Return to Transcripts main page


Hannah Anderson Found Alive, Alleged Kidnapper DiMaggio Shot Dead; Interview with James Clyburn; Conversation About Baseball

Aired August 11, 2013 - 09:00   ET


CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: She is alive and apparently physically unharmed, Hannah Anderson, the San Diego 16-year-old, the object of a week-long frantic multistate search has been found. The man suspected of kidnapping her and killing her mother and brother has been shot dead in Idaho. We will have the latest.


CROWLEY (voice-over): Also today, hard ball on the field and in the east room, the Republican tight spot cornered by constituents at town hall meetings.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In five sentences or less, can we depend upon you to vote against any budget bill that includes funding for the implementation of Obamacare.


CROWLEY: Pressed by the president at his bully pulpit.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The idea that you would shut down the government, unless, you prevent 30 million people from getting health care is a bad idea.

CROWLEY: Prelude to September's divide. Fund the health care bill they load or shut down the government? What's a republican to do? Our Sunday exclusive with RNC chairman, Reince Priebus. Then --

OBAMA: Given the scale of this program, I understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse.

CROWLEY: Can the president satisfy critics of a spy program gathering data on every phone call in America? We'll ask one of those critics, a member of the Democratic leadership, South Carolina's James Clyburn. Plus --

OBAMA: It is probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that Russia's going, what our core interests are.

CROWLEY: No date night in Moscow. Our political panel weighs in on this hot summer's cold shoulder. And --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's a disappointment to a lot of people, a lot of fans. CROWLEY: Batter up, player's out, the season of baseball's discontent. Joining us, the legendary Mr. Cub, hall of famer, Ernie Banks, and Emmy award-wing filmmaker, Ken Burns.

I'm Candy Crowley, and this is STATE OF THE UNION.


CROWLEY (on-camera): But first, a dramatic rescue in Idaho after a week-long kidnapping ordeal and a manhunt. The suspect in the kidnapping is dead. The victim, 16-year-old Hannah Anderson of California is safe. We want to go right to CNN's Miguel Marquez in cascade, Idaho.

Miguel, I know you're beginning to learn details of this rescue operation that really was a week in the making. Give us a sense of the last couple of hours of how they got to Hannah and what played out with her kidnapper?

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Part of this may have been luck, but, of course, we create our own luck. Agents in a plane picked up the pair near the lake where the horseback rider had seen them some days before. Hours after that, they moved in by helicopter, but they dropped off agents of this hostage rescue team about two hours' walk from the camp because they didn't want to give a head's up that they were on their way.

They surrounded the camp and then they were able to wait, essentially. It's not clear how long they waited, but it must have been some time, and they must have been very, very secretive. They waited until Hannah and Mr. Dimaggio were separated. They confronted him, took him out, and got Hannah out of there -- Candy.

CROWLEY: So, tell me how Hannah is doing now. What do we know about her?

MARQUEZ: We know physically, at least, from officials here that she is doing fine. They say that she's in pretty good shape given what she has gone through. However, the trauma of what she's gone through starting with the death of her mother, her brother, and then this week-long run, that is probably going to take some time to get over.

We also know that an FBI victim specialist is with her now and will be there for the family in days to come -- Candy.

CROWLEY: We also know and have seen her heartbroken father out there dealing with the death of his wife, the death of his young son, and the kidnapping of his daughter. What happens next for the dad and for Hannah? Are they together yet?

MARQUEZ: I don't think so. As I understand, he is going to be brought up here by probably FBI agents and other officials, probably, in some sort of private mode into Boise where she is in the hospital. They will reunite there, and then, they'll figure out how soon she can get out of the hospital. It doesn't sound, because of the lack of her injury that she won't have to be there long, but I think at this point, you know, he sent a text message to CNN last night saying it is time to heal. And I think that he'll want to get her out of there into a safe environment, and basically, just decompress and put all of this behind them for a while -- Candy.

CROWLEY: Absolutely. Miguel Marquez, it went from tragedy to this moment of elation, but eventually, you come back around to the fact that this kidnapped girl and her father are minus her mother as well as her younger brother. Thanks so much. I know you're staying on the story for us. So, we'll be talking to you later. Back now to politics and who better than our four CNN commentators. Republican strategist, Kevin Madden, Democratic and CNN "Crossfire" host, Stephanie Cutter, radio talk show host, Ben Ferguson, and columnist Errol Louis. So, rarely do we get a chance to have some happy news, but I want to now bring you back to last Friday where the president had a news conference.

