Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Voters Send Mixed Messages to Political Parties; Interview With Liz Cheney; Another Defeat For Same-Sex Marriage
Aired November 04, 2009 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, "Raw Politics" and messages from the voting booth, one for Democrats, who took a pounding on the economy, the other for Republicans, who lost a closely watched congressional race in New York State -- tonight, what it means for President Obama, Republican moderates and the upcoming midterm elections. Republican Liz Cheney joins us, as does David Plouffe, former campaign manager for President Obama.
Also, the bitter battle over same-sex marriage in Maine, what last night's loss for gay marriage supporters means.
And you think authorities do a good job keeping track of sex offenders? Well, think again, new details in a new report, how law enforcement repeatedly failed to supervise Phillip Garrido, the man charged with kidnapping and raping and holding Jaycee Dugard captive for 18 years in his own backyard, a 10-year record of failure by authorities.
We're "Keeping Them Honest" tonight.
First up: "Raw Politics," election fallout, and how it was being spun all day by Democrats and Republicans, Nancy Pelosi claiming victory, ignoring the election of Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia, focusing instead on a Democrat winning in Upstate New York over a conservative challenger.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: From my perspective we won last night. We had one race that we were engaged in that was in northern New York. It was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the since the Civil War.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, Michael Steele, Republican Party chairman, focused on the big wins for two Republican governors in states President Obama won last year and campaigned heavily in this time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL STEELE, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: The Republican renaissance has begun. It has begun in earnest, in which we put our faith in the hopes and dreams of the American people to rebuild our economy from the bottom up, not the big deficit-spending plans and policies of the politicians in Washington or our state capitals.
The message was sent yesterday. It's not about the change we need. It's about the change we want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Now, each side is entitled to its own opinion, not its own facts. In this case, the numbers for Virginia and New Jersey, at least they suggest a sea change among political independents, who elected President Obama last year and elected Republicans this year, bearing in different candidates, different races, but the same central issue, the industry.
Tom Foreman has got the numbers and the "Raw Politics" -- Tom.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, you just hit it right on the head there. The only two things you really need to know about this election and maybe next fall's, too, the economy and independents.
In the past 24 hours, that has grown more and more clear as we crunch the numbers. Republicans won key races in Virginia and New Jersey last night, the same way Barack Obama won those states last year, by cashing in on voters who want change, especially in the economy.
Look at what voters were thinking here. Sixty-three percent of Americans think that things are going badly right now. Sixty-four percent are angry about it. Sixty-five percent are scared. And 75 percent are stressed by all of this.
Last year, those people flocked to Barack Obama's promise of better days. In Virginia, 77 percent of those voters went Republican this time. And, in New Jersey, 61 percent of those voters went Republican. Democrats have spent all day long, as you heard there, trying to shrug off these numbers. But, small as this sample is, this is clearly a warning shot that a lot of people here in D.C. are taking seriously -- Anderson.
COOPER: As well they should.
Tom, how big was the shift among independents?
FOREMAN: Well, it's a really interesting point that you raise here, Anderson, because Mr. Obama had 52 percent of independent votes in the election last time. And he just edged out John McCain for those votes in these two states.
But, in this election, in both places, the GOP grabbed more than 60 percent of the independent vote. Remember, the president campaigned for the Democratic candidates in both of these places, and they both lost. That looks bad, no matter how you slice it. It's also made Republicans significantly more excited about voting next fall than Democrats are.
And, all day, we have heard them crowing about their new momentum. That matters, too, Anderson, because turnout can make a huge difference.
COOPER: And what did voters actually say? In their opinion, was this a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency?
FOREMAN: No, this is interesting, Anderson. On his presidency, no. We have looked this over carefully, and voters told us that, if you look at the totality of it, this was not about Mr. Obama. And Democrats did win congressional races in New York and California.
Here's the thing. People like President Obama, still, but they don't like his economic policies, certainly not as much. And all signs say this was a bit of vote on that record.
We asked people, who will you blame if the economy does not get better in the next 12 months, President Bush and the Republicans over here, or President Obama and the Democrats? A year ago, overwhelmingly, the answer was President Bush and the Republicans. Now 47 percent say they will blame the Republicans. And look at this. Forty-five percent say they will blame the Democrats.
This is a big, big change. Bottom line, this election was a kind of test case, but the results are real. Once again, angry independents, what I have always called the militant middle, are on the warpath. And their message to Democrats and Republicans is, get something done, or get out.
And, if this economy remains in trouble, Anderson, incumbents in both parties, you can bet, will pay next fall.
COOPER: All right, Tom, thanks.
