Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
The Crucial Vote on New York's Same-Sex Marriage; GOP Field Grows Again; Saudi Women Defy Driving Ban
Aired June 20, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, HOST: Good evening and thank you for joining us IN THE ARENA. I'm Christine Romans sitting in tonight. Eliot Spitzer is on vacation.
Tonight's top story can be summed up with a quote. "If we can make it here, we'll make it anywhere." New York is the here and that was a gay marriage advocate talking hoping that this is the week that same-sex unions become law in the pivotal state of New York.
These are the closing days of the state's legislative session. The last chance to push through a measure that needs just one more vote for passage.
At the capitol in Albany, the war among hundreds of protesters has been hot and relentless. The outcome of this vote in New York is seen as key on a national level. It's believed that it will influence pending votes across the country.
Gay marriage is the quintessential hot-button issue, one that makes politicians run for the exits. Listen to what the president's spokesman Jay Carney said today about Barack Obama's position.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president's position on gay marriage has been clear since '08, is clear again since he's been president. He's been very clear about it. He was very clear in the campaign. He was very clear about the fact that his position that he is -- that it's evolving.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Evolving. There is one politician who must make up his mind right now. Greg Ball is a Republican state senator who is undecided. His vote could settle the issue once for all.
I'll be talking to him in just a moment. But first, a look at the other stories we're drilling down on tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: In Syria, words can kill. After weeks of violent protests, Syria's president speaks out and puts the blame on everyone except himself. Is it too late to prevent a civil war? And Defense Secretary Robert Gates is leaving office but he sure isn't going quietly. E.D. Hill examines his personal exit strategy one outrageous statement after another.
Then the Mormon moment. A big hit on Broadway. Romney for president and here comes Jon Huntsman. Our political panel debates, is America ready for a Latter Day Saint in the White House?
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: And now back to our top story. The gay marriage proposal in New York. I'm joined by Republican state senator Greg Ball, an undecided voter for a bill that needs just one more vote.
Welcome to the program.
GREG BALL (R), NEW YORK STATE SENATE: Good evening. How are you?
ROMANS: So it takes just one more vote. What is holding you back in particular?
BALL: You know, I think it's clearly important. I mean you talked a little bit about this issue. And you know the amount of anger and hate that has bombed both sides. Both on the extreme left and the extreme right.
And we're not talking about passage of civil unions which I think would pass right away and very easily. We have a governor who's pushing to get full marriage equality and to that extent there need to be real religious protections in any final piece of legislation.
I've been fighting for that for a couple of weeks now. The governor at first had a knee-jerk reaction against it but I believe that we will finally see some real religious protection in any final bill.
ROMANS: Let's talk about -- Senator, let's talk about those religious protections. The concern among other Republicans as well is that this could somehow come back to hurt a religious organization who, say, wouldn't perform a same-sex marriage and they would be sued or, for example, for religious group that would want to -- or adoptions. That they could somehow get tied up in this.
How are those being addressed to you? Those concerns that this could hurt religious groups?
BALL: You know, first, it's got to be laid that out there. We have seen this happen in other states that have done this. So we're not talking in some fairy land. We're talking about something very real. And we don't want to see this play itself out in New York state.
And there are three basic categories. Just very quickly. Religious institutions themselves. In this bill, there's a language to religious corporations but the actual individuals who conduct those marriages, those ceremonies, are not necessarily protected within the language of the bill of the religious institutions.
Then you have religious organizations -- Knights of Columbus is an example -- and whether or not they would be open up to lawsuits, have their not-for-profit tax exempt status challenged, or whether from a regulatory perspective their permits could actually be pulled.
Those protections have not been fully laid out within the context of the bill that came out last week. And that's why I said if that bill sat I'm most certainly be an absolute no. And you know the toughest ones come to religious protections for individuals who have religious objections. And that's the toughest needle to thread. But I believe the government needs to at least pay respect to that side of the argument as well.
ROMANS: So here, so you're on the fence. There's a half dozen who are on the fence here. If you got -- if you got all of the protections that you say you need there, then in theory you support gay marriage in New York?
BALL: You know what I would say and I look at it from a different angle, without religious protections I would be an absolute no, and the other senators -- I can't speak for them. But I can tell you that, you know, without the religious protections from my personal perspective, I don't see how the governor gets it done.
And you know I have spoken to the governor personally on this, his staff has comeback, and at least initially, said you know those religious protections aren't as important as you think.
You know, this governor has to understand, I mean, you have even the spokesperson for -the president of the United States --
(CROSSTALK)
ROMANS: I mean either you support -- either you support same-sex marriage or you don't. And the rest of that then becomes politics and it becomes dotting the I's and crossing the T's and making sure that all of the stakeholders get everything that they want.
