionist position with the unions, but most of their jobs are going to China. Mexicans aren't taking those jobs.
AGUILAR: But don't you think the unions are controlling this administration? President Obama, when he spoke from the American University --
MILLER: No --
AGUILAR: He didn't say anything about a guest worker program.
MILLER: The unions upset many times. Yes.
AGUILAR: Obama's proposal is legalization and employer sanctions. That is not comprehensive reform.
TYLER: And I think employer sanctions are a key part of all of this.
AGUILAR: We are best better off with --
STEIN: There are also big problems that crime from illegals are burdening the health system, burdening the educational system. The education and health system and criminal justice system here in Southern California have been demolished in large part by illegal aliens. Something has to be done about that, too.
KING: Not easily solved. All right. Let's discuss some other things. President Obama taped an appearance on "The View" today. It will air tomorrow. A lot of Republicans and others are upset, saying should a president be going on a daytime, basically, talk show, in which they just -- four women kick things around?
MILLER: His weekly address is on Youtube, which isn't really that discerning. Have you checked out the Youtube lately? Anything can get on there. Larry, as you know, we're in a new age in this -- you know, Internet and Youtube and whatever age. I think you have to reach your audience however you can. You know, I certainly wouldn't cast any dispersions on Barbara Walters.
KING: Are you critical of him?
AGULAR: I don't watch "The View."
MILLER: Lies, all lies .
AGULAR: No, it's true. I don't think it looked very presidential. I think we need certain standards . The president is the president. He's the head of state, head of government. He should behave accordingly. I don't --
TYLER: I think you're right. I don't think it looked very presidential. What I will say is that there is such a glut of information now a days. It's so the hard to connect with people. He is a populist president. He's a grassroots president. He connected with people in grassroots ways. This is a way of cutting through the ad nauseam press conferences and the releases and the daily briefings and try to speak directly to Americans in an informal way.
MILLER: You know what I blame for this primarily? Larry King's impending retirement. You got to go somewhere.
KING: I'm not retiring. I'm leaving this show but I'm not --
MILLER: I'm just saying.
STEIN: I'm curious to know why does this question even come up? It's a legitimate show. Its staff and --
KING: Well, it's the Republicans who are complaining, saying --
STEIN: I don't understand why. The people on the show are quite intelligent people. The people who write for the show are quite intelligent people. I don't think there's anything even slightly wrong with him being on the show. I don't even understand why the question comes up. It's a perfectly respectable show.
KING: Alfonso, defend your position.
AGULAR: Because we want to have a discussion of idea. Obama is the master of PR politics. Change; what does change mean? Nobody knows. But we need to have him speak from the podium at the White House --
MILLER: Which he does --
STEIN: What's the problem with him being on a show in which all of the interviewers are women? I don't understand why -- why is that even a slightest problem? I don't understand why it's --
MILLER: Is there not enough testicles for you?
AGULAR: I think we need to have an environment -- MILLER: just asking.
AGULAR: I think we need to have an environment where we can have a serious discussion that's not about --
STEIN: But all presidents go on silly shows. This isn't even a particular silly show. "The View" is actually a very smart show. Very serious issues --
AGULAR: I think we're over-analyzing this way too much. I don't think it looked presidential.
KING: His popularity rating is low at this point. But Reagan's was low too in the first two years. They both had economic problems that they faced. You can't -- can he rebound?
STEIN: Oh, absolutely. If the economy starts to turn around, he can definitely rebound. He's a wizard campaigner. He's a wizard blender in with crowds. He's a wizard whipper up of crowds. the question is can the economy rebound? That's the real question. We are really up a certain kind of creek without a paddle at this point. We don't know what to do.
We don't know whether to cut expenditure, spend more. We don't know whether to print more money, print less money. We just don't know what to do at this point. We are in a very difficult position. And that's the issue, can we rebound?
MILLER: If we could "Win Ben Stein's Money," perhaps we could.