He sought to ease Americans' doubts about the massive NSA surveillance program and outlined the series of reforms. They include working with Congress to reform the way telephone data is collected, restructuring the secret court that approves the gathering of intelligence, declassification of some NSA activities and outside experts to review computer spy technology.

I want to welcome someone else from afar to join our round table. It's Congressman James Clyburn, the assistant Democratic leader in the House. Last month, he joined forces with conservative Republicans in a failed effort to defund the surveillance program.

Congressman, first of all, thank you so much for being there. I wanted to ask you, first of all, if what the president said in any way made you feel easier or more comfortable about this program, in particular, the phone data that is collected on every American?

CLYBURN: First of all, thank you so much for having me, Candy. Yes, but I felt that way before. As you know, the president spoke out on this issue long before Snowden. And, I was very comfortable with the president's position on this.

It's just that every now and then, you catch a vote in order to let your constituents know and for your colleagues to know exactly how you feel about situation, and sometimes, let the White House know that this is something that we cannot allow you to have just a blank check on.

CROWLEY: So, as far as you are concerned, can the president satisfy your concern and the concerns of your constituents in any other way other than kind of reducing the scope of that phone date collecting program?

CLYBURN: Oh, yes, he can. Transparency is always very, very important. I think most American people want to be safe and secure in their homes and when they are carrying out their day to day activities. And so, we want the president to do what is necessary to keep us safe. He's got a tremendous record in that regard, and I'm very proud of that record, but, all things don't start and stop at the president's desk.

As you go down the line -- as you know, we have a process in place that for some reason allow an Ed Snowden to exist and to get information. You want to be very, very careful in not just what the president doing, but with all of the hired hands may be doing when they're carrying out their duties and responsibilities.

CROWLEY: Sure. CLYBURN: And also to find out whether or not these are the right people to have me in these positions. So, the president can do a lot of things, issuing orders to make sure that these contractors, for instance, are going through a process that would allow us to know what kind of people they're hiring and to weed out these bad actors because that's what happened in this particular case.

CROWLEY: Let me bring in our panel now, because the question now exists. The president says, well, we need a little more transparency about these programs, and we need a little more oversight, maybe, you know, put in an advocate for civil rights into the process that can argue in front of the surveillance courts.

So, in some ways, has he made Edward Snowden more a whistleblower than the traitor that we were, you know, told he was when this happened.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, he has, and that's the biggest issue I have with the president this morning is he defended this program and went to bat for it. Not very long ago on multiple occasions, Snowden comes out. Snowden gets now exactly what he wanted which was to be a whistleblower, not be a traitor even though he's in Russia right now and the issues he has --

CROWLEY: There still are charges against him.


FERGUSON: But he's now being looked at as more of a whistleblower. And I think the president, if he believes in the program, he should have not had Snowden have this much influence on the White House and public opinion, but president believes in this program which I believe he did or still does then he should have walked out and explained it to the American people and said this is you need to know.

I still think this is a good program. I don't think Snowden should have this much influence, and yet, Snowden is the one doing --

CROWLEY: Stephanie, there is also this sort of conundrum when they came on is that Edward Snowden has endangered lives. He's endangered our sources. He's done all sorts of bad things, and then, the president comes out and says we need to be more transparent. So, I'm caught between those two.

STEPHANIE CUTTER, CNN CROSSFIRE HOST: Right. Well, there's a big difference, Candy, between dumping a bunch of security information out there on the internet and working with Congress to make sure that everybody has the information they need to sign off on these things. There's a big difference.

And I think what the president said in his press conference was that he does believe in this program, because it is protecting American lives, but we have to find a balance. And that's exactly the same argument he made when he was a senator.


ERROL LOUIS, COLUMNIST: He's going to be stepping, you know? I mean, that's clearly what he's signaled in the press conference. He's becoming, you know, sort of the constitutional --


LOUIS: He's the constitutional scholar. You know, he's comfortable that he's got the right balance between the secret court and the secret advocates who argue before the secret court with materials and none of us will ever see. But he's saying, well, maybe we'll put somebody else in the room. And I'm already happy with this, but obviously, some of you people in the public aren't so.

Let me, you know, throw you a crumb and see if that will work. Now, from what we just heard from Congressman Clyburn, that's not really going to succeed.