New Jersey, Virginia were one kind of race. That congressional race in Upstate New York was something else entirely, a Republican endorsed by the party campaigning against a Conservative endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and others. The Republican drops out, endorses the Democrat, all to replace a Republican who left office to go to work for a Democratic president.
Got it? The New York 23 stands out for more than just that.
Here's President Obama's former campaign manager, David Plouffe.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID PLOUFFE, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I think the most important thing, actually, had nothing to do with the results. I think, if the effort that we saw in New York 23 to sort of purge moderates out of the Republican Party continues in other parts in the party, I think that's probably going to be problematic for the Republican Party long-term.
COOPER: If that is true, though...
PLOUFFE: Yes.
COOPER: ... if what happened in -- in the New York district, in 23, was the purging of moderates from the Republican Party, I mean, how do you explain, then, independents breaking now for Republicans in overwhelming numbers in New Jersey and in -- in Virginia?
PLOUFFE: Well, I think, you know, there weren't exits in New York 23. My guess is, when you look in the data, you will see independents broke pretty convincingly less up there.
If you look nationally, though, you know, independent voters -- the president's approval rating with independents actually is -- is quite strong. He won them by eight points in the election. In most polling, his gap in terms of fav/unfav is -- is -- is higher than that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: We will more from Mr. Plouffe later in the program.
A different view right now from GOP strategist Liz Cheney.
Liz, thanks for being with us.
Repeatedly today, conservatives were saying that what happened in Upstate New York was a win because it energized conservatives, even though the Conservative candidate lost. Here's what Michael Steele had to stay about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL STEELE, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: I don't see a victory in losing seats. I'm not in the business of division and subtraction. I'm the business of multiplication and addiction. I want more Republicans going to Congress. So, I don't get to do that particular dance of -- nor do I buy it -- that we somehow find victory in defeat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Do you buy it, Liz, that New York 23 was a win, even though the Conservative candidate lost?
LIZ CHENEY, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, look, I think that, in New York 23, the Republicans, you know, had a pretty chaotic set of circumstances, a pretty chaotic process, a process of selecting the candidate who was the Republican candidate that didn't involve, frankly, going to the people in the district.
And we ended up with someone as our candidate who I was say wasn't a moderate, but was actually pretty liberal. She was somebody who supported things like card check. She was supported by ACORN. And, as you reported, when she got out of the race, she threw her -- her support behind the Democrat.
I think, actually, it -- it's remarkable that the Conservative candidate did as well as he did there, given the kind of chaos that preceded that. And I think it's understandable that you would have David Plouffe and the White House wanting to focus and -- and Speaker Pelosi wanting to focus on New York 23. But I would bet you that, behind the scenes, they are politically astute enough that they are studying very closely what happened in New Jersey and in Virginia last night.
COOPER: Yes, no doubt about that.
But -- but -- so -- but you do not view it as a win in -- in New York? I mean, there were a lot of people saying, look, this mobilized conservatives. This is a great sign.
Do you -- you don't see it that way?
CHENEY: I think conservatives across the country are extremely mobilized. I think, you know, you're seeing conservatives aren't just Republicans. And I think that, you know, conservatives are people who believe in limited government. They're people who believe that the president shouldn't be raising our taxes in the middle of an economic downturn.
I think there are an awful lot of independents who are conservative. And I think you saw that last night in the votes in Virginia and in New Jersey. I think it's always better from the Republican perspective for us to win a seat than lose a seat, but I wouldn't read anything, frankly, into sort of philosophy and ideology looking at that race in New York 23. I think that was much more about the process.
COOPER: I want to talk to you about whether there's room now in the Republican Party as it is, and as in the way it's moving, for moderates, for liberal Republicans, even.
But I have got to ask you that after this break.
We have got to take a quick break. We will have more with Liz Cheney in a moment.
Let us know what you think. And you can join Erica and I in the live chat now under way at AC360.com.
We will have another take shortly from David Plouffe, President Obama's campaign, who also has got a revealing new book out, an inside view of the 2008 race.
Also tonight, the closely fought battle in Maine over same-sex marriage, a ballot initiative taking away what lawmakers had just granted. Is the issue of same-sex marriage dead for now? Two sides square off.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Today in Washington, we saw a lot of what usually happens the day after Election Day: The losing party tries to minimize the implications. The winner tries to maximize them.
This time, though, there are implications, potentially big ones, for both sides. We will hear more from President Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe shortly.
First, we're back with Republican strategist Liz Cheney.
So, Liz, what happened to the big tent? I mean, you used to hear Republicans talking about the big tent. Now there's this move to -- to purge moderates to -- to try to energize conservatives. Do you buy -- I mean, do you buy that there's a purge of moderates? And, if so, what happened to the big tent?
CHENEY: Well, I don't -- I don't buy your description of what happened, what's going on in the Republican Party.