KING: That was a good show. Agree with him?
TYLER: I agree. I think he's following a similar parallel to Reagan. I think obviously Reagan rebounded. I think he's got to continue to connect with people and put his ideas forth, the ideas that people connected with originally. I think he's making progress. I think he has passed some pretty legendary reforms, some pretty historical reform over the last couple of years.
He had a huge job. I think you have this guy, you know, sitting in front of a certain kind of mountain with a very tiny spoon and everybody's mad that he hasn't moved the whole thing in 18 months.
STEIN: People just --
AGULAR: I agree with Ben. It depends on the economy, but also he needs to prove to Latinos, a major constituency, that he's honest with them. And so far they feel that he has betrayed them.
TYLER: What are the republicans doing -- really, honestly? Honestly, one thing, give me one example. AGULAR: I'll give you Senator Rubio. I'll give you senator -- future Senator Carly Fiorina. There are some Republicans who are exciting, who are staunch --
TYLER: Wait, wait, Carly Fiorina's not in office. What are Republicans doing right now to step forward and actively engage on this issue?
AGULAR: It's the president's turn. There are a bunch of Republicans that are for the free market, that believe in immigration. If the president's serious about immigration reform, they will come forward. But he has not reached out to Republicans.
TYLER: I disagree --
AGULAR: It's a show. Oh, no, no, no --
AGULAR: Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan stood for principle. This guy stands for polls.
MILLER: He's not nearly as liberal as Ronald Reagan. He's never said (INAUDIBLE). He's never given complete amnesty.
STEIN: Here's the difference between him and Ronald Reagan --
MILLER: -- these republicans have filibustered, have been more obstructionists that any --
STEIN: Here's the difference between him and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan never went around the world apologizing for America. Ronald Reagan was proud to be an American at every single instant of his being. And it does not say --
TYLER: humility is not shame. Humility is not shame. Taking responsibility for something is not the same as apologizing.
AGULAR: -- president has supported are based on big government. There's a revolt in this country against intrusive government.
KING: Let me get a break and we'll be --
MILLER: -- and apologizing for George Bush's America, which we should apologize for.
KING: We'll be right back with more. Don't go away.
KING: Let's touch some other bases. Are the Republicans going to get control of the House, Ben?
STEIN: They have a chance of it. But I think this Tea Party is going to be mostly a negative for them. It's going to split the Republican vote. I think there are going to be independent candidates who will hurt the party. I'm worried about it. I think they'll make gains. But take control of it? I think it's a tiny bit far-fetch.
KING: How about the Senate, Stephanie?
MILLER: Well, first of all, I disagree with Ben. I think the Tea Party's great for the Republican party. They ought to embrace -- spoon with them. They should spoon with them right up until November. I think the Senate's going to be a tough one. I really think -- you know, Larry, a lot of these -- Aisha was just talk about the president. Have you noticed every media story line has been wrong? All through the campaign, it's like, I know, I got it. The Democrats are going to take a beating. Barack Obama's a one-term president. I think all of it is being overstated.
KING: What do you see, Alfonso?
AGULAR: Well, I agree with the White House Spokesperson Robert Gibbs. I think Republicans are going to win the House. There are about 40 seats in play here. I think we have a very good chance of winning the House. The Senate is going to be tougher. I think we can win about eight seats. If we win three more and go up to 11, we win the Senate. So there's a real chance of the Senate. I think the House, we're getting very close.
TYLER: There are always midterm gains. There are always midterm gains. Calling the gain of a few seats some kind of massive ideological victory --
AGULAR: The entire House?
TYLER: I don't think you're going to get the entire House. I think you will get seats because the opposing party always gets seats at midterm.
STEIN: I think in 2002, the Republicans did pick up seats. I think that was a rare exception.
TYLER: If you look at it, historically, there's always an opposing party gain in the midterm.
KING: That was 9/11.
AGULAR: There's always a gain, but not a huge win.