LOUIS: And I suspect we're going to see step after step after step until he sort of gets into some real balance which is going to be far beyond anything the White House wants.

CUTTER: Well, I think also, the more of that Congress -- you know, there are plenty of people in Congress that have full information on this program, and they've said that and they've signed off on it. But I think as more and more are brought into some of the details here, they're going to understand that there's a tradeoff between transparency --


CROWLEY: Kevin did, in fact, allude to that saying the American people want to be safe. It seems to me that the minute you bring up safety and terrorism, especially after the week we've had with all of these embassies closed that there's really no way that any of these programs are going to substantially be changed because they're too far reaching.

MADDEN: Well, I think, look, that's one of the reasons -- that's one of the interesting things about this issue is that there hasn't been this reflex with partisanship up on Capitol Hill that the opposition or the support for it doesn't fall along the very traditional partisan lines that most issues, actually -- that occurs with most issues in Washington D.C. And I think that the public is by and large supporter of this program. So, I think the president has to do two things. He has to actually genuinely work with Congress on this instead of just providing a rhetoric, and then, I think he has to continue to make sustained arguments in support of the program. The big problem is and this goes to Ben's point is that the only person -- the person who's doing the most talking about at this program up until at this point was Edward Snowden and that's a problem.

CROWLEY: I want you all to stick with us. Congressman Clyburn, I hope you can stay with us, too. When we come back, the fight over Obamacare and fears of a government shutdown.



SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: Under no circumstances, will we support a continuing resolution that funds one penny of Obamacare. SEN. MIKE LEE, (R) UTAH: The law is banned. The law is certainly not ready to implement and we shouldn't fund it.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: And I will not vote for a continuing resolution, unless, it defunds Obamacare.


CROWLEY: That is a sample of what some Republicans are preaching. We are back now with Congressman Jim Clyburn and our panel, Kevin Madden, Stephanie Cutter, Ben Ferguson, and Errol Louis.

First to you, congressman, even the president admits there will be glitches. We're not sure how big they're going to be over the next year with the implementation of some major parts of Obamacare, specifically, with requirement that all individuals have some kind of health care. The worry has not just been on the Republican side. It's been on the Democratic side.

You've heard from unions who are worried that they're long fought for benefits are going to go down the tubes with Obamacare. You've heard from Democrats saying it looks like a mess. How concerned are your constituents? How concerned are you?

CLYBURN: Well, I'm always concerned that we're trying to do anything this big. The fact of the matter is if we'd go back to the founding of the country, every time we've tried to do something big, we've had to tweak it later on. Even the constitution of the United States, when it was put in place, almost immediately we figured out something was wrong.

And so, we amended it with the bill of rights. Ten amendments to the United States constitution. We've had to fix Social Security often. We've had to do things with Medicare often, and we'll have to do a lot of things with Obamacare as well because things change, circumstances change and people change. Needs are different.

And so, we are going to be tweaking Obamacare for a long, long time, but I'm very interested in what I heard from one of the town halls in North Carolina. One of my Republican colleagues got a pretty air flow yesterday at his town hall meet meeting. People want to keep their children on their insurance policies when they're out of work up until they're 26 years old.

People don't want to be kicked off of insurance as soon as they get sick. They want their children born with juvenile diabetes to get coverage. These are things that were made possible by Obamacare and we are not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and I think that they ought to come to the realization that we ought to get serious about fixing it and doing what is necessary to tweak it and get it right rather than just to repeal.

CROWLEY: This is where -- congressman, I want to bring in our panel, too. This is where politics meets scheduling, because the Obama administration deliberately put the good parts that the congressman just mentioned. Keeping your kids on your own health care insurance until they're 26. No pre-existing conditions.

No caps on how much your health care is costing you, but now comes the part that's difficult and that is paying for it. So, one of two things are happened. A lot of people come in and get health care insurance who don't have it or really sick people are going to be left as the only ones with health care and the others willing to pay the fine which isn't.

MADDEN: Well, look, first, let's drop the pretense that Obamacare even with all of those provisions in it now is in any way popular. It's not. It's very unpopular. The reason --


MADDEN: -- because it's suffocating the American economy. And some of the worst parts are still to come and the American people are very cognizant of that.

CROWLEY: But let me just add that some of the opposition to it is that it didn't go far enough, so we'll just add that.

MADDEN: When you have a ballot test right now, whether you think we should keep Obamacare or whether we should repeal it. Repeal wins.