I think that, you know, at the end of the day, what you saw last night was independents voting in a way that I would call conservative, independents saying, look, we don't want our government spending at a level that's going to, you know, result in a $1.4 trillion deficit. We don't want our government nationalizing, you know, huge segments of our economy.
We don't want our government...
COOPER: But they didn't do that in New York.
CHENEY: We don't want our government putting taxes on the middle class, like they're going to have to through the health care plan.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: But they didn't do that in New York. I mean, independents didn't do that in New York.
(CROSSTALK)
CHENEY: Well, I think -- well, but, you know, we talked about -- we talked about -- well, I think you ought to take a pretty close look at the number of independents that actually voted for the Conservative candidate there.
But -- but I think that the message for both parties and the message I suppose particularly for the Republicans, because we are in the opposition now, is, people want to know that their elected officials understand, you know, that the American people know better how to spend their money than the government does. They went to know that, you know, spending is going to be under control.
They want to know that the economy is going to grow and that the elected officials are going to be responsible stewards of that economy. And they don't like the way that President Obama is heading.
I think there's sort of no way that the White House can spin the results last night in a positive way for them, in a way that says people feel confident about the economy. Every poll you look at says they're concerned about it.
COOPER: But you have plenty of conservatives who, in the -- in the final years of -- of your dad's administration, President Bush's administration, were -- were outraged at the expense of money, at the growing deficits, of just the -- the huge expenditures, without -- you know, putting us in debt to -- to -- to China, which has, of course, now continued throughout the Obama administration.
CHENEY: No, you're right, Anderson. It's a very good point.
And I think that, you know, if you look at what happened at the end of the eight years, I -- I would say that, in some instances, particularly in Congress, but certainly also in some of the spending programs that we put in place in the Bush/Cheney administration, the conservatives have a point there.
I think that -- that, you know, people, whether you're Republican or a Democrat, folks out there who are voting, you know, they want you to be responsible about how you're spending taxpayer dollars. And they want you to keep spending down. They want you to keep deficits down. They want you to basically operate the federal government like you would your own checkbook at home and you own budget at home.
So, I think that, you know, these issues, particularly given the economic downturn we're facing and the fact that the president seems to want to use the downturn as an excuse to put in place sort of some drastic, very radical reforms to our economy, have people out there very concerned.
And I think, you know, the vote last night is something that should send a clear message to both parties in that regard.
COOPER: You really think the president is using the downturn to try to put in extreme policies that he wouldn't ordinarily haven't been able to get in? I mean, the White House says, look, very clearly, they didn't want to bail out the auto industry, they didn't want to deal with TARP, and have this -- you know, these huge expenditures.
CHENEY: Well, I think, you know, you saw Rahm Emanuel say exactly that, that you should never let a good crisis go to waste.
And I think, you know, when the president stands up and he says that the economic downturn, the economic crisis that we're facing is because we don't have, you know, reform in the health care system, because we don't have, essentially, nationalized health care, obviously, the voters out there, just, if you look at last night and every single poll you have seen before show you that the voters out there are very suspicious of that. They don't believe that.
COOPER: But -- but...
CHENEY: They don't believe that the solution to our economic crisis is to nationalize health care.
(CROSSTALK) COOPER: But the governor of Virginia is for health care reform.
CHENEY: That's right. And I think health care is important, but I think a big part of health care reform, if you ask the new governor of Virginia, for example, is tort reform, is litigation reform, medical liability reform, that would allow doctors to do their job, without having to pay massive amounts of money for liability insurance.
COOPER: But do...
CHENEY: And that's an issue that the Democrats won't touch.
COOPER: I do want to go back, though, to -- I mean, do you not believe that there is an ideological schism in the Republican Party, that there's a struggle going on for -- about the future of the Republican Party?
Because you listen to -- if you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, he is saying a very different message than -- than Michael Steele. I mean, Michael Steele today seemed to be criticizing outside involvement in this race in -- in New York.
CHENEY: I think we are a party that is clearly rebuilding. I mean, we really lost pretty significantly in 2008.
And I think that it's not unusual, and, in fact, it's healthy, to see the party going through what it's going through, which is figuring out, you know, who our leader is going to be in coming years, figuring out what are the key issues we're going to be focused on. I think it's something that you see pretty normally when a party is in opposition and has lost like we have.
So, obviously, I think there's change going on. I think it's good, it's healthy. But I think, at the end of the day, we have got to be focused on the substance of these issues and on -- you know, focus on making sure that people understand that we are the party that's going to be responsible in terms of the economy, in terms of national security, in terms of foreign policy, and, you know, proving to people that -- that we deserve their votes.
COOPER: Liz Cheney, appreciate you being on. Thanks.
