Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Is Tea Party Taking Over GOP?; Aiming for a Clean Future; Hard Hitting Politics
Aired October 19, 2010 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. Tonight's opening argument, Kathleen, the Tea Party is chugging into Washington, D.C., overtaking the entire Republican Party. Two weeks from tomorrow it's going to be an amazing thing to see. November 3, John Boehner will be the speaker of the House of Representatives, depending upon the Tea Party, about 25 members of his caucus will be members. Four to five members of the United States Senate will be members of the Tea Party. They will define the agenda. The Tea Party has won. I have never seen anything like it. It is staggering to me. But, this is an amazing thing to behold.
PARKER: Let me just say, you know, freshman congressmen don't have a whole lot of power. They tend to figure out where they belong and let me use Scott Brown as an example. You know, he was a Tea Party candidate. He's larger than life character. This is not the Scott Brown show. He is a piece of the infrastructure and the team.
SPITZER: I agree with certain elements of your critique. Having said that, what I'm describing is not just a few members of Congress here and there because they're going to be chairs of committees. It is the emotional takeover. They are the heart and soul of the Republican Party. What we initially dismissed as a small grassroots, but a genuine grassroots operation, has now gained such size within the Republican Party that John Boehner will know he depends upon them for all the excitement, the energy and his agenda is going to be set by the Tea Party.
And I think even though it may only be 25 members of the House, they can go to everybody else and say, look, 41, maybe 45, maybe by then, 55 percent of the Republican Party, the base agrees with us and therefore, what is their mission? One, they will try to repeal health care. They are the ones who put that on the map. Now, they can't repeal it, technically...
PARKER: But, John Boehner -- it was always on John Boehner's list of things to do. It's not as though they have these diverse interests. I mean, the Tea Party, well, they didn't want to be Republicans, first of all, they want to be Constitutionalists, but you know, what they are trying to accomplish and what the Republican Party are trying to accomplish are not far apart. It's about cutting spending and reducing taxes. SPITZER: Right, no, but the Tea Party has overtaken the institutional Republican Party, the Mitch McConnell's will no longer be the ones standing up setting the agenda. Look, I happen to think it's a disastrous thing...
PARKER: No, no. You're wrong about that. You're just wrong.
SPITZER: Look, the tail is wagging the dog here and when you go into the general public the Tea Party is where the energy is.
PARKER: There's no question that the Republican leadership will certainly listen to the Tea Party. This is the voice of the people. But the real litmus test comes on November 3. It's not what Boehner, what is McConnell going to do, it's what is Barack Obama going to do? Because this is a referendum on him and his administration and the question is did he hear the people? So what he does will determine what the Republicans do and to what extent the Tea Party reacts and...
SPITZER: Of course the two interact. I don't want to start right now trying to predict what the president will do November 3. The numbers there are going to be hard to predict, but what I will say is that the Republican Party is now in the thrall of a grassroots campaign. I happen to think it's policies are fundamentally wrong, it's going to take us over the cliff once again. They don't even make sense, but I think as a political momentum issue that is where we are. Jim DeMint is the much more powerful figure in the general public than Mitch McConnell, not within the halls of Congress. Jim DeMint emerged as sort of even an intellectual leader of this new movement.
PARKER: As you know, Eliot, once you get into Washington, things change.
SPITZER: Absolutely.
PARKER: You have to learn to move along the corridors and it's a whole new ball game, it is not the parks and the streets and the small towns. It is really about getting on the team and working as a coordinated effort. The Republican Party is very, very disciplined and they will incorporate the Tea Party.
SPITZER: Well, let me challenge you on that.
PARKER: Now, there is a -- I will give you this, there is a question, I mean, it's a tenuous situation because the Tea Party people, if they don't like what the Republicans are doing...
SPITZER: They have the trump card, that's why I think you're totally wrong.
PARKER: Well, no, no, no. Well, they will start attacking the Republicans, that's the problem.
SPITZER: The Republican Party of George Bush, Sr., and even George W. Bush had the perception of discipline, but who's taken over the party? John McCain is an afterthought. John McCain is begging Sarah Palin, at least back when he was in the middle of a primary to come, hey, help me out Sarah. He almost threw her off the ticket. This has been a complete role reversal. You know, it's kind of staggering to those of us who don't feel comfortable with it, of course, you know, we still have Christine O'Donnell. We got to come back to breeding mice and men. You know, she still believes that. I just got to throw that in every night just for a little bit of humor. But look, this...
(LAUGHTER)
PARKER: Pop quiz, who wrote it? "Of Mice and Men." Steinbeck.
SPITZER: Steinbeck. One of my favorite plays on Broadway. I saw it when I was 10. Anyway, put that aside. Look, the Tea Party...
PARKER: Is that when you mashed that little mouse in your pocket?
SPITZER: No, I didn't carry around a little mouse in my pocket. Listen, the Tea Party is going to drive the agenda. And your point about needing to know how to walk through the halls of power in Washington is true, if you want to do things. If they just want gridlock and understand within the Tea Party there are a lot of people who wouldn't mind seeing gridlock because it bring it this leviathan we call federal government to a halt. I don't want it, but they do.
PARKER: Well, I don't know if they do. I mean, they -- there's been some crazy talk about shutting down government, but you know, that's a remote...