CUTTER: Actually, that's not true.


CUTTER: -- you ask the question should we keep it in place and adjust it as we go along? The overwhelming majority of the American people believe we should keep it in place and go on as needed. And, the individual provisions of -- you know, when you look at the top lines of whether popular or not, I think we should all acknowledge that a lot of politics is wrapped up in that and it's called Obamacare.

CUTTER: But when you look at the individual provisions and asked people about the individual provisions, they're overwhelmingly popular, and everybody -- (CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: The congressman even spoke to this. This thing is too big. It was too big from the beginning. It was too broad sweeping from the beginning, and more importantly, he said we're going to have to tweak it. I wished they would have paid attention to the law when they actually passed and said, now, passing it and then go, OK, we got to fix a lot of stuff with it And if this bill was so good --


FERGUSON: If the bill was so good and it was going to be so great and it was going to be easy, then they would have been running on it 2014 and said delaying so many parts of it because Democrats out there know it's not popular.

LOUIS: They're going to be running --

FERGUSON: No, they're not.


LOUIS: You look at the president's body language in that press conference and he is saying, look, if what you want to do is run on 2014 on the proposition of throwing millions of people off of existing health care --


LOUIS: Be my guest. He's inviting it over --

FERGUSON: Name a prominent Democratic candidate who's out there advocating right now for Obamacare. You can't find when including Hillary Clinton. She's not even out there advocating for it.


FERGUSON: I think we know she's going to be many one of your candidates.

CUTTER: Well, let's say if she does, if she runs for president, let's see what she says about health care. I guarantee you, this will be an issue in the next election and Democrats feel very confident that we're on the winning side of this. Republicans, however you want to frame it, are on the side of taking something away from people and that has never stopped.


CUTTER: I think the president said on Friday, bring it on. Let's do it -- works out for --

CROWLEY: Let me bring in Congressman Clyburn. I'm assuming that you are hearing all of this and one of the suggestions here was that Democrats are not running on Obamacare in 2014. I'm assuming you are, given what you have said earlier, do you think in the end that Obamacare is going to be a net plus, not ten years from now or five years from now, but next year when Democrats most need a healthy economy and an Obamacare that is working reasonably smoothly?

CLYBURN: Absolutely, I believe that. The fact of the matter is, we will be running on Obamacare in 2014. In fact, we set it up to run on it in 2014. All that's the talk about now kicks in as January 1, 2014. We will start doing the exchanges on October 1, 2013.

We fully expect to run on it, and we expect to win on it. The American people will be the winners and that's what my Republican colleagues are getting into these town hall meetings during the month of August. This is a big, big difference.

CROWLEY: Let me interject here, congressman, that yes, you are running on those good parts that you mentioned, the health care that people are unable to get if they're sick, et cetera. The question, though, and one of the reasons when the president said you know what? We're going to delay for a year requiring businesses to either ensure or pay a fine and a lot of folks looked at that and said because they realize this is going to cost businesses money and it will be bad for the economy.

So, is that not true that a major part of Obamacare was canceled for fear that what's going to happen is businesses will cut back and they will have part-time workers as opposed to full-time workers?

CLYBURN: Well, that's part of the tweaking process. Suddenly, we are going to tweak it going forward. We know that small businesses, and I talk to them all, all the time. I go to these Chambers of Commerce meetings. I go to the rotary clubs and the optimist clubs, and I've talked to them exactly the way I'm talking to you today.

We are going to tweak this. It's a very complicated piece of legislation. We know that a lot of people who are in business do not understand the tax subsidies that come along with this and when they understand it, they see it as a big benefit. And we don't talk about the tax subsidies. We don't talk about the real good things about the bill. We only talk about those things that people are complaining about, but I want to remind the panel. Social Security was very, very unpopular when it was put in place back in the 1930s. Medicare, very, very unpopular, but when I come out here today and I talk about Social Security and Medicare, people tell me right off the bat, keep your hands off of my Social Security and my Medicare. They will be saying the same thing, ten, 15 years from now about Obamacare.

CROWLEY: Congressman Clyburn, I can tell you that our panel has been listening and has so reminded, I mentioned I have a couple of things to say, but I need say goodbye to you now. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Our panel is going to stick around.

CLYBURN: Thank you.

CROWLEY: Thank you. And when we come back --

CLYBURN: Thank you so much for having me.

CROWLEY: Absolutely.