CHENEY: Thanks, Anderson.
COOPER: Just head tonight: the national repercussions of another defeat at the ballot book for same-sex marriage.
Also tonight, "Keeping Them Honest": how authorities repeatedly -- repeatedly -- over 10 years, failed to keep track of convicted sex offender Phillip Garrido. There's a stinging new report out tonight on the man now charged with holding Jaycee Dugard captive while out on parole, officers who were supposed to be watching totally unaware of what was going on in this guy's own backyard.
We will be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Ahead on 360: a blistering report that describes how California authorities repeatedly dropped the ball, big time, and failed to keep track of accused rapist and kidnapper Phillip Garrido while he was on parole, missed opportunities, mistakes that may have cost Jaycee Dugard years of freedom.
First, some other important stories we're following -- Erica Hill has a 360 news and business bulletin.
ERICA HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, in Cleveland, authorities confirm an 11th victim's remains found at the home of a registered sex offender who was arraigned today on five counts of aggravated murder. Meantime, the coroner's office identified one of the victims as a 52-year-old woman who was reported missing last November.
The first shipment of H1N1 vaccine for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has arrived at a base in Qatar. But it is only 150,000 doses. And we say only because that is half the amount request. It's still unclear when the rest will arrive.
The Federal Reserve leaving its key interest rate near zero, where it's been since December 2008. The central bank said the economy remains weak, though it is improving.
And which would you prefer, a little jail time or how about some public humiliation? As you can see, a 56-year-old Pennsylvania woman and her daughter chose the latter, which meant standing outside a local courthouse for four-and-a-half hours holding signs that read, "I stole from a 9-year-old girl on her birthday. Don't steal, or this could happen to you."
The scene of their crime, a Wal-Mart, where they snatched a gift card the birthday girl had set on a shelf while shopping.
COOPER: Bizarre.
HILL: Nice, right?
COOPER: And the little girl's mom apparently drove -- said she was going to drive her by them holding the signs, as a lesson on obeying the law.
COOPER: Yikes.
HILL: Yes.
COOPER: All right.
Ahead on the program: what yesterday's elections mean for President Obama and the midterm races in 2010. We will have David Plouffe's take. He was President Obama's campaign manager. And he's written a revealing new book about last year's historic election. Also, later, fallout from the repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage law -- why some gay rights activists are angry at President Obama today, blaming him in part for the defeat in Maine.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Well, Liz Cheney had a lot to say about last night's Republican victories.
Now a man who has had very little to say about anything, despite an accomplishment that is literally historic, helping elect the first African-American president in American history. 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe is not a big talker. He tends to stay out of the spotlight. But he has written a new book, "The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory."
We spoke earlier about that and last night.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: I want to start off by talking about what happened last night.
Today, Nancy Pelosi, when asked about it, said, "We won."
Do you believe Democrats won last night?
PLOUFFE: Well, there were mixed results. Obviously, we won a historic victory up in New York 23, seat that has been held by the Republicans since the Civil War, lost Virginia and New Jersey.
I think, generally, every four years, there's a lot of hyperventilating about the long-term messages here.
No, I think the most important thing, actually, had nothing to do with the results. I think, if the effort that we saw in New York 23 to sort of purge moderates out of the Republican Party continues in other parts in the party, I think that's probably going to be problematic for the Republican Party long-term.
But I wouldn't over-read these results too much. Eight years ago, in fact, we won, our party, Virginia and New Jersey, right after 9/11. And the Republicans went on to have a great 2002. So, you know, life -- you know, next year is a lifetime, many lifetimes, in fact.
COOPER: If that is true, though...
PLOUFFE: Yes.
COOPER: ... if what happened in -- in the New York district, in 23, was the purging of moderates from the Republican Party, I mean, how do you explain, then, independents breaking now for Republicans in overwhelming numbers in New Jersey and in -- in Virginia?
PLOUFFE: Well, I think, you know, there weren't exits in New York 23. My guess is, when you look in the data, you will see independents broke pretty convincingly less up there.
I think that, listen, there's a cyclical nature to these races. We had held them both for a long time. I think the -- you know, Corzine was down 20 points or so not too long ago.
I think people are clearly concerned about the economy. If you look nationally, though, you know, independent voters -- the president's approval rating with independents actually is -- is quite strong. He won them by eight points in the election. In most polling, his gap in terms of fav/unfav is -- is -- is higher than that.
And the Republican Party with independents, you know, the problem for them is, they're at historic lows nationally, 23 percent, maybe, of people identifying as Republicans, largely because centrists...
COOPER: But the number of people identifying of conservatives is at a high of 40 percent, which is actually the biggest group, compared to liberals or -- or moderates.