SPITZER: Well, they want to shut down parts of it. They want to shut down the health care piece, they want to shut down the financial regulatory structure, again. So they would not be averse to acting in a way that sort of brings all these things to a halt.
PARKER: Well see, the problem is, who is the "they?" You know, we keep talking about the Tea Party as this monolithic group and it's not that at all. It's actually quite splintered. There are people who won't be on stage with each other. They don't really have an infrastructure, they don't have much money. So, it's not really possible for them to do what you're suggesting. I think that you're overemphasizing the importance of their rebellion once they are in the corridors of power.
PARKER: Imagine this scenario, imagine you have a Ron and Rand Paul in either chamber, imagine you have a Jim DeMint, imagine you have a presidential campaign that begins the moment these midterms are over and suddenly a Republican candidate's saying, "Gee, I want to be the nominee."
Remember that the white House is the final prize for politicians, that begins November 3, so Republican candidates are saying, "I have now got to get the Tea Party on my side or there is no chance of winning the primaries and getting the delegates. So all those candidates, from Mitt Romney on down, suddenly going to recalibrate and say, I'm going to do what they want. And so, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney all begin to mouth those words. PARKER: Well, but your assumption is that their goals are far- fetched and off and widely diverse and they're really not. I mean, the Tea Party people don't actually have any really firm ideas about what, you know...
SPITZER: You sound like me. Now you sound like me.
PARKER: Well, they know they want to cut spending, and they don't want to raise taxes, but how to get there it's not real clear. And they need these senior people to help guide that principle.
SPITZER: Well look, I agree with you that this has been essentially a vapid rebellion against the status quo and if fact, I think -- what are you laughing?
PARKER: Wow. He said it, not me.
SPITZER: It's true. No, you just said. You said they don't go in and stand for it. I'm agreeing with you on this one, Kathleen.
PARKER: No, they don't know the details.
SPITZER: Yeah, yeah, you said they have no idea what they're doing. I'm going to pin that one on you.
PARKER: It's a net gain for the Republican Party. The real power is still with does Barack Obama hear what the people are saying. And the people have spoken.
SPITZER: Now, well we still have two weeks to go. Let's keep our fingers crossed. Maybe this all -- he finds his, you know, his passion, his voice and he can turn back this tide of...
PARKER: Have some tea, Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, trust me, I'm a coffee guy. The day you see me drinking green tea and granola, get me out of here. Not going to happen.
Now it's time to go into "The Arena," tonight we're talking with the smartest Tea Party spokesperson out there, St. Louis radio talk show host, Dana Loesch.
PARKER: Dana, thanks for joining us. We're two weeks from the election. What's your prediction and how well does the Tea Party do -- will they do, rather?
DANA LOESCH, TEA PARTY SUPPORTER: Oh, goodness. I think that we are going to do better than the media perhaps would have given us credit for, but really -- the House, I think it looks good for conservatives, for the House of Representatives. For the Senate, that's sort of the nail biter to me because we have a lot races that are incredibly close and that's sort of the one -- that's the chamber I'm most concerned about. But, I think at best, if anything, we would get gridlock. SPITZER: Dana, let's put the Senate aside. I don't think anybody can predict which way that's going. Let's presume for a moment that you and I'm glad you said we and I can say you -- you take the House. John Boehner is the speaker of the House. What's the first thing you're going to do? Are you going to try to repeal what you call Obamacare, what we call health care reform?
LOESCH: Well, I call it health control. I just like health control better. I don't really say Obamacare too much, because I don't think it was entirely Obama's idea. I think it was the congressional Democrats. But I would expect Boehner to definitely either defund or repeal the health control law. And it's interesting...
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: In its entirety or are there certain pieces? I mean, there are some things that I think every sane person likes which is, you know, pre-existing conditions won't prevent you from getting insurance anymore. I mean, that's a good thing, right? That's in the law. You're not going to repeal that, I hope.
LOESCH: Well, there's -- we just need to redo it entirely, because this is the thing. A lot of people were talking about the commerce clause and commerce -- the individual mandate, the penalties, that is completely unconstitutional. That's not one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I would like to see the commerce clause properly applied to lift restrictions on insurance companies being able to sell interstate policies.
SPITZER: I don't mean to be snarky about this, but we heard Christine O'Donnell today in, you know, your Senate candidate from Delaware saying separation of church and state was not in the Constitution, either. So, maybe the Tea Party's working off a different Constitution. We'll wait and see.
LOESCH: It's not. No, it's not. That phrase isn't in the Constitution at all. That phrase is not in the Constitution
SPITZER: Well, let me ask one more question. Do you want to repeal the provision that permits people with pre-existing conditions to get health insurance?
LOESCH: Do I want to repeal pre-existing conditions? Well, I think you have to look at health insurance, too, in this way, it's a policy against catastrophic situations. It's like, you don't go out and get homeowners insurance after your house is already on fire. So, you have to look at it in a proper perspective. But I do want to say that the separation of church and state wasn't in the Constitution. It was a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Danbury Baptists.
SPITZER: Say that again. Wait a minute, there is this thing called the First Amendment in the Constitution. But so you do want to repeal pre-existing conditions? I just want to make sure the public understands this. LOESCH: Well, no. You're trying to frame it that I hate anyone that would have any kind of problems of getting health insurance coverage and that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that there are -- children, right now, the way the health control law is written, children are even exempt. There are massive loopholes in this health insurance that already discriminates against people that have pre-existing conditions, but that was one of the things that we didn't find out until we passed it, like Nancy Pelosi said.