Some Republicans are between a rock and a hard place with their constituents this summer break. We'll talk about that with the Republican Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus.


CROWLEY: Joining me is Reince Priebus. He is chairman of the Republican National Committee. I believe you're in Wisconsin this morning, so, thanks for getting up a bit early to talk to us, Reince. I'm assuming that you've heard a little bit of the conversation that preceded you while we got your satellite working.

So, talk to me about the influence you think the continuation and the implementation of Obamacare is going have on the 2014 elections. I don't know if you heard Congressman Clyburn say you're darn right Democrats are going to campaign on it because folks like it.

PRIEBUS: Well, I mean, I think it's pretty clear that when you have over 30 Democrats voting against the president on funding Obamacare that the real division in any party is on the Democratic side of the aisle, yet, you know, the news media wants to talk about, you know, The republicans debating a tactic as opposed to the fact that you've got the most vulnerable -- or, excuse me, the most vulnerable Democrats that are running for Senate and the House that are saying, hey, listen, we want to wipe our hands clean of this Obamacare bill that's a total train wreck and that's their words, not ours, although we would join in on that chorus, so I think it's pretty clear.

PRIEBUS: I think it's the tactic that the president is using in delaying the employer's side is all part about -- all about getting some Democrats reelected in 2014 and it's -- I think it's very obvious that it isn't a law that people like. I'm in Racine, Wisconsin, and I live in Kenosha, Wisconsin, these are mostly middle-class families that see Obamacare as something that's very bad for their families and their futures.

CROWLEY: On the other hand, you do have the things that Congressman Clyburn talked about that Republicans say they are for which is no lifetime limits on health care, payback from insurance companies, keeping your adult children on your health care until they're 26 and no such thing as pre-existing conditions. If the Republicans position themselves as some senators have and certainly some congressmen have, that no matter what Obamacare has to be defunded, that is not implemented, does that not put you all in a place where you have to argue why are you against these good things because you saw the president and that's exactly what he'll do?

PRIEBUS: Right but Candy, you're picking out three things out of a bill that lists, you know, 5,000. I mean the fact is --

CROWLEY: They're kind of the most important things to a lot of people, you know.

PRIEBUS: No, they're not. But, you know, the Republicans had -- the Republicans had many of those provisions in their bill. I mean, when we ran in November we were talking about pre-existing conditions, kids that were 26 on their parents' plans. I mean this isn't like some Democratic exclusive or something. I mean the fact is what people don't want are government panels deciding whether something is medically necessary. They don't want a government panel deciding that their doctor instead of getting deciding, you know, a quarter for every dollar or service they're going to say, well now you're going to get a nickel. Well the guess what I'm not taking that patience (ph).

People know what Obamacare is. I mean it's European, socialist style-type health care and people don't want it. I mean the real story here is that the Democrats in the Senate and the House, the ones that are vulnerable and want to be reelected have turned their back on the president. That's the story not the tactics on the Republican side of the aisle. People don't want this. If this was such a great idea then all of these senators that were vulnerable in 2014 would have voted for it and they didn't. And so that should tell you everything you want to know. You know the cynical part of me says, keep it in place so that we can run even more on Obamacare in 2014. CROWLEY: Nonetheless, there are divides in the Democratic Party, you're right. There are divides in the Republican Party, as my father used to say, that's why God made horse races. So nothing wrong with that, but you are hearing some folks in the Republican Party saying I am not going to -- I would rather shut the government down than to continue to fund Obamacare. Politically speaking, how would the government shutdown play in 2014 for Republicans on the ballot?

PRIEBUS: I think all Republicans are unified on one thing and that is defunding, delaying, getting rid of, eliminating Obamacare. So we have total unanimity on that issue and the question is what are the tactics? And you know, even if you take the position of a Ted Cruz or Mike Lee, basically what they're saying is we actually are funding 100 percent of the government except for that small percentage of nondiscretionary -- excuse me, discretionary funding the Obamacare. So Mr. President, if you want to shut the government down because you don't - you want to continue to fund this monstrosity that you've already admit is half broken, then go ahead. I mean the fact that it's on the Republican Party I just think is spin from the Democratic Party that you ought not be adopting. I don't know why you're adopting that spin.

CROWLEY: Because there had been plenty of congressmen, Republicans and senators -- Republicans saying this will ruin the Republican Party if we are seeing this, forcing a shutdown of the government. I mean it hasn't really worked for you for Republicans in the past. So it isn't just Democrats daring Republicans to do it. It's other Republicans saying no, you guys, we always lose when we do this.