TYLER: They're not going to sweep, get control of the congress back. AGULAR: This is starting to sound like 1994 all over again.
MILLER: He's a hopeful man. I like that about him. He actually thinks that Carly Fiorina is going to win.
AGULAR: She's going to win. Carly Fiorina is a great candidate. Barbara Boxer --
MILLER: We just had a poll out here today in California. The more people get to know Carly Fiorina, the less they like her.
TYLER: -- as a successful business person when you were run out of the position in your company for driving it into the ground.
MILLER: They just did a poll and people like Barbara Boxer's hair better than they like Carly Fiorina's hair.
AGULAR: -- Always goes for the democrats. Already 32 to 39 percent Latino voters in California are saying they're willing to vote for Carly Fiorina. That is a margin of victory.
MILLER: Somebody who ran a company into the ground, outsourced thousands of jobs --
KING: Can anything happen in the next few months to change something?
STEIN: I'd say, God forbid, a terrible terrorist incident to which Obama responds strongly and powerfully. I'd say if there's evidence of a turning of the tide on unemployment, that would be an incredible miracle for Mr. Obama and for the very, very unfortunate unemployed. I'd say if he does something -- gives a wonderful, heroic speech about something. There are many things that could turn the tide about him. I mean, he is a very resilient, adaptable guy. I think he can turn everything around.
KING: A future Republican that can beat him?
STEIN: I know you scoffed at this.
KING: I love Haley Barbour --
STEIN: -- smartest guys I've ever met. He speaks like he's the red neck of red necks. But he says really smart things. He's never been quoted as saying a racist thing in his life.
STEIN: Incredibly, incredibly, incredibly smart guy, good campaigner.
KING: What Republican do you fear as a Democrat who wants Obama to be re-elected?
MILLER: One I'm most afraid of is Sarah Palin. Please don't nominate here because the president could never match her intellectually. Please don't.
AGULAR: Stephanie would love Sarah Palin to run. The truth is that I think we have two people who are very exciting. That's, first Jeb Bush. I think that's still a possibility. And Newt Gingrich. I think if Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal for VP, that's an incredible ticket. It's very exciting. I tell you.
MILLER: I still have goose bumps from his speech.
AGULAR: It's morning in America. It's starting to sounds like Jimmy Carter in '76.
TYLER: The economy's made of money; we spend it.
KING: As an Obama fan, who do you fear?
TYLER: Who do I fear? You know, I have to tell you, these are all interesting ideas. Jeb Bush is probably I think the most terrifying. Although I think Americans don't want a dynastic presidential run. I don't think we want a third Bush in office. So that would be the reason --
TYLER: I think one of the reasons why they didn't nominate -- elect Hillary Clinton is because they saw an option that was not a dynastic choice.
AGULAR: No, she won. Michigan and Florida were --
TYLER: I also say that our fair former half-run governor from Alaska is an interesting choice. I would vote -- I would also vote --
AGULAR: She would vote for her?
MILLER: She and I are both comedians, so yes.
TYLER: What I will say --
MILLER: On behalf of comedians everywhere, yes.
TYLER: It's clear that Sarah Palin -- that the presidency doesn't pay enough.
KING: I'll give Ben the last word. Sarah Palin?
STEIN: I'm not a huge fan of Sarah Palin. I think she's right on a lot of issues, but she has no way. Haley Barbour I think is going to shock you. He has a lot of stuff going on in that poor boy head of his. KING: Is his state big enough, though?
STEIN: No, his state isn't big enough. He'll sweep the whole south. He gives people a clear choice, a conservative guy versus a liberal guy. Makes it absolutely clear, are you conservative or liberal?
MILLER: Yeah, he's so believable, Larry. He just did that commercial --
TYLER: -- moderate independents.
MILLER: -- commercial, Larry; it's like, come fishing in Mississippi, the fish are hardly putting up a fight anymore.