BALL: No. Wait, wait, wait. Dotting --
(CROSSTALK)
ROMANS: Right? I mean, do you -- go ahead.
BALL: Dotting the I's and crossing the T's is exactly what we're supposed to be doing.
ROMANS: Right.
BALL: As responsible legislature. And you'll remember, the whole read the bill that came out at every Tea Party rally across America.
ROMANS: Right.
BALL: It's kind of important. So for you to ask me I'm not going to support --
(CROSSTALK)
ROMANS: You want -- to make sure --
BALL: -- a bill that the governor hasn't even released yet.
ROMANS: Right. You want to make sure there's no unintended consequences and that's pretty clear here. You want to make sure that this is going to be a very clean bill. But if it's clean and there are no -- and you're sure that there are going to be no unintended consequences, then you support gay marriage in New York?
BALL: But just so you understand just like there are those on the right who don't necessarily appreciate those on the left who view it as a civil rights issue.
ROMANS: Right.
BALL: There are those on the left who are pushing this bill and advising the governor who do not -- who do not really pay respect to the fact that there are those on the right who view it as a front to their firmly held religious beliefs.
ROMANS: Right.
BALL: And I believe that this governor is in a position where I -- he's pushing from the left but he needs to pay attention to those in the middle, you know, with common sense and that's all that those religious protections would do. And like I said, I think that there are other senators who feel that those religious protections are extremely important.
ROMANS: What are your constituents telling you? You took to Facebook and Twitter. You asked them. People on Facebook were more 50/50. People on Twitter said make it legal.
BALL: You know, the folks on Twitter are contacting me from everywhere from the third planet off Mars and Netherlands and New York state.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMANS: They may not be your constituents is what you're saying.
BALL: But the Twitter page of course -- they're not. But -- you know but the other thing is that the Twitter page connects to Facebook. And I do this on issues rather often. And I have 5,000 Facebook friends, most of them are within district.
I would say on my Facebook page is breaking 50-50. The calls coming into my office are about 60-40 against. And I would say that those who are against are in my base. People who have stood by me through very tough elections.
ROMANS: Right. BALL: Those who are for I have never seen them before.
(CROSSTALK)
BALL: A certain amount became --
ROMANS: But you're going to vote your conscience, right? I mean you'll vote your conscience?
BALL: Absolutely.
ROMANS: You were elected to lead so you're going to lead on this issue. You're not going to -- you're going to pitch, not catch?
BALL: Look, you got to -- you got to always do the right thing in your heart and in your brain but you also represent -- we represent over 300,000 people. And I have a responsibility to them.
ROMANS: All right.
BALL: But at the end of the day this vote is going to be one of conscience.
ROMANS: Well, we're going to watch very closely later this week to see, Senator Ball, if you will be one of those votes that makes this legal in the sixth state in the nation.
Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.
BALL: You got it. Thank you.
ROMANS: All right. Good luck to you.
Lieutenant Dan Choi is a West Point graduate and an Iraq war veteran. After publicly admitting that he was gay, Choi's military career ended. Now he's an advocate for gay and lesbian civil rights and a board member of Marriage Equality USA.
Welcome. Lieutenant Choi.
LT. DAN CHOI, BOARD MEMBER, MARRIAGE EQUALITY USA: It's great to be with you.
ROMANS: So let's talk about what's happening in New York. How important to you is what happens in the outcome of this vote and it rests in the hands of a handful of legislators?
CHOI: It is absolutely important. I fought for this country, for those neighbors that are gay or straight, so that they can have peace and security and raise a family and we simply want the same thing.
So when I hear Senator Ball who also has committed to serving his constituents I understand exactly what his thinking is because just as he's committed to his community and his people, I'm committed to the one person I want to love so much that I want to say that we'll support each other for the rest of our lives.
I see this bill as not an issue of religion but an issue of love. And every religion can understand that. That we should increase the love.
ROMANS: So you have hopes of marrying one day, legally marrying one day?
CHOI: I know it will happen. And I have fought for many things in this uniform but of all things that I fought for, all the treasures, I know that love is the most worthwhile.
ROMANS: So what about the fight that's happening in Albany right now when it comes down to handful of opponents who were talking about what they say are religious protections? They want more -- do you understand the religious protections, that there are some religious groups who do not want to perform a marriage and don't want to find themselves in the midst of litigation?
CHOI: I understand that in certain states like Massachusetts we simply wanted religious groups not to have the government funding in order to discriminate against certain families, and I would certainly love to raise a child and teach them how to serve their country especially with my experiences in Iraq where so many religious groups tore that country apart and the civil strife and the disagreements really did not help for the national dialogue.