PRIEBUS: Well, I mean, it's not like it happens every year. I mean the fact of the matter is I think that the budgetary effects back in the mid-'90s were actually ultimately very positive for the Republicans. Look I am not advocating for one tactic or the other, but what I am advocating for is to set the record straight that the Republican Party is that party that is totally unified in defunding and delaying and getting rid of Obamacare. It's the Democrats that are fighting each other over the overall picture of whether or not we ought to keep Obamacare in place. The president himself has told the American people that Obamacare right now is half broken. So how do you take taxpayer money and then fund something that the president has admitted is half broken. Is that reasonable? We think it's not.

CROWLEY: Yes, I think that they would --as you know, they're describing that as a technical glitch. You're right. I mean this is about the messaging sort of going forward. I need to quickly turn you to the subject that has occupied so much of your week whether you intended to or not which is your feeling that if NBC runs a miniseries, a fictional, based on fact about Hillary Clinton or if CNN which has commissioned an outside documentary on Hillary Clinton runs that, that they will not be eligible for any debates that you all are going to sponsor. "The New York Times" is reporting that the NBC Clinton series might likely be produced by "FOX Television Studios," that's sort of a sister company to "FOX News." So if we follow your logic, do you think that there then is a connection to "FOX News" and would they be subject to the same kind of scrutiny? PRIEBUS: Well first of all, I mean, our party has to quit availing itself to bias moderators and companies that put on television, you know, in this particular case documentaries and miniseries about a particular candidate that we all know is gearing up to run for president and that's Hillary Clinton and so the big question for me, Candy, is number one, which company is putting it on the air. Who is doing the work? I'm not interested if they're using the same caterer or whether they drink diet Coke and I'm not boycotting Diane Lane.


PRIEBUS: I am going boycott the company that puts the -- I am going to boycott the company that puts the miniseries and the documentaries on the air for the American people to view. I'm not interested in whether they use the same sound studio or whether they use the same set. I don't know the truth of anything you're talking about, but I do know what's very clear is that the company that puts these things on the air to promote Hillary Clinton, including CNN, is the company that is not going to be involved in our debates. Period. Very simple.

CROWLEY: So the people that write and produce and put together the shows are not -


PRIEBUS: I'm not going to boycott Diane Lane. Listen, I'm not going boycott Diane Lane. It's not her fault she decided to take a script. I'm not going boycott the food trucks that service all of the same -


CROWLEY: The people producing - I don't want to put you...


CROWLEY: ... because I think it sounds like no is the answer.

PRIEBUS: Candy, some researcher -- some researcher at CNN or "NBC" worked for a few days to find some little connection somewhere down the road to -- to bring something into this debate. I think it's totally ridiculous and stupid. The fact is what channel am I going to tune in to, to see the documentary and the miniseries that is all about promoting Hillary Clinton and at this point it sounds like it's going to be CNN and NBC and the fact is that they're not going to be involved in our debates. Period.

CROWLEY: OK. Let's have lunch we'll talk. But in the meantime, thank you so much for joining us continue on from the beautiful city of Wisconsin. We will talk to you later.

PRIEBUS: Thank you.

CROWLEY: Coming up our all-star panel weighs in on what the Republican chairman just said and the visions in the Republican Party.


CROWLEY: We are back with our panel, Kevin Madden, Stephanie Cutter, Ben Ferguson and Errol Louis. I wish you all could have watched during the commercial break because we had an entire conversation. So looking at Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican Party and James Clyburn in those interviews, next year is going to be a struggle for the headline. Is that what we get out of it?

LOUIS: Exactly right and we got the chairman gave us the bumper sticker, right, defund and delay Obama care. It can fit on a bumper sticker. He says he can run on it. He says he can win on it. It seems doubtful to me and it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that has worked for them in the past. Let's remember that a year ago we had a referendum on this whole question it's called, the national election, it didn't work out for them then. I'm not sure what they think has changed other than the fact that people have been getting rebate checks and kids are getting insurance and free mammograms.