KING: Thank you, guys. We're going to have you back. Thank you. Alfonso Aguilar, Aisha Tyler, Stephanie Miller and Ben Stein.
He's been face to face with bears before but not like this. Jack Hanna had a scare. He'll tell us about it next.
KING: As promised, here he is, President Obama, on "The View." It will air tomorrow. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: So the last 20 months has been a nonstop effort to restart the economy, to stabilize the financial system, to make sure that we're creating jobs, again, instead of losing them. In the midst of all that, we've also had the oil spill. We've also had two wars. We've also had a pandemic, H1N1, that we had to manage, and a whole host of other issues.
What has been gratifying is the fact that the economy now is starting to stabilize and grow again. And what's been satisfying is just seeing how resilient the American people are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: That's the president on "The View" tomorrow. Jack Hanna is the director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo and host of "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild." He and his family were in the sights of three bears recently, managed to get away. Wildlife officials tell CNN that bear attacks at separate sites in the remote Soda Butt campgrounds in Montana have left a person dead, two others injured. Sounds like Jack was lucky. He joins us from the Coudini Lodge (ph) in Big Fork, Montana.
What happened, Jack? What happened to you and the bears? JACK HANNA, COLUBMUS ZOO: Saturday night, Larry -- this Saturday night, my wife and I went to Grinnel (ph) Glacier in Glacier National Park. We lived here 20 something years, our favorite place to hike. We were a little late in the day, got up there at 5:00, a six mile hike. Some of the hiking trails are cut into the walls, where there's 1,000 foot drop-off, 500-foot drop-offs for the wall here.
Person took a picture of us on top of the mountain. They wanted a picture. Then they started going down. Fifteen minutes later, we followed them. It was a girl, 18, and her parents. She went around the corner of a ledge that went just like that, and she saw the three bears.
Now, at this time, I'm coming down and she comes back around, not losing composure, just going, oh, my gosh, there's three bears on this trail. Let's get against the wall. She couldn't do that, because there's a 500-foot drop-off over here and a wall here. A bear can't have four feet.
So I said no. Right there, the bear started coming 30 feet. I said no, get behind me. We're going to back up and talk and be very calm. This is what you have to do, Larry. A grizzly runs 100 yards in six second. You can't do that. You keep talking, stay calm. It's hard to do, but we had to do it.
I pulled my bear spray out like this. I wear it on my jacket like this pulled it out like this. I take it, pull the tip off like that, on the trigger. We back up. Nothing is happening. It seemed like an hour. For five minutes, we are backing up.
Then I see a little meadow, a straight hill like this going up. And I couldn't have climbed it if I hadn't had a little bit of adrenaline. So five of us climbed the hill about 50 feet, got against the wall. You can't -- want your back against something.
The mother bear came just like I thought, around the corner where she thought she could go, which she did, with the two yearlings. They were about 150 pounds. They started going over the hill, except the last one looked at us about 30 feet way. His hair raised on his back.
All of a sudden, he started coming towards us. I waited until he got about 30 feet. I can't spray this right now because it goes about 20 feet. I unloaded one blast. He kept coming. About 15 feet, I unloaded another blast. He went like this.
Then the last thing, my wife said about 10 feet, right in my face, I just went bam, right in his face. He went -- he went back and ran away again.
The point I'm getting at, Larry, is that bear spray is what I hike with for the last 15 years. I've never had to pull it out of my holster ever. I've done hundreds of miles of hikes in Glacier, Yellowstone, everywhere else. So this is what helped save our lives.
You know what the tragedy -- this is amazing, Larry, because two weeks ago, I did a bear spray PSA for the park system, especially Glacier, to tell people to take bear spray when they're hiking. Obviously, I can't believe what happened to me Saturday night.
KING: What does the bear spray do?
HANNA: Well, it's like mace. It burns. I've had it shot on my leg before by accident. They can't see for a while. It doesn't kill the bear or anything else. It just stops them cold, if you hit it right. You have to hold it for ten feet.