I think what we have to realize is that we swore to defend this country, all people in this country. I would give my life to defend Senator Ball and I know that's going to be hard for him on TV to say whether he commits or not but I know that tomorrow morning or the morning after he votes, he will have to look himself in the mirror and say, was I on the right side of justice?
ROMANS: You know what, I'm going to be honest with you. There are politicians who are making choices every day not because of conscience, because of politics. And that is the way it works.
CHOI: And I agree that all of our leaders --
ROMANS: And I'm not saying -- I'm not saying Senator Ball.
CHOI: Sure.
ROMANS: I'm saying in general, there's conscience and there's politics. There's a base that you have to appeal to and people who put you in office and there's what you think is right and evolving national perceptions of things.
CHOI: I am not a politician. But I do call on all of my leaders from the president on down to community leaders and church leaders that if you want to fight for America in the way that it was meant to be, you will increase the love and increase the human dignity of all people in your communities.
ROMANS: All right. Lieutenant Dan Choi, thank you so much for bringing your perspective on this. I'm sure you are watching this very, very closely here.
CHOI: Of course.
ROMANS: I mean do you believe this is a bellwether? What happens in New York is going to make -- be very influential for votes across the country?
CHOI: Clearly New York is where things happen. And I think that it will happen here and it's a matter of whether we're on the right side of that progress.
ROMANS: I know. New Yorkers tend to think that what happens in New York is a bellwether. But on this issue it is the quintessential hot-button issue. A lot of people are watching this.
Lieutenant Dan Choi, thank you so much.
CHOI: Thanks for having me.
ROMANS: Coming up, one minute a trusted adviser to President Obama. The next minute he's running against him. Our political panel weighs in on Jon Huntsman and his chances.
But first E.D. Hill up here with the parting words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
E.D., he used to be a guy who picked and chose his words very carefully but all of a sudden like -- you tell us about it.
(LAUGHTER)
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The shackles are off, that's basically what's going on.
ROMANS: Right.
HILL: Less than two weeks left as defense secretary and Robert Gates says exactly what he thinks about other governments, NATO, and how we pick and choose where to send American troops. We'll get the perspective of one of his predecessors -- Christine.
ROMANS: Wait. Thanks, E.D.
And when we come back, profits and politics. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROMANS: Brace yourselves. You're about to see something rare in American politics. Former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, until recently a key adviser to President Obama, a powerful member of his administration, he will officially break ranks to announce his own run for the White House.
Huntsman campaign kicks off tomorrow in Liberty State Park, New Jersey. And meanwhile Texas Governor Rick Perry is waiting in the wings. For more on the race, I'm joined now by CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor James Carville, and Republican strategy Tony Blankley.
Gentlemen, welcome to the program.
David, you know, I know the other two want to weigh in on this right away. So I want to hear quick thoughts on President Obama's lead man in China, the number one proponent of his policies in the world's second largest economy. Now he's gone from adviser and our man in China to the president's opponent. It's really a remarkable turn.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It is. It's a fascinating moment in American politics. He's not at all well known here in this country. I think there was a poll out in Iowa asking about preferences and one person, one person -- I don't know if this would start this little base -- said they would like to see Jon Huntsman.
But if you look at him on paper, he is one of the most credential people we've had run in this race. If he can make it, if he can get some sparks going, there are a lot of people who are smart people who think he can be a very formidable candidate.
ROMANS: James Carville, you know, I mean does it help him or hurt him? Here he was an insider. I mean I've heard him dismissed as a Democrat almost because he worked for this administration. Or does it help him because he is the one with the credibility to stand up and say, I know the president's policies, I know the president's economic plan, and I decide I don't like it?
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think he has a pretty good answer. He's answered with a pretty good answer. But he's also been for the individual mandate. He's been -- he thinks global warming is manmade.
I don't think he fits very well into the profile of what Republicans are looking for. He seems like an accomplished guy. He speaks Mandarin Chinese. And seems to have had as far as I can tell a good record as governor of Utah. But I think he -- I don't think the shoe is going to fit here.
ROMANS: Well, let me ask a question then. Here is the next thing. Now you've got two Mormons in the race and according to, you know, a new survey, 22 percent of Americans are reluctant, guys, to vote for a Mormon including 20 percent of Republicans and a whopping 27 percent of Democrats.
Can Huntsman or Mitt Romney hope to overcome this challenge overall and win the nomination? Tony?
CARVILLE: You're asking me?
ROMANS: Yes. That' that's for Tony. Sorry.
CARVILLE: OK, I'm sorry.