PLOUFFE: Well, yes. I think, in one or two polls, that's -- that's the case.
COOPER: The Gallup poll.
PLOUFFE: But I think what you've got is, centrists and moderates have left the Republican Party. For the most part, they have gone to the independent pot. Some have gone to Democrat.
But, listen, the truth is, I do think they have got some structural issues. We, as a party, what we need to do here is deliver. We have got to get health care reform passed. Sadly, we're going to have to do that largely on Democratic votes. We have got to make the progress on energy, on financial reform.
COOPER: The fact that health care reform...
PLOUFFE: Yes.
COOPER: ... it seems now, is not going to happen this year -- or, yesterday, Harry Reid made a statement, a couple other Democrats as well -- how -- how big a problem is that? Because now it means...
PLOUFFE: Yes.
COOPER: ... you have people voting -- being asked to vote on health care, a very contentious issue, during a congressional cycle -- or race...
(CROSSTALK)
PLOUFFE: Well, we will see. I think that was walked back a little bit.
COOPER: Right.
PLOUFFE: But, you know, I think there has been a lot of discussion about the timing.
What matters is getting this done. And I would argue that, first of all, it's the right thing to do for the country. And we have got to get it done, because our economy won't grow without it.
I happen to believe the long-term politics are this. The economy will come back. In some ways, it is coming back, but it's obviously not trickling down enough to workers. But the economy comes back. A lot of the reason for that is the leadership the president showed, with very little Republican help.
Health care reform passes, death panels, loss of doctor choice, none of that stuff is going to happen. People are going to see cost savings. Insurance company abuse is reduced, and we're leading.
So, I think the long-term for our party here, I would argue the politics of this are quite good.
COOPER: But -- but health care is essential to all of that. I mean...
PLOUFFE: I would argue yes.
COOPER: ... the cost of not getting something done politically would be devastating.
PLOUFFE: I would argue the cost to the country, most importantly, is devastating.
I don't think -- listen, we're spending twice as much on health care as many of our competitors. We can't sustain that.
COOPER: But, politically, I mean, you're...
PLOUFFE: And, politically, of course. I mean, listen, my view is, if we don't get this done, we deserve the consequences. I think it's that important.
COOPER: What -- one of the things that really comes out in your book is this grassroot movement -- this grassroots movement, which you really created, and -- and the likes of which really had never been seen before built in the way that you built it.
What has happened to them? Where have they gone? Because there was this talk around the inauguration that, you know what, there would be this e-mailing list and there would be this huge grass -- grassroots movement which would remain out there that the Obama people could mobilize in the case of something like health care.
And, yes, a lot of people made calls, but it certainly didn't seem to bubble up as much as, say, tea party protests.
PLOUFFE: Well, the tea party protests were loud and irresponsible, so they got coverage on shows like yours.
What's happening out there, listen, the grassroots work we were doing in the election, there wasn't much media coverage of it in September, October. It was only after the election, when people saw what happened. We were doing quiet organizing. We weren't pounding our chest about it.
We have had two million people out there take action on health care. We had over 65,000 people visit congressional offices in August. What's -- and we're communicating directly with 13 million Americans.
So, they're in their everyday life out there talking about health care. Support for health care reform, by the way, has remained quite steady over a period of time here.
COOPER: All right.
David, I really am enjoying the book. Appreciate you being with us.
(CROSSTALK)
PLOUFFE: Thanks for having me on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: You can go to AC360.com for a breakdown of all of yesterday's election results.
Up next: another closely watched vote, Maine's rejection of same- sex marriage. Is President Obama partly to blame? Two sides of the debate square off about what happens next.
And, later, missed opportunity -- the man who allegedly held Jaycee Dugard for 18 years, a -- a scathing new report shows parole agents failed to properly supervise him over and over again. We're "Keeping Them Honest."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: In tonight's "Nation Divided" report, one of the most closely contested battles from yesterday ended with yet another loss for same-sex marriage advocates. It happened in Maine. By a thin margin, the state voted to reject a law legalizing same-sex marriage. And the outcome was a crushing defeat for gay rights supporters. For those against same-sex marriage, it was yet another victory that they say demonstrates the will of the people.
With us now, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and author of the book, "Public" -- "Personal Faith, Public Policy." Also with us is Evan Wolfson, an attorney, plus the founder and executive director of the organization Freedom to Marry, working for marriage equality nationwide.
Evan, advocates of same-sex marriage in Maine had more money, more volunteers. From your vantage point, what happened?
EVAN WOLFSON, FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM TO MARRY: Well, what happened is it's very difficult for a minority to persuade a majority to stop discriminating. And we came very close to persuading people in Maine to uphold the freedom to marry but didn't reach everybody in particularly the more rural corners of the state with the conversations, with the personal stories, with the making it real that we need to do in order to move hearts and minds. And we need to keep doing that work.