FERGUSON: Here's the thing. A lot of things have changed and that is now we're getting to see how the sausage is made with Obamacare. Democrats are realizing this is a huge liability. There are lots of things you can put on your bumper sticker. Hey, want to insure your kids until they're 26. It sounds good. There are a lot of things you don't want to put on a bumper sticker because it is hurting American jobs. A great example is how many employers are now cutting back to 30 hours or below. I've seen it with producers of my own show where the company says hey, you will have a lot of part-time people around you. We are preparing for Obamacare. That is hurting American workers right now which is part of the problem of Obamacare that you all don't want to put on -


CROWLEY: That is a perception problem. The one-year business delay and the one year that's being delayed is the election year.

CUTTER: Well, regardless of whether it's an election year, the one thing that we're all forgetting here is that this is what the business community wanted and came out of a series (ph) --


FERGUSON: That's not true.

CUTTER: I'm sorry. One second, came out of a series of the business community about (ph) delaying it for a year so they can get themselves in order to actually implement this (INAUDIBLE). Now in terms of who is -- when the employer mandate gets implemented and it's for businesses with over 50 employees which is more than 98 percent of businesses in this country. So we're talking about 2 percent. Now there are incentives for these businesses and small business tax cuts for them to actually put insurance in place, most of them already do. So this is an anecdotal debate and it's not a debate that we're seeing happening.


CROWLEY: To me it sounds like the Republicans want to push Obamacare and the Democrats are going push and get in the way of everything and they're still fighting existing law.

MADDEN: Obamacare is the center of the universe when it comes to the 2014 elections, an Obamacare discussion is very bad for the Democrats and it's very bad for President Obama despite what my good friend Stephanie Cutter will tell you. So look I think there are -


CROWLEY: Your (ph) good friend.

MADDEN: Yes, there are different - I know (ph) now (ph) I sound like a member of Congress.


MADDEN: There are differing opinions I think within the Republican Party about how we best go about it, but ultimately the Republican Party is still aligned with the voter anxieties, the voter frustrations with what this bill is doing to the economy. And that is going to help us -


CROWLEY: Let me just say you all do not want to be responsible for squeezing the time of Ernie Banks, who is up next. So we have to have this as to be continued. I need a one-word answer. Will there be --

MADDEN: This is like a CNN debate.

CROWLEY: Yes or no, raise your hands. Will there be a government shutdown?


CROWLEY: Or is the talk of it just to keep the conversation going?


MADDEN: (inaudible) Washington at its best.

CUTTER: Unfortunately, no.

LOUIS: No chance.

FERGUSON: Not going to happen on the votes.

MADDEN: Unfortunately, no.

CUTTER: No. I wanted the Republicans to commit suicide.


CROWLEY: Kevin Madden, Stephanie Cutter, Ben Ferguson, Errol Louis, thank you all. When we return the trouble with baseball. Hall of famer Ernie Banks and award winning film maker Ken burns join us next.


CROWLEY: Joining me now hall of fame first baseman and short stop, Mr. Cub, Ernie Banks, making me the envy of my children by the way today. And on the phone, another great Emmy award winning film maker Ken Burns, whose nine part series "Baseball" tells the story of America's pastime. Gentlemen, I can't thank you enough for explaining this to me. What I can't figure out given the events of this week with the suspension of players for using performance-enhancing drugs. As we know, Alex Rodriguez is fighting his suspension, which is a good deal longer than the others.

CROWLEY: Is baseball sincere, Mr. Banks, about cleaning itself up or could they just not ignore this story that was being pursued by Florida newspapers?

BANKS: Well, they're very serious about this, according to Bud Selig, the commissioner, and the owners. They're really, really serious about this. They want to straighten the game up and make it the game it was many, many, many years ago.

CROWLEY: Ken, is that possible? I mean nobody is -- that doesn't play baseball has studied it quite as much as you have. I want to read you something that John Kass wrote in the "Chicago Tribune." He wrote recently A-Rod didn't kill baseball and turn it into a cousin of professional wrestling all by himself. He's had help over time, over years and years when baseball got sick and turned to drugs. Baseball knew it and baseball let it happen because the lords of baseball wanted to sell tickets. Do you agree with that?

BURNS: Not entirely. I think that's the Cassandra view. There was a time in the late '90s and maybe very early oughts (ph) when people were turning a blind eye, wink wink, to some of this stuff, but I believe Major League Baseball woke up. I think Bud has handled this exactly right. He didn't go too far. My heart tells me in the best interests of baseball to get rid of A-Rod altogether, but he understood that that would disrupt the partnership that has taken place over the last decade between the players and the owners that has been interested in settling this and cleaning up this game. Remember, it's not the trouble with baseball, this is still the third worst scandal in baseball. The second is the betting scandal. That never -- that's not happening anymore because the players make too much money. The first was the exclusion of African-Americans and the presence of Ernie Banks tells you that was also taken care of with the advent of Jackie Robinson.