PARKER: All right, Dana, I want to switch gears just a minute, here. I mean, what do you think of Sarah Palin's warning yesterday to the so-called "GOP machine" saying they must support this Tea Party or the GOP is finished? What do you make of that?
LOESCH: I think she was correct in delivering the warning. And I was sort of -- I alluded to the problem earlier. We have, what was it? Judd Gregg who said that he doesn't think, just sort of going back to health control, he doesn't think that that should be refunded or repealed. That's in complete contrast with the majority of conservatives out there who are really taking to task this GOP establishment. So, I think Palin's warning was to Judd Greggs and to these Mitch Daniels and Lamar Alexanders and folks like that who really aren't on board with a lot of thing that is these grassroots conservatives are demanding of their elected officials.
SPITZER: OK, can we go back to your other priorities? Are you going to also try to defund or repeal the financial re-regulation bill, Dodd-Frank is the technical name, you going to try to repeal that so we go back to the Wild West of Wall Street craziness?
LOESCH: Well, I don't know. Are Democrats going to try to keep control of Social Security and deny people the choice of investing their own money and growing their own nest egg? I mean, we can do that.
SPITZER: Whoa, whoa, if you're saying are we going to try to protect our seniors and not privatize which would have sent tens of millions of seniors into poverty, you bet we are, and I think anybody today...
LOESCH: Oh, it would have not have. There isn't any Social Security money, anyway. You're going off the presupposition that there's money in Social Security.
SPITZER: You guys don't know how to read a table. You don't know how to read an actuarial table.
LOESCH: It's already broke. Medicare's broke. The president even proposed to cut more from Medicare. There are cuts already in this law.
SPITZER: Answer the question. Are you going to try to repeal the financial regulation bill that imposed constraints on what the bank finally can do? Are you going to repeal that one, also.
LOESCH: I am not for any legislation where the government attempts to regulate the private sector because the government is horrible at stimulating jobs, that's not one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
SPITZER: Whoa, you just said something kind of remarkable.
LOESCH: So from that, if you can deduce my answer from that, then you can...
SPITZER: OK, so you want to repeal the civil rights laws?
LOESCH: What -- why would I want to repeal that?
SPITZER: Well, you said you want to repeal the laws that...
PARKER: Oh, come on Eliot, you know she didn't mean that.
SPITZER: No, no, no, she just said that. You said you want to repeal laws which where government tells the private sector what to do. It said you can't discriminate. The civil rights laws tell private sector companies they can't discriminate. You just said you want to repeal that. Yeah, well, some of your candidates have said that.
LOESCH: So you actually had to revert to a racism argument?
SPITZER: No, no, no...
LOESCH: No.
SPITZER: Dana, I'm just understanding the plain, precise language of what you said.
LOESCH: I'm not Rand Paul. I'm not Rand Paul.
SPITZER: Well, but Rand Paul said repeal it.
PARKER: No, he didn't.
LOESCH: Rand Paul wasn't talking about the repeal of the civil rights -- Rand Paul was making an example of the government exceeding 10th Amendment rights and how certain things needed to be dealt with an a state level.
SPITZER: That is why he said he'd repeal...
LOESCH: If you want to be ignorant about the topics and completely gloss over that and say that, well, that's somebody's being a racist, then they are completely misunderstanding A, argument and B, the 10th Amendment practice and the context of that conversation.
PARKER: All right, Dana, I want to ask you, what I'm hearing in Washington is that what happens on November 3, that is once these Tea Party candidates move into Congress, what happens then depends on what President Obama does. And so, I wanted to ask you what would you like to see him do on November 3? LOESCH: Oh gosh, the very first thing that I would like to see is an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Because we're going into a new year and businesses, middle class Americans have no idea what's happening with their finances, because we don't know what's going to be coming down the track with this. I mean, this is going to be a huge tax hike by way of repeal of tax cuts, so that's something that has everyone really terrified. And I don't know if we have ever post election, have ever entered a period where we just honestly didn't know what's going to happen. That's really bad for business.
SPITZER: Well, let's get rid of this bogeyman. The Republicans are holding up the extension of the middle class tax cuts to protect the rich who don't need it. This is going to add $1 trillion to our deficit every year. So, where are you going to fund that trillion dollars? Tell me right now, where will you cut the budget? Where you going to cut?
LOESCH: Well, we'll cut stimulus and repeal...
SPITZER: That's not moneys in the budget. That's not money in the budget, Dana.
LOESCH: No, here's the thing...
PARKER: Let her talk, Eliot.
LOESCH: You're framing the argument in a crazy way, you're saying that they are trying to protect the rich with tax cuts. Do you not understand that when you heavily tax corporations that this ends up where you have higher unemployment than the unemployment that you originally had...
SPITZER: Dana, your economics is worse than voodoo economics. You're numbers don't add...
LOESCH: It's basic economics 101. I'm not talking about (INAUDIBLE)...
SPITZER: No it isn't. You're negative 101. Dana, answer this question. Answer this question: Where will you cut $1 trillion, every year, from the budget, to fund those tax cut extensions? What are you going to do?