COOPER: Tony, same-sex marriage defeated in Maine, as Evan said, by a relatively small margin. Washington state, a domestic partnership law passed by almost an equally small margin. Did yesterday's results prove anything other than the fact that we're still very much a nation divided on this topic?
TONY PERKINS, PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, this is unique, Anderson. This was the 31st state where voters have had the chance, they have stood for traditional marriage.
But what's different here is you had a legislature that had special interest money come in, make some moves in the legislature. The legislature then created same-sex marriage. The first time we've had a legislature create it, followed by a vote of the people that have repudiated what the legislature did.
That's very significant, because this law had been passed. It was in a completely defensive posture, they had to go out and work to overturn what the legislature had done. That's significant. And also, it's significant, because I can imagine as a former legislator what some of the conversations were in Maine today.
These legislators who voted for this and in their districts, the voters went to the polls and overturned it. There's now an infrastructure there and there could be some political fallout to this.
COOPER: Evan, would it have made a difference if President Obama had -- had talked about this more or had talked about it at all, frankly?
WOLFSON: Well, President Obama does oppose these kinds of discriminatory measures restricting and repealing and stripping away rights. And it would have helped, I believe, had he spoken out more clearly.
But I also have to point out that Maine actually has a history of the legislature passing laws, the voters undoing them, the legislature passing them again, and the voters then supporting them. In fact, in the nondiscrimination law, the law protecting people against being fired in the workplace because of their sexual orientation, we had to pass the law three times before it got approved by the voters, and now the state is safer and better. That's precisely the kind of conversation.
COOPER: So do you think the legislature is going to take this up again in Maine?
WOLFSON: I have no doubt of that. And what Mr. Perkins left out in his reference to the politicians is that not a single elected official has lost his or her seat because of his or her stand in support of that in years.
PERKINS: That's -- and that's interesting, Evan, because there's -- up until now, it has been courts, it has been judges that has pushed same-sex marriage on the people, and the people haven't been able to hold anybody accountable.
That changes with Maine. In Maine, you know, Maine is in the northeast. It's a liberal-leaning state. And so this is unique in that the voters went to this much trouble. Even though they were outspent 2-1, they stood for the traditional definition of marriage.
And this is going to have ramifications on other state legislators, I think, even as close as New York and New Jersey, where the legislators are going to think twice before they pick up this special interest agenda.
WOLFSON: Actually, I think what we're going to see as other states move forward to end seclusion, because they've been hearing from the families in their districts, in their states, in their communities that denying the freedom to marry hurts those families and helps no one.
And this is not a question of standing for traditional marriage. Traditional marriage means respect for love and commitment and dedication and self-sacrifice, and that's exactly what these committed couples in Maine hope to do some day. And they will be able to do it, some day.
PERKINS: The definition of marriage has been proven throughout history. It's the union of men and women. It's not...
WOLFSON: Actually, that's not true. Men and women is closer to it, but actually, Mr. Perkins, marriage is not defined by who is denied it. Marriage is defined by the commitment that people make and their willingness to take on the rules and responsibilities. And that's what these families in Maine are seeking to do.
PERKINS: And what society has done is put boundaries on what marriage is. I'm not free to marry whoever I want; nor are you. There -- society has seek -- sought to give a certain status to marriage, because it has benefits it gives to society when it raises children. And children benefit when they're with a mom and dad.
WOLFSON: And denying...
PERKINS: And society has seen that through -- I mean, it's in the anthropological -- in the record of history, and we're seeing society staying with that tradition.
WOLFSON: Actually -- actually, denying the couples in Maine who are raising kids the safety and security of marriage does nothing to help anyone else's kids, but it does harm their kids. And that's part of the conversation we need to... PERKINS: We need to realize that this is not just about the freedom to marry. It's about losing the freedom to teach your own kids your own beliefs. It's about your freedom to speak freely without intimidation, as we've seen by some of your cohorts in Maine and California.
WOLFSON: That's simply not true.
PERKINS: No, it is.
WOLFSON: You're trying -- Mr. Perkins, trying to make yourself the victim, when your organization funded an attack to strip away rights from other families, rings a little false. What happened today...
PERKINS: The voters saw through it.
WOLFSON: ... what happened today is that some families -- excuse me, what happened today is that some families were denied important protections, although they came very close to persuading their neighbors to stand with them. And in the conversations ahead, more people will move in fairness, just as so many other Americans have.
COOPER: Tony, let me ask you. Do you -- I mean, with each of these races that we have seen so far and as you said, I mean, every time the voters have voted against supporting same-sex marriage, but the -- but the percentages are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Do you believe the tide of history is moving against your position?