TONY BLANKLEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, EDELMAN PR: Yes, look, I think -- I think he can. You have to look at that number not in the abstract but a certain percentage of the electorate, you know, won't vote for the Evangelical Christian or a Catholic or a Jew or anything else.
The fact that 27 percent is in Democratic Party might suggest that a higher percentage, for instance, of African-Americans might be hostile for the understandable reason that Mormonism until a generation ago was not friendly to African-Americans.
So is -- can an effective candidate who makes presidential timber, who runs a good campaign who is a Mormon win on the Republican Party? Yes, I think he could. Whether this man can make that profile, we'll see.
GERGEN: Yes, let me --
ROMANS: David?
GERGEN: Yes. Let me just add this, Christine. Look, two things. One is, it's important to -- look, I think a Mormon can win. And it's important to remember that -- the year before John Kennedy won as a Catholic 25 percent of the country said they would not support a Catholic. They were against a Catholic in the presidency. And yet he won the election.
And the second thing is, this is a country that after all just elected an African-American. No other advanced country has shown that kind of embrace of someone like that. So I think that they would embrace a Mormon.
ROMANS: You know, James Carville --
(CROSSTALK)
ROMANS: Go ahead.
CARVILLE: Go ahead. I just want to make one clear point here. There's absolutely no evidence that the Mormon Church exercises any influence over Mormon politicians. Harry Reid is a Mormon. Senator Udall is a Mormon. Senator Hatch is a Mormon.
Go look at their voting record. Mormons have served this country with distinction for a long time and would I vote for Harry Reid if I lived in Nevada? Doggone right, I would send him a check. Wouldn't matter to me.
GERGEN: That's right.
CARVILLE: It wouldn't matter to me if somebody else did. I mean I just think this is -- in my mind it should be a nonstarter in anybody's mind. There's actually record of Mormons' public serving with distinction. GERGEN: Well, I agree. The other thing is that Mormon business people we know have created a lot of jobs. And including his father who I have known for 40 years who is a terrific guy. They come from very good family. But they are very, very good at creating jobs.
ROMANS: Well, that's a good point because jobs is what's so important here.
And Tony, I wanted to ask you about this abortion pledge making the rounds. Because there are some who are suggesting that all of this talk again about some of what used to be called wedge issues is taking a little bit of the focus away from the fact that we have a jobs problem and there are still maybe isn't a clear and easy solution out of the jobs problem.
And so are things like this abortion pledge that's going around, that Mitt Romney by the way refused to sign, is that taking the eye off the ball a little bit? Are these legitimate concerns for base voters?
BLANKLEY: Well, look, I don't think the Republican is going to get the nomination if they're not right to life. But on the other hand, I agree with Romney. I'm not particularly a supporter of him but I agree that he took the right position saying, I'm not going to sign pledges that waive my right to make appointment as president of the United States.
ROMANS: Right.
BLANKLEY: You don't know whether an attorney general or senior Justice official you want to hire for some reason other than the abortion issue and this pledge goes well beyond what the traditional right to life position expects.
It talks about defunding possibly -- it's ambiguous. Defunding every hospital in the country.
I think Romney was right not to focus on this. I think he shows some integrity and guts. So I think he took the right position. I do not think he'll be hurt by it.
ROMANS: There's so much to get to. I want to real quickly bring in Texas Governor Rick Perry, another Republican. You know flirting maybe with a run. Or maybe his supporters are flirting with -- trying to get him to make a run. He gave a speech to the Republican leadership conference this weekend. I want to listen to it quickly.
All right.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: Let's stand up. Let's speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our effort to elect more conservative Republicans. Let's stop this American downward spiral.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: David Gergen, do you think he's going to run for president?
GERGEN: I think there's a very good chance he will because there's an increasing cry among Republicans to get another conservative in the race. Someone who is exciting. You know Michele Bachmann has, you know, excited, ignited audiences -- Republicans audience in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Rick Perry would have that same effect. I think he'd be quickly in the top tier. I believe -- I still believe that Mitt Romney would be the frontrunner whether Perry gets in or not.
ROMANS: Carville?
CARVILLE: Yes, I think -- I hope he runs.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMANS: Why do you hope he runs? Why? Tell me why.
CARVILLE: Because anybody that talked about succession needs to run for president. You know? That's what we wanted to think this presidency before. And -- plus, I -- you know, I don't -- he talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans.
BLANKLEY: I think if James is doing a briar patch for him, I think Perry must be a pretty good candidate.
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: But I definitely hope -- I want Sarah Palin to run. Tony, understand, I want a big field here. I'm all for it. The more the merrier. And I agree that -- you know, Romney just seems like such a front runner. He's got so much more money than anyone else.