LOESCH: I would cut out any excessive egregious spending that is unrelated to the enumerated powers that our government has in the Constitution...
SPITZER: That's gibberish, Dana, gibberish. It means nothing. I'm sorry.
LOESCH: That's not gibberish.
SPITZER: Means absolutely nothing.
LOESCH: Do you not know what government is allowed to do according to the Constitution? SPITZER: OK, there it is, hoax and hokum from the Tea Party.
PARKER: Well, in the spirit of this show I would like to lock Eliot Spitzer and Dana Loesch in a room and make them sort this out and find common ground.
SPITZER: I've never hears such silliness. I got to tell you. All right, OK.
PARKER: All right, Dana, thank you so much. We'll be back in 60 seconds.
LOESCH: Thank you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I was younger, some people experimented with drugs and alcohol. I experimented with world views and philosophies and you know, I was an angry young guy on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think and then you're free to change your mind as you get older.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: Now it's time for our "Headliner" interview with Van Jones, he's the former green jobs czar with the Obama administration where he worked on the Clean Energy Policy and Initiatives.
SPITZER: But, six months after Jones' appointment in March of 2009 he resigned amid charges his name had appeared on a petition for a 9/11Truth.org that is a group that claims the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. He's now a senior fellow with Center for American Progress and a visiting fellow with Princeton University.
Van, welcome and thank you for joining us.
VAN JONES, FMR GREEN CZAR: I'm glad to be here. I'm also glad that you mentioned that. I was a young guy, my politics were on the left side of Pluto.
PARKER: Well, you look young to me, now. You're not young anymore?
JONES: No, well, I'm 42, I've got two kids.
SPITZER: That's young from my perspective, trust me.
PARKER: You know, nothing like having children to end your communist career.
JONES: Exactly.
PARKER: Some people said you were a communist. You made some sort of uncomplimentary remarks about Republicans that some people would say were accurate. JONES: Well, I regret...
PARKER: We're not allowed to say that word on TV. I can't. Absolutely not.
SPITZER: You can't say that.
PARKER: I can't say that, absolute not.
JONES: Yeah, sure, look...
PARKER: And let's talk about that petition, because that's the big controversial issue here that your name actually appeared on a petition requesting an investigation into 9/11 and suggesting that the U.S. government had something to do with it.
JONES: Right.
PARKER: And you said you had nothing to do with that petition. You said your name was on it, but you didn't if give permission for it to be there.
JONES: Look, I could type your name on a petition and say you're name is on a petition, that doesn't mean you signed anything.
PARKER: Yeah, I believe you.
JONES: Fair? OK, look, I have had a lot wacky ideas in my life. That was not one of them. I'm happy to say.
PARKER: Who's responsible for 9/11?
JONES: Well, I'll tell you, 9/11 was a conspiracy on the part of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and people who want to hurt America and nobody else. That's always been my position. And I want to be clear about that. The other stuff though, you know, when I was younger, some people experimented with drugs and alcohol. I experimented with world views and philosophies and you know, I was an angry young guy on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think and then you're free to change your mind as you get older. And that's what I did. And so people focus now -- I think they should focus on who I have become. I am one of the few people in the United States who really understands how we can use energy policy to create jobs. I got a best-selling book, I'm making a point...
SPITZER: Let me come back to the resignation, for a second.
JONES: Yes sir?
SPITZER: Was race involved?
JONES: You know, I just don't know. And it's not really for me to make that point. Here's what was involved. I got a chance to -- sorry.
PARKER: That's OK. I get tongue-tied all the time. It happens when you're next to Eliot.
JONES: Political brain power.
PARKER: Don't worry. There's only six things there.
JONES: Anyway. You asked if race was involved. I honestly don't know. And I'm not the right person to comment on that.
PARKER: The question is why did you ask that? Because I wouldn't assume that...
SPITZER: Because in the context of what happened with the Ag Department and Shirley Sherrod and that whole thing, and you wonder whether was some element of the push-back against you based upon that as a factor?
PARKER: We elected a black man president. Why get upset about a green czar who's also black? That's a colorful statement, isn't it?
JONES: Well, There is a lot of color here. Let me give you my color commentary.
PARKER: OK.
JONES: I know one thing. I got a chance to serve in the White House for six months. That's six months longer than pretty much anybody else I know. It was an honor to serve. I got a chance to work on issues I care about under a president who believes that America can lead the technologies of the future. You can't spend six months working in the White House and then leave and cry about it. It was an honor to serve. That's all I have to say about it.
PARKER: Let me ask you something, since you're now out of the White House and you can speak freely, what do you think has gone wrong there? What has happened to Barack Obama's message? How has he lost his ability to articulate these things?
JONES: Yeah, you know, I think that not just Barack Obama or President Obama, but I think a lot of people thought this movement around him was about change and hope. I think it was about hope.
PARKER: I don't know why they came up with that.
JONES: Well, I think it was 80 percent hope. I think we started focusing on change. Well, what's change? It's subcommittees, it's public option, it's the Senate, it's all this crap. Most people just wanted the hope. They just wanted to hear again that we could be a great country, we could get past race, we could hold things together, that we could do great things. And I think you start focusing on the narrow minutiae of the change and you lose hope. And I think that's what I miss.