PERKINS: No. I mean, look at what we're talking about, Anderson. We're talking about Maine, the northeast corner, a very liberal part of the state. The last time we saw this was California.
I mean, these are states where they thought it was a foregone conclusion that same-sex marriage was going to take root and be established there. They were shocked.
We saw, and I was on your show talking about it after California, it was a shock, it was a huge shock that the voters in California rejected court-imposed same-sex marriage. Same thing in Maine. And if you look at -- if you look at the polling data nationally, it's over 60 percent of Americans who are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage.
WOLFSON: Well, actually, that's not true. But actually when the Supreme...
PERKINS: Yes, it is.
WOLFSON: No, it isn't. But when the Supreme Court struck down race restrictions on marriage in 1967, 70 percent of the American people opposed that.
PERKINS: That's not the same thing. I mean, that's not the same. We're talking about redefining marriage. You're talking about redefining marriage.
WOLFSON: No, actually...
PERKINS: Yes, you are.
COOPER: We're out of time. But Evan, I want to give you the final thought to just respond to that statement (ph).
WOLFSON: Thank you. When the couple across the street is able to marry and have those protections and take on those responsibilities, it doesn't change or threaten anyone else's marriage.
COOPER: All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Evan Wolfson, appreciate it. Tony Perkins, it's a good discussion. Thank you very much.
A special program note, let you know about a "360" special investigation premiering next Tuesday. Our report reveals the surprising reason behind the killings of four Iraqi prisoners shot execution-style at a canal in Baghdad. They were gunned down by three U.S. Army sergeants.
One of the last soldiers to see the men alive described how his first sergeant feared there was not enough evidence to keep the detainees locked up. Soldiers told CNN military rules actually favored the enemy.
Special investigations unit correspondent Abbie Boudreau asked former Private First Class Joshua Hartset what happened before the men were killed.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My first sergeant comes up to me, pulls me away from everybody. Then he asked me, if we take them to a detainee facility, the Diha (ph), that they'll be right back on the streets doing the same thing in a matter of weeks. He asked if I had a problem if we take care of him, and I told him no.
ABBIE BOUDREAU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And what do you think he meant by that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To kill them.
BOUDREAU: How would you be OK with that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were bad guys. If we were to let them go or take them in, we risked the chance of them getting out and killing us, killing other people.
BOUDREAU: And did any of them speak English?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The one on my right did.
BOUDREAU: So did you try talking to him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I talked to him.
BOUDREAU: What did he say?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I asked him if he killed Americans, made bombs, and he laughed about the questions.
BOUDREAU: What did that tell you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, he did. And apparently it's funny; he enjoys it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, the four Iraqis were lined up next to a canal and shot. All three sergeants were eventually convicted of premeditated murder. It's a difficult case, and we're going to take a hard look at the Army's policy for detainee prisoners in our four-part investigation next week. "Killings at the Canal: The Army Tapes" begins on Tuesday on 360.
Coming up next, how sex offender Phillip Garrido fell off the radar, even though he was on parole. New details, and major missed opportunities. We're talking over the course of ten years, failures by law enforcement that could have led to Jaycee Dugard's discovery years earlier. Who should have been watching? We're "Keeping Them Honest" tonight.
And a bombshell for well, Carrie Prejean. Her problems keep on coming. The latest discovery made -- well, I don't know if anything will surprise you at this point in the story, but we'll tell you about it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Tonight, new outrage in a story that was already profoundly disturbing. In California today, a state inspector general issued a scathing report describing how corrections officers failed to do their job and supervise Phillip Garrido, a convicted sex offender who, of course, is now charged with kidnapping, raping and imprisoning Jaycee Dugard for 18 years.
The report is a litany of missed opportunities and outright mistakes. In a word, it is damning. Randi Kaye is "Keeping Them Honest," joins us live with details.
Randi, what kind of mistakes did authorities make?
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Where do I start, Anderson, really is the question?
The state of California has reviewed the case and found that parole officers, quote, "missed numerous opportunities" to discover Jaycee Dugard while supervising Phillip Garrido.
Imagine this: the review found officers failed to investigate utility wires running from Garrido's house toward the shed in that secret backyard. That filthy, dilapidated shed is where Dugard and her children, allegedly fathered by Garrido himself, were being held.
Also, the review found officers failed to investigate why a 12- year-old girl was on the property during a visit, which would clearly violate the terms of Garrido's release as a sex offender who was on parole from January 1988 until August when Dugard was discovered.
This after the Department of Corrections held a press conference to give parole agents who had supervised Garrido a big pat on the back. That was the day after his arrest.