So let's go back to now the most pressing thing. This is the good news is that they have rounded up some of the best players in the game and levied extraordinary fines and suspensions and the players are going along with this because they understand it's in the best interests of the game to have it cleaned up. Our big worry must be just that those chemists that know how to mask these chemicals and get them out of the body and are always one step ahead of the testers, but for the last decade, I can assure you that major league baseball, which was once the worst of the professional supports in policing its own drug policy is now the very, very best and I think MLB and Bud Selig as commissioner have handled it just right.

CROWLEY: This must have pained you.

BANKS: Yes, it has.

CROWLEY: Watching this unfold. But really it's been unfolding since '91 when the first bans were put in effect in the early '90s. Do you believe that the players now view this differently? It seemed during Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire chase of the home run record, everybody -- it was open talk that they were all on performance- enhancing drugs. That must have hurt you.

BANKS: It really did. It really hurt me. And these kids today, Candy, I'm like a father to them. I knew Alex Rodriguez many years ago when he first came here. He broke my record for home runs in Texas.

CROWLEY: Do you think that's fair? If he was using performance- enhancing drugs? Is it fair that he broke your record? Was that a fair fight?

BANKS: Well, my thing is we don't know. I don't know about the testing and all that. You know, he was accused of it, but I don't know what he was tested and proven that he was on anything. But I like him. He's like a son to me. Most all of these kids, I really, really liked him, enjoyed them. I know about their families, I know about their children.

CROWLEY: I want to ask you about the statistics. Ken, I'm going to ask you the same question after I get Mr. Banks to talk about it. Raymond Daniel Burke wrote in the "Baltimore Sun" today talking about the statistics over time your records versus those of Alex Rodriguez being an example. And he said statistical comparison serves as a generational bond, and the integrity of those statistics is the adhesive that gives meaning to the experiences shared across time that are the game's narratives. Is an asterisk by the name of a record breaker who has used performance-enhancing drugs enough? Because that wasn't an even competition across the decades, was it?

BANKS: No, it was not. But, you know, it's just that. They want to put an asterisk on Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron and all of that. But I don't know. I don't know how they could deal with that. But me personally, these kids, they play baseball, they love the game, they play hard. They want to play a long time.

CROWLEY: They cheated.

BANKS: Well, that's the word is that they cheated, but, you know, I haven't seen anything. I talked to Barry Bonds when he was going for the record. I've been to see him. Talked to him, visited with him, went to San Francisco. I've just been with him a lot. And I think a lot of him.

CROWLEY: Hard for you to believe?

BANKS: Yes, it is.

CROWLEY: Yes. Ken, last word to you. BURNS: Well, this is the central question. You know, this is the only game in which statistics really, truly matter, you know. Only the football nerds can tell you how many yards passing Tom Brady has. But we all know, the whole culture knows that the central landmark of those. But if you go back to 1919, it says that the Cincinnati Red Stockings won the World Series. There was no asterisk. We know from the Black Sox scandal that the Chicago White Sox, now called the Black Sox, threw that game to gamblers.

What the statistics tell you is that they're not the whole story. We have to tell stories about those statistics. And that's the joy of this game as well, and so we still have to sit our grandchildren on our knees and talk to that steroid era and the PED era and other things. But the good news out of all this, and I don't mean to sound so Pollyannaish, the good news is that despite the fact that it must be difficult for Ernie to watch a home run record fall when he knows that something fishy is going on, basically balls went out of the park a little bit more frequently in that case, but the great records, you know, the 56 consecutive games, the hitting .406 by Ted Williams in '41 and Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak also in '41, pitchers winning 25 or 30, 35 games, all of which could have been possible, didn't. So a .300 hitter means the same thing to my four daughters as it does to me, as it did to my great great grandfather who fought in the Civil War.

CROWLEY: That's that generational thing we were talking about.

BURNS: It's still there.

CROWLEY: Thank you so much Ken Burns, Ernie Banks, thank you.

BANKS: Thank you.

CROWLEY: And thank you for watching STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Candy Crowley in Washington. Fareed Zakaria, GPS starts next.

But first, an update on a surprising end to an awful story.