PARKER: Well, do you think that's what happened to him? Did he start focusing on the minutiae and lose his own hope? Because he seems very depressed. JONES: Well, you know, I wouldn't comment on that. but what I would say is this is tough stuff. Look, I worked in the White House. A day there is like a week. It's like dog years. And you know, you go there, you get up in the morning, you go in the front door and do everything you can to move the needle and you look at the TV screen and you're getting called everything in the world and people are throwing marbles on the stairs for fun, from the left and the right. And it's not as easy as it looks.
When I came out of there, I told people, I said people who criticize what the president is like people criticizing what a quarterback does in the Super Bowl. You couldn't do it, so it's...
SPITZER: That voice hasn't cut through on the issues that are integral to rebuilding this nation and I wish it would.
PARKER: The economy has been crashing around our ears now for awhile and so I think people are, I mean, we can't just go out and start all these new programs -- can we?
SPITZER: Sure, we can. That's exactly what's going to bring, Kathleen, that's exactly what's going to bring us back.
PARKER: I understand that ultimately that will bring us back, but it's very hard to sell we're going to start all these new programs and do all these new things when people are trying to figure out how to pay their bills and how to have their kids dressed.
SPITZER: Let me tell you something. We have this image of -- of course it's tough. We have an image of the depression and FDR bringing America back by having the WPA (INAUDIBLE). This is the modern equivalent. This is precisely what the WPA was. Smart investments create jobs, intellectual capital and the economy of the future. And the president somehow didn't crystallize that notion. And I don't know if it's him, us, the media, who knows.
PARKER: Well will have more with Van Jones after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: And we're back with Van Jones. President Obama said the clean jobs and clean energy was one of his priorities. Do you still believe that's true?
JONES: Oh, listen, I absolutely believe it's true. And one thing that drives me nuts is that you've got a president -- if you were from Mars and couldn't see race you wouldn't say this is the first black president, you would say it's the first green president. This president has done more for clean energy than all the presidents combined -- $80 billion for clean and green solutions, $5 billion for smart batteries. He's got tax credits, we have 3,600 renewable energy projects going across America now because of his leadership -- 46 states and plus D.C. We've got a green renaissance happening despite the fact that the Senate doesn't want to move. So, yes, he's committed. And I think what we need to do now is go back to the bipartisan consensus we had.
SPITZER: I think the question many people have is does this require federal subsidies? Does it require tax breaks? The sense out there is that China is ahead of us in these sectors?
JONES: Yes. If you want the jobs of tomorrow, you got to make the products of tomorrow. The products of tomorrow are going to be solar panels, they're going to be wind turbines, smart batteries. We invested in that stuff. But you can't do it all on the federal dime. The real solution is to get the private sector involved. Now, to make it happen you have to have the rules in place to give them the incentives. And we didn't get across the finish line with the Senate.
PARKER: But what are specifically some jobs that would be called "clean jobs?"
JONES: Sure, putting up solar panels, building solar farms, manufacturing wind turbines. Wind turbines which have 8,000 finely machined parts, as much steel as in 26 cars. So, you could put your auto workers back to work making wind turbines. We have a Saudi Arabia of wind energy in America. Not just in the plains states, off our coasts...
SPITZER: Here's the question, because this is exactly what we want, but everything I read says that both in terms of solar panels and in turbines, China is doing the manufacturing. We're doing design work, but we're importing it rather than producing it, here.
JONES: Let me tell you why that is. If you wanted to build a factory to produce wind turbines, the No. 1 thing you need is not incentive from the government, it's certainty of demand. You want to know that you're going to be able to sell your products. Asia is saying, listen, we guarantee you we are going to buy this stuff and we're going to deploy it. In the United States we don't have policies in place to tap our own domestic wind resources and so people are now literally shutting down operations in the United States and going over to Asia.
SPITZER: What do we do to get them back?
JONES: The way that we get them back is very simple. No. 1, you put a price on carbon in the economy so that the cleaner stuff is greater incentive to go there. If you don't want to do that because you don't want to do the cap and trade thing, that's fine. Have a renewable energy standard, a renewable energy goal. Tell our utility companies we're going to be 20 percent renewable by 2020. Suddenly your utility companies go out there, they buy the stuff and they start manufacturing it here because you know that stuff is going to go up here. It's insane to build wind turbines in Asia. They're the size of football fields, and then ship them over here. We should be building them here in the United States. And we could, if we had the right rules.
SPITZER: Can we switch gears to talk about cars. We are talking a lot about energy generation here, which is great. Electric cars, you know, the auto industry is part of our culture we love. You know, that imagery in the movies, the whole bit. But, we are losing a sector to China, not in terms of just where they're making it, but electric cars in particular. How do we reclaim that? Were batteries are the centerpiece of that. What have we done wrong?
Well, so No. 1, we already have made a big commitment, a $5 billion commitment in the stimulus package to smart batteries, No. 1. No. 2, let's not forget these technologies to move this stuff forward, actually have found a home. Where? In California. Tesla is going to built in California. Why? They've got the right rules on the books to support clean energy. Now, why are-- it's $1 in four in the whole world for clean tech being invested in California. They've got the right rules on the books. We could have those rules on books out of out of Washington, D.C. and have the whole country participating in clean car renaissance that California is now enjoying by itself.