New Hampshire primary lines up nicely for him. And every time I think that he's got to get the nomination, I get a doubt that a lot of Republicans just have a lot of second -- you know, just doubt things. It's going to be interesting to see. He's got a lot of pressure on him. He should win.
ROMANS: And if you, guy -- it is only just beginning. I mean the twist and turns, I can't wait.
All right, James Carville, Tony Blankley, David Gergen, thanks. Nice to have you all.
GERGEN: Thanks, Christine.
BLANKLEY: Thank you.
ROMANS: All right. Up next, in Saudi Arabia, women defies the ban against female drivers. But they didn't get the support of one woman they were counting on. Why was Hillary Clinton driving in the wrong direction, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROMANS: The ban against women driving in Saudi Arabia dates back to a 1991 religious fatwa, a religious edict. So there's no written law against it. But in Saudi Arabia it's understood, women don't drive.
All that was before the debate over women driving was brought into the spotlight last month. A Saudi woman, Manal al-Sharif, was arrested for organizing an online campaign to encourage women there to drive.
Now a group is petitioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to speak out on their behalf. Islamic writer Hebah Ahmed says, not so fast. Change can't come -- shouldn't come from the outside. She joins me now from Albuquerque.
Welcome to the program. And first, I wanted to have you in your own words explain to our viewers who can't see your face why it is that you wear the niqab. After September 11th, you made the choice, a conscious decision to do so. Explain it to us.
HEBAH AHMED, CONTRIBUTOR, "I SPEAK FOR MYSELF": First of all, I'd like to thank you for having me on the show.
ROMANS: Sure.
AHMED: And yes, I am wearing the Islamic face veil and the reason I have chosen to cover this way is because Islamically I feel like it's something better for me in terms of my modesty and it's also my way of fighting against the systematic oppression and sexualization of women that we find in American society that tries to put a woman's value in her body.
And for me, when I'm out in public, people have to deal with my brain because I don't give them a choice.
ROMANS: OK. Well then, we've asked you -- I just want you to explain it for yourself. And I wanted to ask you quickly your response to this petition online to have the American secretary of state weigh in on the driving ban or the cultural taboo against women driving.
There are those in Saudi Arabia and around the world, frankly, who would like to have them weigh in on us. You say she shouldn't. Why?
AHMED: I think that -- first of all I've talked to several scholars. I'm not a scholar myself, but I've talked to many scholars and they say that this is not a religious issue. So the viewers need to understand that there's nothing in the sun that prevents a woman from driving.
And Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country that is banning women from driving. You know, in Qatar, in Dubai, in Egypt, in almost all Muslim countries, women drive. So it's not a religious issue. It's a cultural issue. And it's based on their values and their culture and their historic development.
And I think that if this kind of reform is going to come about, it has to be grassroots organic movement that has to start out from the women inside Saudi Arabia and they need to figure out for themselves what is women's rights, what is freedom for them, and then they need to reach a critical mass and bring that change about themselves.
Now if it's forcibly imposed from the outside, first of all, it's not going to work because it's yet again us forcing our values and our perspective on another culture we don't understand.
I have never lived in Saudi Arabia. I am born and raised in America. For me, I have had a driver's license since I was 16. I can't imagine not driving, but for them it's a different situation.
ROMANS: Well, I'll tell you what so it's been really from the inside women started putting the videos on Youtube. They started sending them to each other to get support to do it.
And then with technology, it became more clear that more and more women were trying to do this and many were not being caught. And it became sort of a groundswell.
Now it sounds as though some groups are looking to outside for reinforcement. Do you dispute that there is this grassroots event happening inside the country where women are getting emboldened in doing it?
AHMED: I totally believe that it exists. I think they have the right to peacefully protest and push for their rights. I talked to Saudi women and people that live in Saudi Arabia and for them they say for many women this is not their issue.
They are fighting for health care. They are fighting for security. They are fighting for social equality and just like the face veil or driving, it's really a surface issue.
That's not really their concern and besides in their culture you have two things. First, a lot of the major cities in Saudi Arabia are set up like New York City where people don't have cars. It's a pedestrian city so it's not an issue.
ROMANS: Do you say that the women in Saudi Arabia don't need to drive?
AHMED: No. No, what I'm saying is that perhaps for women who it is an issue for them, they see the reason for it and there are reasons for women to drive if not only safety issues. A woman needs that ability.
But if they don't even own a car because it's a pedestrian city and it's just like in New York City it's not an issue because they don't own a car. Another issue is that in Saudi Arabia in that culture, driving is something that is a service class. So for example women believe that it's an upper class thing to be driven around and to them it would be probably degrading or something to drive themselves around.