KING: It would work on any animal coming towards you then, right?
HANNA: Basically. Yes, Larry, right. I just want people to know that what happened to me is like lightning hitting. What happened last night south of here -- I live down where -- I've been to that campground where that terrible thing happened last night. My condolences go to the family, Larry. People are saying is it safe to hike? Let me tell you something, Larry, this is like lightning striking twice. It's unbelievable. Even though the park people, the U.S. forest service, all these folks, we're all trying to figure out what happened because this bear -- that was unusual, Larry.
We think it's a grizzly. That's what I've heard. Came into camp about -- what -- about midnight -- between midnight and 2:00 am, something like this. As you know, got the tent and I guess mauled the first person. Then another person and then the bear went on down the way about a quarter of a mile to another little site and killed the individual. Right now, they're taking samples of the saliva, of the hair, of the defecation, to try to figure out.
What they're doing -- they've got five traps set. Usually when a grizzly or another bear comes into a campground like this, they come back the next night. Last year, I filmed our episode "Into the Wild," We filmed a bear that had come into a person's mobile home area, ate all the chickens that night. We set the trap that night, Tim Manley (ph) did -- he's a great bear guy that relocates bears. He caught the bear the very same night on the very same property.
So they're hoping that this bear will come back. They'll tranquilize it, take DNA samples and we'll know what the story is.
KING: And we'll know more, right after this.
KING: We only have a little while, couple of seconds left, Jack. What should we do to a bear that attacks people?
HANNA: Right now, Larry, the bear is going to be removed once they do the matching DNA. It will be removed and then euthanized, because the bear will compare people to what he has been doing. And obviously with that kind of behavior, it cannot happen. If it was maybe something going in, getting food, stuff, they would relocate it 50 miles away.
I lived down there for ten years, in that area. Camping out here is still safe, hike, Larry. I'm going to the same trail where I had the altercation on Saturday night. I encourage people to continue camping in this beautiful state of Montana, Yellowstone, Glacier. It's a beautiful. Carry your bear spray and things will be fine. This is like lightning never striking three times in the same place.
KING: We only have a minute left. I know you were scared. I know you love animals. Do you love bears?
HANNA: You know, Larry, I know you're going to think -- I'm a hiker. I've been working with you for 20 years. I'll tell you something, it's like Suzie said, my wife. It's amazing what happens to you. I just stayed calm. I backed up calm. I knew because I've been up here a lot. I've in the animal business 35 years. I helped that young lady and her parents that were afraid to stay calm. And hopefully, I helped them. And hopefully, this will help others, what we're saying tonight.
They're a beautiful creature. Just make noise when you hike, have a good time. As I said before, just give them their distance and everything should be fine. What happened south of here is a terrible, terrible thing. My heart really just aches for these families. But, again, the bear is there. It's been there for thousands of years. And this was an unusual situation. No one knows at all what happened. We'll find out.
KING: Thank you, Jack Hanna, good friend, director emeritus Columbus Zoo and host of "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild".
We close tonight on a sad note. We would like to acknowledge the death of Ann Perry McFarlan. She's the mother of our friend "Family Guy" creator Seth McFarlan. Perry was only 63, past away of a valiant battle with cancer. A lifelong educator, a passion for animals, which explains her devotion, by the way, to the Humane Society and ASPCA.
I spoke to her on the phone when Seth was on the show in May, and I could see why her friends called her a bright light who sparkled. She acknowledged that her son had done well but told me on the sly that she knew he had really made it when she saw him sitting right here. Perry touched many who celebrated her life. Those who would like to honor her can donate to the ASPCA or the Humane Society in her name.
To her children, Seth and Rachel, and her husband, Ron, we know your lives are not the same without Perry in them. We offer our prayers and send our condolences to you.
Seth McFarlan is a great guy and had a great mother. I really loved talking with her. Miss you, Perry.
Time now for Anderson Cooper and "AC 360." Anderson?