PARKER: Before we have a clean economy, we're going to have higher utility bills. Is that not a fact?
JONES: Here's what I think. I think if you've got to do it in the right order, you've got to do it the right way. The people I care about the most are the poor people in America. They can't afford another penny on anything, certainly not on energy bills. So what you've got to be able to do is stage this right away. You go with efficiency first. Make sure people's homes are as tight as possible in terms of not wasting energy. Then you go with renewables and deploy them. Then you begin phasing down the other stuff. That is what the legislation that we passed in the House would have let us do and we can't get it.
SPITZER: That sequence is exactly right. Let me ask you a hard question. Are you for nuclear power?
JONES: I am not a big fan of nuclear power. But I've not been able to figure out how to make the math work without it.
SPITZER: Well, that's the problem. There simply isn't enough --
PARKER: Well, there you go.
SPITZER: When did this all work?
PARKER: I don't like broccoli either. But there's no substitute.
SPITZER: Wind and solar are simply not going to get us there if we want to get away from coal and imported oil until we bridge it with something. And that's why there was a push but nukes are not economical right now.
JONES: Right.
SPITZER: So something has got to be done to bridge the chasm.
JONES: I agree. Like I said, I hate the idea of nuclear power for a couple of reasons. One, the mining of nuclear power is dangerous for people around it, and that's going to be a lot of our Native Americans. I don't know what we're going to do with the waste. It's super expensive, but I can't figure out how to make the math work without it. So it drives me nuts.
SPITZER: All right. We are so glad you are here. Thank you so much. Van, thanks for coming in.
JONES: Thank you.
PARKER: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Randi Kaye. More of "PARKER SPITZER" in a moment. First, the latest.
The Pentagon has advised military recruiters that they can now accept openly gay and lesbian applicants while the government appeals a federal court ruling banning the military from enforcing its controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. But recruiters were also told they must inform potential recruits that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy could be reinstated. Groups representing gays and lesbians have warned against coming out to the military while the ban is being appealed.
Steven Slater, the former JetBlue flight attendant turned folk hero, today pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal mischief. Slater cursed a passenger over a plane's public address system last August, then made a dramatic exit using the plane's emergency evacuation slide. Under his plea deal, Slater must undergo mental health and substance abuse counseling.
Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell is getting flak for comments she made about the U.S. Constitution in a debate with her opponent in the Delaware Senate race. Here's some of what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL (R), DELAWARE SENATE CANDIDATE: The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards. The reason we're in the mess we're in is because are so-called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable principles of our founding as truly that -- indispensable. We're supposed to have government --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of those indispensable principles is the separation of church and state.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. With that, we appreciate that. Let's go move on to give the panelists and (INAUDIBLE)
O'DONNELL: Where in the constitution is separation of church and state?
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: Did she really not realize the First Amendment addresses government and religion? O'Donnell has made a big deal about being an expert on the constitution. Tonight on "360," what she said about the constitution in the past. That's the very latest. "PARKER SPITZER" continues in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Welcome to "Our Political Party." A chance for our guest to speak their minds on a whole range of topics. Let's meet our new guests: Sam Seder, radio host and comedian. Sam has been to our party a few times. He's become a regular party boy. And Christine Romans is a CNN correspondent and author of "Smart is the New Rich".
SPITZER: All right. John Ridley to my left, is a screenwriter, producer, commentator at NPR. And you guys have worked together on a project? Is that right?
JOHN RIDLEY, NPR: Yes, way back in the day called "The Show."
SPITZER: The show.
RIDLEY: It was called "The Show."
SPITZER: Not any show, "The Show."
RIDLEY: It was -- "The Show" was a prime time sitcom on FOX.
SAM SEDER, COMEDIAN: Eight episodes.
RIDLEY: Eight episodes.
SEDER: Paul Giamatti was in the --
SPITZER: All right. Republican strategist, national finance chair for Friends of Christine O'Donnell. Spend a few bucks, buy her a copy of the constitution. That would be my advice.
NOELLE NIKPOUR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You are so wrong. That is wrong.
SPITZER: All right. Yes, yes, yes. All right.
Anyway, we've talked about the rough political ads this season. Now, take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: High five.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Classic gender divide. All right. Anyway, there you go. "Jackass 3D" is the MTV comedy in which young men perform various dangerous crude, self-injuring stunts, which is why the men here are laughing, the women were not. The movie made 50 million this weekend. So maybe the public just likes politics like their movies, hard- hitting. Should we all just lighten up and enjoy the show? Come on. Is that the answer?
CHRISTINE ROMANS, AUTHOR, CNN "Your $$$$$": I would rather have the jackasses in the movie and not in Congress or any kind of position to leave this country actually.
NIKPOUR: But you know what, it gets your attention. Think about it. When you're putting on your makeup and getting ready for work and whatnot, you're looking up and you're seeing all these pranks going on. You look at it and it's "Jackass 3D."
(CROSSTALK)
You know what, good point. Glad you brought it up. Because when you look at somebody --
(CROSSTALK)
RIDLEY: That's my job. I'm the Lou Costello of --
NIKPOUR: Think about it. When you're looking at some negative ad and you hear eerie music and like the Taliban ban and all these odd commercials going on, you're going to look up and you're going to pay attention. Negative ads work. Whether we vote accordingly, who knows? But they do work. You do pay attention.