What I'm trying to say is it's not about what I think or what you think. What it means is what does society and culture internally think and these women who do want the right to drive, it has to come from them because if you have a western source --
ROMANS: It sounds a little bit like you're marginalizing a movement inside this country to give women a right that they currently don't have. Are you marginalizing that movement?
AHMED: Absolutely not. But I think from internally it has to grow organically and they have to reach that critical mass and change from within. It's happening.
There are many, many reforms that have existed and have occurred within Saudi society, but if it's forcibly imposed from the outside, it's never going to work. You might actually end up hurting the cause because you'll have a rebellion against what considered a western influence.
ROMANS: Right and I see if you are a supporter of this inside the country some women there are clamoring for, I guess, a seal of approval from the secretary of state in this country.
Look, this is a huge country that is a powerful ally of the United States, that is a huge supplier of energy for the United States and women there are not allowed to drive.
It's something that American women, many American women, find co confounding and would like the secretary of state to weigh in on it, but I see your point that maybe the trick for the White House and for the State Department is not to rile up the Saudi elite.
AHMED: Well, also we as Americans need to have our credibility with the Middle East and the Muslim countries. When we go around judging and passing judgments based on our value systems and condemning other country systems and cultures then we're not going to have that clout for negotiation and for credibility.
You know, we really need to stay out of other people's affairs. This isn't about evil. It's about a society changing over time. Look at the top story that you had on the show.
Our own country is still trying to figure out conservative versus liberal values and religious rights versus human rights. I mean, we haven't got it either. It's our struggle.
ROMANS: You're talk about two stories on two very different levels, two very different places in the curve of evolution there, but a point well taken. Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate your time tonight. Coming up, death and taxes. My next guest says only one of those things is a certainty. You may not know his name and he doesn't have a vote, but he may decide if we extend the debt ceiling or go into default. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROMANS: There's a rift growing among conservatives in Washington. On one side are folks who believe the road to reducing the deficit requires both spending cuts and raising taxes.
On the other side those who refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances. Senator Tom Coburn, a fiscal Republican conservative is leading the charge for the fix the deficit now camp, which may mean ending some tax breaks against his better wishes.
Recently he's been butting heads with a man named Grover Norquist. Norquist is perhaps the country's strongest opponent of tax increase. He's gathered the signatures 236 congressmen and 41 senators who pledged to never ever vote to raise taxes.
Grover Norquist joins us now. Welcome to the program.
GROVER NORQUIST: Hi, Christine. Good to be with you.
ROMANS: Nice to see you again. Look, Grover, we had Senator Alan Simpson on the program recently and he's one of the co-chairs of the president's Deficit Reduction Commission as you know.
Here's what Senator Simpson had to say about your opposition to the ethanol vote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN SIMPSON, CO-CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL DEFICIT COMMISSION: How about Grover ripping Coburn calling him a malignant cancer in the body politics or something. I mean, how can a guy like Grover rip remarkable conservative like Tom Coburn and pretend he has any credibility whatsoever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Now, I suspect you guys are all friends, but how do you respond here?
NORQUIST: Well, here's what happened. The commission, the Obama commission that Senator Simpson co-chaired recommended a $2 trillion tax increase as a way to increase taxes to pay for Obama's larger government.
When Obama was elected, we were spending $2.8 trillion. The federal government is spending $2.8 trillion. Obama has taken it up to $3.8 trillion so 1 trillion more is being spent every year since Obama became president. Huge jump.
The question is do we bring that spending down. That's what the 2010 election was. Yes, bring that down or do we raise taxes to make the bigger government the new normal?
Unfortunately, what Mr. Simpson and Senator Coburn voted for, Coburn voted for that recommendation on the commission is according to Congressman Paul Ryan who is on the commission and voted no, a $2 trillion tax increase.
So my argument and of course, the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate said no tax increase. Obama is busting the bank with spending. Spending has to come down.
ROMANS: You make it sound so simple. I mean, your organization --
NORQUIST: It is.
ROMANS: -- Americans for Tax Reform, you have this taxpayer protection pledge. You're asking all these members of Congress and Senate to pledge that they will never, ever, ever raise taxes and they will oppose any elimination of deductions or credits or subsidies unless matched dollar for dollar by further cutting tax deduction.
I mean, when we talk about ethanol controversy, this is people like Senator Coburn saying let's close what they call wasteful loopholes against their better judgement. The way to start, you know, getting some money back and closing, you know, -- shrinking that big government that you're talking about.
NORQUIST: I have supported eliminating the entire ethanol program. What Senator Coburn did, he was a cheerleader and is on the floor of the Senate in this last week saying he supports the mandate.
That's the expensive destructive part of the ethanol program and Coburn is not an opponent of that. He's a cheerleader for it. That's a huge, huge problem. What we need to do is get rid of deductions and credits and do that as tax reform to have lower taxes overall.
ROMANS: What's the real chance of real tax reform? I mean, real tax reform where you get rid of loopholes and credits, where you get rid of subsidies and where you have simple and understandable tax system?
I mean, politically you look at the rift in the Republican Party right now or among conservatives and deficit hawks right now, is it even possible?
NORQUIST: It's extremely possible. There's no rift. Mr. Coburn is out by his lonesome and calling for $2 trillion tax increase. That isn't happening. Never going to pass the House. Not going to get through the Senate.
So what we're going to do is after the next election in 2012 when the Republicans will capture the Senate because they are 23 Democrats up and only 10 Republicans, that's when with a Republican House and Republican Senate and different president.
We can take marginal tax rates down to 25 percent and broaden the base as tax reform and not a tax increase, but tax reform. That's part of the Paul Ryan plan that the Republicans in the House and the Senate are supporting.
ROMANS: In the meantime before you go through all of the messy politics to make anything like that happen, you have to raise the debt ceiling.
You have an August 2nd deadline here. You know, Vice President Biden says there's been a full scrub of the federal budget, but we're running out of time. Are they playing chicken with the debt ceiling?
NORQUIST: Look, Vice President Biden is part of running up spending by $1 trillion a year and he says we can't reduce it. Of course, we can reduce it.
What Mr. Boehner, the Republican leader and the speaker of the House and Mr. Mitch McConnell, the Senate leader in, the Republican Senate leader in the Senate, both have said if the president wants the debt ceiling increased by $1 trillion, he has to sign off in a trillion in real spending reductions. If he wants a --
ROMANS: It was easy to cut $30 billion for a year or something. You know, it will be easy to cut $200 billion a year.
NORQUIST: Well, the reason it wasn't easy is the president of the United States was fighting against it. So either the president is going to get with the program and help undo damage he's done. He's killed millions of jobs with spending already. We need to stop the damage that Obama is doing to the economy.
ROMANS: OK, look, we don't have time to get into the economics of stimulus versus negative drag of running such large deficits, but there are those who would argue very vociferously that in fact all of that spending. No matter who was the president you would have seen all of that spending because the economy was on the abyss and they were just trying to do whatever they could to keep it going again.
NORQUIST: It didn't work. The president killed jobs when he did that. It was a mistake.
ROMANS: There was an argument to be made about what do you do next? What do you do with an August 2 deadline that is hanging over us so much to chew over. I can't wait to talk to you about it again. Thanks for being with us tonight.
NORQUIST: Good to be with you, Christine.
ROMANS: Up next, in Syria, President Assad had a chance to calm the waters instead he threw fuel on the fire, a country about to combust when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROMANS: Welcome back. I'm Christine Romans. Eliot Spitzer is on vacation. Today, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad gave only his third public speech since Syria's uprising erupted in March. The president said that the widespread national demonstrations were what he called those hijacking the Syria's people for political reform.
He also called for thousands of Syrians who have fled their homes to return home. Not surprisingly, some demonstrators did not embrace his message. Take a look.
In this video said to be filmed today in a town bordering Turkey, protesters threw their shoes at a poster of Assad. It's a great insult in the Arab world. So will Assad's speech have an impact in quelling the opposition?
I asked Middle East expert, Fawaz Gerges, for his take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FAWAZ GERGES, PROFESSOR, MIDDLE EASTERN POLITICS: So far from everything that we have heard in particular from the opposition is that they do not buy the goods that he has offered.
I think even though there was a new approach, even though there was a new language, this was a decisively different speech from the last two speeches that he has given in the last few months.
This should have been the first speech as opposed to the last speech. Even though that he has offered a package of reforms, the devil lies in the details.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Again, more than 1,100 people have been reportedly killed since Assad unleashed his forces against protesters.
Up next, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is not going gently into the good night. E.D. Hill takes a look at his noisy departure from power when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: News tonight, President Obama will soon announce his plans for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. A person crucial to the strategy is Defense Secretary Robert Gates who is just days away from retirement.
It seems the fewer the days left, the greater his willingness to speak candidly and at times, shockingly on NATO, the Taliban and our allies. What's going on? To help us understand, we're joined by the man who has been in the same position.
Former Defense Secretary William Cohen. Thank you for being with us.
WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Great to be with you.
HILL: What do you think about this frankness? Last week, it was announced that governments lie to each other. That's the way we do business and then also we're in preliminary talks with the Taliban. Were you surprised by sort of the bluntness?