SEDER: Well, they help suppress the vote and they create a certain amount of cynicism. And you know at this time, really the thing of getting people's attention is that we have 9.6 percent unemployment and we have -- we're bailing out banks and corporations. There are a lot of issues.
PARKER: Don't you think the ads are sort of like the commercials in the Super Bowl? I mean, you really just kind of get through the season.
ROMANS: Yes.
SPITZER: This is another gender thing. We actually watch the game.
PARKER: Oh, you do?
SPITZER: Oh, yes. There is a football game there, too.
RIDLEY: Are these ads actually helping you understand the candidate or are they helping you bash the other guy?
NIKPOUR: Well, they're not helping at all. I mean, who wants to watch a boring commercial saying --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: I'm going to do something very odd. I was in that game. We put up ads that I was proud of. Sometimes we would call them contrast ads and other people would call them negative. The point is you're trying to explain to people we stand here, they stand here. But if you stand here and you don't like it, you call it negative.
Sometimes they are informational and they are critical without being negative. And I think they don't need to be acerbic, neither nasty, but they are contrast ads and I support it.
NIKPOUR: Some are borderline hokey.
SPITZER: Well --
NIKPOUR: Just like with the Aqua Buddha. What the (INAUDIBLE) is on them. I mean, come on.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do we have the Aqua Buddha?
RIDLEY: I just want to say --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That can be very effective.
RIDLEY: (INAUDIBLE) with the Aqua Buddha.
PARKER: I know.
SPITZER: But I'm not sure that the level of political discourse today is any worse than it was 150 years ago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, no, it's not.
SPITZER: And I think we live with this illusion that back in the day everybody was sitting around reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
PARKER: They do. It is snarkier.
NIKPOUR: It's a lot worse because we have the social media network. We have a lot of Google, the search engines that come up. I mean, think about all these commercials that can stay with you for a long time.
SPITZER: I just think it's more broadly -- it's more distributed but I don't think the level of discourse is any lower or higher than it ever has been.
PARKER: I don't know if you are all aware of it, Eliot was a politician.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What?
(CROSSTALK) ROMANS: Because of contrast ads. That's where you come in.
SPITZER: We never did a negative ad that would attack somebody. But we'd say look, they believe. And yes, we believe. That I think is a fair and important thing to do.
ROMANS: Do you think those ads, do you think they help or hurt the person who's -- I mean, sometimes I see these ads and I just think, oh, please, you know, how can this possibly appeal to someone?
PARKER: You know why? You know why they do negative ads?
ROMANS: But you watch it. You do watch it.
PARKER: It's not only because people watch it. It's because the media pay attention to it.
SEDER: Right.
PARKER: There's a professor, John Geer, at Vanderbilt University, who wrote a whole book about this and he said the reason negative campaigns persist is because the media latch onto to the negative campaigns and talk -- or the ads talk about them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Free media.
SPITZER: Last time before we move on. But clearly, the best ads are the ones that paint a portrait of what the candidate believes in and say here is my answer to a pressing social problem and here's what we're going to do about it. Clearly, those are the best. But not everybody can put those on the air.
PARKER: Speaking of politicians --
SPITZER: Don't point at me like that.
PARKER: The once gorgeous Brigitte Bardot is talking about running for president of France.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ooh-la-la.
PARKER: Ooh-la-la is right. So who would you like to see run? What celebrity would you like to see run for president of the U.S.?
ROMANS: Do we already have a celebrity? The biggest celebrity in the world is already the president -- President Obama and Paris Hilton.
(CROSSTALK)
I thought it was interesting about the Bardot news is that, you know, how interesting for her. But also that in this country we elevate our politicians to superstar status. Elsewhere, it's the superstars who get -- who become politicians.
Right. But in our country, we make our politician and elected officials superstars.
RIDLEY: Except California.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's true.
RIDLEY: Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you haven't done $100 million at the box office, please don't show up.
PARKER: Sam, I can't bear this, you're too quiet.
SEDER: Well, I was going to say, actually, the celebrity I'd like to see run in 2012 is Sarah Palin. Because I'd like to see a Democrat retaining the presidency.
PARKER: Ha, ha, ha.
SPITZER: Christine O'Donnell is going to be a celebrity after this.
NIKPOUR: I knew --
SPITZER: I mean, she is like mini me to Sarah Palin unless I'm missing something here.
NIKPOUR: She has a lot of likeness to Sarah Palin.
SPITZER: Same constitutional understanding.
(CROSSTALK)
NIKPOUR: See, all you guys are against me?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no, no.
PARKER: Do you think the Tea Party ought to separate itself from certain individuals? Don't you think it's hard?
NIKPOUR: What do you mean?
PARKER: I mean --
NIKPOUR: Help me somebody.
PARKER: I don't want to pick on Christine O'Donnell, but she's irresistible. Come on.
RIDLEY: Christine O'Donnell is not -- Christine O'Donnell is not bad.
NIKPOUR: Do you think that the Tea Party has elevated a lot of candidates? I mean, look what's happening. Look at Angle and Reid. I mean, never before would you have seen this. And I think it's phenomenal.
RIDLEY: But is that --
NIKPOUR: But think about it --
(CROSSTALK)
RIDLEY: You all look like Latinos to me?