COHEN: Well, I'm not surprised from Bob Gates because he's been a plain spoken individual. He tends to in Teddy Roosevelt's words speak softly and carry a big stick.
And he has been carrying more of that in the last few months as his term of office winds down. But I think he's been very candid straight from the shoulder and that's something that we're in desperate need for in this time of crisis.
HILL: Absolutely right. I agree with you. It's refreshing and wonderful to have someone actually say what they think and what they believe the truth is. It also leaves you with a lot of questions.
So when he said we're in preliminary negotiations with the Taliban, first thing I thought was wait a second. These are the guys that we have been fighting against.
The people who had outlawed women having an education and that had outlawed any kind of really rights for women and they were the ones running the opium ring in Afghanistan.
They certainly aren't the democratically elected group that we were hoping would be in charge there. So why the Taliban, does that surprise you?
COHEN: I think there are two things going on. Number one, I think the administration is trying to separate Taliban from al Qaeda. Assuming you can make that separation, go forward and try to separate out Taliban from each other.
Namely find those Taliban willing to lay down their arms and be willing to work with a government to bring about stability in Afghanistan so you can have the Afghan army then providing the kind of protection and security that the U.S. and the NATO forces are now providing.
So I think that's what's going on. I think it's preliminary. It's not just the U.S. Many of our other allies from NATO are doing the same thing and cooperating in this endeavor.
HILL: But, you know, I'm skeptical, I guess, but I don't trust it. I think of how many people we supposedly get along with and flip on us immediately and then I take a look at this and it seems pretty easy for them to say it one moment to us, sure, we'll break with al Qaeda.
We'll put down our weapons and we're with you guys and the second we pull out of there, they are back to the same old business. What keeps that from happening?
COHEN: That's a very real possibility, but the other option is for the U.S. forces to stay longer in larger numbers. Now the president is going to make a decision tomorrow or the next day in which he's going to announce what his plan in going forward is.
I would anticipate, I have no way of knowing this, but I would anticipate that he's going to recommend that we reduce the number of troops that we've increased for the surge, that we do so in the next coming year and that he will undertake this on a modest basis to begin with.
Because you have a lot of fighting going on now and military commanders will advise the more you reduce the numbers, the higher the risk to our troops and to the failure of the mission goes. I think he'll be fairly modest in the beginning and then try to intensify it as we go through next year.
That may not satisfy liberals on the left or conservatives on the right, but I think that's the kind of proposal he's likely to proposal.
HILL: You know, specifically addressing that, the troop withdrawal and where our troops go. The secretary was asked by Candy Crowley on "STATE OF THE UNION" this weekend, you know, what he thought about, you know, when troops go in, where we should be. This was his response. Listen and give me your thoughts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GATES: If the United States is directly threatened, I'll be the first in line to say we should use military force and that we should do so with all of the power that we have available to us.
It's wars of choice that I've become more cautious about and being very careful about electing to send military troops or send troops in harm's way wherever they may be if it's a matter of choice as opposed to a direct threat to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Well, of course, the elite felt that Afghanistan was a direct threat to our national security. We'll be waiting to hear what the president says on that.
But this week also, I believe that the Republicans and perhaps joined by some of the Democrats will be pushing the president to give up on the funding for any kind of military boots on the ground in Libya.
Using the criteria that Secretary Gates just put out there and the situation in Libya, is that a place where you think we should be?
COHEN: I think Bob Gates and I have exactly the same view about the use of our troops. I believe in the proposition that we should be a reluctant warrior and reluctant to put our troops in harm's way unless there's a compelling national security issue to do so.
I think with respect to Libya. The fact that British and French were so far in front of going into Libya to take on Gadhafi that Secretary Gates and president of the United States felt that we had an obligation to these two countries who have been the forefront of supporting us in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
But I think for the most part we've got to be very, very discrete in terms of our selection of future wars and putting our troops in harm's way. That's the message that Bob Gates is giving and one that I endorse and support hardly.
HILL: And very quickly, what about Iraq? If they want us to stay longer despite the fact that they kicked out Representative Rorhabacher for suggesting that they get some oil revenue, they might want to consider giving us some of the - the revenue to pay for our military operations there. Iraq, yes or no? Get out of there or stay?
COHEN: I think it should be conditions based. I think we should have some kind of a contingency force there to protect not only our employees and our State Department employees.
But to make sure that there's some kind of a hedge against the country falling victim to either Iranian influence or a civil war breaking out without any kind of protection. So I think we need some kind of a protection there on a limited basis.
HILL: Thank you very much and thank you for watching IN THE ARENA. Eliot Spitzer is vacationing. He'll be back soon, and for Christine Romans, I'm E.D. Hill. Good night from New York. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