NIKPOUR: I didn't say that I thought that gaffe was fantastic. I didn't say that.
SEDER: The fact of the matter is Harry Reid was in trouble, you know, was going to face a tough election no matter who ran against him. And so --
NIKPOUR: A lot of things that we're facing that people are voting against someone because they are mad. Like Harry Reid, they don't like Harry Reid so they're voting against. They'll vote for Angle and they'll vote against Harry Reid.
SEDER: I think you're voting against individual. I think you're voting -- I think you're venting against the situation that exists right now.
ROMANS: Absolutely.
SEDER: And that's why --
RIDLEY: What's the situation -- I mean, there are a lot of situations. Which situation?
SEDER: The economy. The economy.
RIDLEY: The economy. You talk about the president. You talk about what he represents.
SEDER: I think at the end of the day, if the unemployment rate was at eight percent and dropping right now, we wouldn't be having any of these conversations.
SPITZER: I agree with you totally. Having said that, I'm going to defend the Tea Party as just grassroots democracy. We're complaining about ads. We're complaining about lack of discourse.
PARKER: You're the one who can't stop talking about the announcement of the fully functioning human brain.
SPITZER: It's too much fun. Look --
NILPOUR: Leave him alone. He's on a roll.
SPITZER: I can't stand their politics. I can't stand what they stand for. But you know what? It is real citizen action. You've got to love that. That's what politics is.
(CROSSTALK)
SEDER: I'm sorry. $75 million -- RIDLEY: Eliot, in 1966 we had that real action, too, because you had Title IV and it was about open housing. And all of a sudden it became about, this is not what we want. That was the grassroots movement then. If President Obama wasn't president, would the Tea Party exist?
SPITZER: I'm not talking about --
NIKPOUR: They formed because they were mad about the policies in the administration. They have a right to be.
RIDLEY: They have a right to be mad, but they weren't mad when all of these other things --
NIKPOUR: Stimulus that did not work?
RIDLEY: There's the stimulus in 2008. Nobody had a problem with George Bush's stimulus in 2008. They have no problem with Medicare Part D.
NIKPOUR: We are never going to agree.
RIDLEY: They had no problems with anything. It's not about -- there are tons of things that we can agree on. I happen to like Christine O'Donnell.
NIKPOUR: And plus Brigitte Bardot, I think George Clooney would be fabulous.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Interesting.
PARKER: We're all for that.
SPITZER: All right. All right. But we have to take a quick break. We want to hear from you. Check out our blog at CNN.com/parkerspitzer. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. We'll be right back with another quick question.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Welcome back to "Our Political Party." Love to keep this going. We have only a few minutes left. The New York State political world was rocked yesterday when a candidate named Jimmy McMillan said these unforgettable words. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY MCMILLAN, RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH PARRTY: I represent the Rent is too Damn High Party. People working eight hours a day and 40 hours a week and sometimes a third job. Women can't afford to take care of their children, feed their children breakfast, lunch and dinner. My main job is to provide a roof over your head, food on the table and money on your pocket.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: All right. If you had your own political party, what would be your five-word platform?
ROMANS: "Smart is the New Rich."
SPITZER: That's the book you wrote.
RIDLEY: That's smooth all the way around here. Wow.
ROMANS: Let me tell you. The bottom line is not in the margin of error. He's absolutely right about what American families are going through. You know, you've got all these bills. You're trying to figure out the income gap is getting wider. The middle class is slipping down. This is what they're going to take to (INAUDIBLE) and I love the gloves. I just love the gloves.
NIKPOUR: You know, it's Al Sharpton and Colonel Sanders.
RIDLEY: This is your next governor of New York. I don't care what anybody says. The Rent is too Damn High. This is where -- this is what it's about. This guy I like. We talk about resentment and things like that. This guy actually some policy behind it. It goes right to the title of his party. It's not obviously getting anything. This is a politician. I like this guy.
SPITZER: And the answer was what to solving the rent problem?
RIDLEY: Solving the rent problem?
SPITZER: Yes.
RIDLEY: Reduce the rent. That's what it is.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's what he would run on?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.
RIDLEY: That's what I would run on. I like this guy.
SEDER: Shortest distance between A and B. I would actually go with the Aqua Buddha is also hot.
RIDLEY: I don't have a party slogan. But I do have an after party slogan. Where the ladies at? That's all I've got. Thank you very much.
PARKER: All right, Noelle, yours?
NIKPOUR: Buy one, get one free. How about that? You get two for one. Two Republicans for one. I need all the Republicans even if they were a figment of my imagination at this time.
SEDER: It's sort of what Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell will certainly look.
PARKER: Buy one, get one free. Thanks all of you for joining us.
We're throwing a party every night on "PARKER SPITZER." We'll be right back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The rent is too damn high.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Before we go, a postscript. We've been wondering who's in charge at the White House. And this photo may offer a clue.
SPITZER: Indeed, it does. Now we know who's leading the way.
PARKER: I don't know, Eliot. If Bo is in charge, maybe that's a good thing, but then again, I'm slightly biased.
SPITZER: Oh, my goodness. Ollie (ph) returns.
Thanks so much for being with us. Be sure to join us tomorrow night.
PARKER: Good night from New York.
"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.