COOPER: It's amazing, when you read this report. It is a litany of the world failure. They -- I mean, failed, failed, failed over the course of ten years. In terms of monitoring this guy, there was also a huge number of failures.
KAYE: Absolutely. First of all, California's inspector general, who handled this review, found that the Corrections Department failed to train parole agents how to properly conduct home visits. Even worse, it found after Garrido was placed on GPS supervision in April 2008, agents ignored repeated instances when he traveled outside the 25-mile radius that he was not supposed to leave or when the device simply stopped functioning.
Now take a look at this picture. Each red dot that you're looking at represents a track of the ankle bracelet worn by Garrido. Now, in one period, the signal for the GPS device was lost 335 times. And 276 of those times, agents simply ignored the malfunction; ignored it 276 times.
In 59 of those cases, the review found agents acknowledged that the signal had been lost but took no action.
Now, if agents had reviewed these red dots, the tracks, the state says they would have noticed Garrido spending a significant amount of time in the concealed compound behind his house.
And there's more. The review discovered huge gaps in time where Garrido wasn't even monitored. The state found, quote, "frequent gaps," some of them lasting nearly a year between face-to-face visits.
And get this: according to the state, Garrido was, quote, only properly supervised 12 out of 123 months that the state supervised him. That is a failure, Anderson, a failure rate of 90 percent.
COOPER: And it wasn't just the state. There were federal authorities who were playing a role in the supervision, right?
KAYE: Yes, the state parole officers were in charge of monitoring Garrido from June 1999 until Dugard and her children were discovered in August. But before that, because of previous sex offenses, Garrido was under the jurisdiction of federal parole officers, even at the time when he allegedly kidnapped Dugard, back in 1991. He had been out on parole, and the federal officers were supposed to be watching him. The report says federal authorities failed to detect his criminal conduct.
And this all really started, says the state, when Garrido was classified as a low-risk sex offender when his history really should have resulted in a high-risk label. That mistake, as the inspector general called it, Anderson, set the tone for many mistakes to come.
COOPER: Yes, it's unbelievable. Randi Kaye, "Keeping Them Honest." Randi, thanks.
Let's talk about this report with legal analysts Jeffrey Toobin and Lisa Bloom, as well.
You know, Jeffrey, I thought this GPS monitor, I mean, I kind of had faith in it. This report says that it provides the public, quote, "a false sense of security."
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's really an interesting lesson in the limits of technology. Because, you know, the voters had a voter initiative under California's peculiar system that established this system of monitoring for sex offenders.
But you can have all the technology you want imposed, but if people don't know how to use it, they don't have the resources to use it, or they're not competent to use it and don't bother, the technology itself is worthless. And that's what happened here.
COOPER: And they ignore when it breaks down, you know, more than 200 times in a short period of time. Who's accountable here, Lisa? Are there any legal ramifications?
LISA BLOOM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I don't see any lawsuits against the state if that's what you're driving at, because the parole agents and law enforcement generally have immunity for mistakes that they make on the job. Otherwise, we could sue the police every day for failing to detect crimes.
But what is very important about this report are the recommendations for better supervision, better monitoring. And Jeffrey's absolutely right. This technology is only as good as the humans who follow up on it.
I mean, this report also concludes that Phillip Garrido was active between midnight and 7 a.m., traveling around when he wasn't supposed to be during that time period. He would travel more than 25 miles outside of his home area, which he was not allowed to do without permission.
There were numerous parole violations that he was engaging in. The information was right there on the computers for the parole officers. They just failed to detect it.
COOPER: Well, also, Jeff, that parole agents, turns out, aren't trained or weren't trained for home visits. TOOBIN: What? It's a 45-page report. On virtually every page that I read, I thought, "Well, that's why we have parole officers. That's the purpose."
It reminded me of just a week ago when the SEC -- the report about the SEC missing Bernie Madoff, that it all seemed so obvious, and it so much seemed at the core of their mission that -- look, anybody can make a mistake. We all make mistakes. But the systemic failure here...
COOPER: Over ten years.
TOOBIN: ... over ten years, just seemed incomprehensible to me. Just like failing to catch Bernie Madoff was an -- incomprehensible for the SEC.
COOPER: Lisa, are these kind of problems with parole officers common? I mean, does California have some sort of unusually high caseload?
BLOOM: Well, they have about one parole officer for every 50 parolees, according to my math, based on this report. That doesn't give us a lot of information, though, because we don't know if some parolees might have a high level of monitoring.
But there was one detail that really grabbed me in this report, Anderson, and that is in 1991, shortly after Jaycee was kidnapped, apparently, she told a child neighbor through the fence, "My name is Jaycee." And the child knew that. Right after that Phillip Garrido came out, took her away from talking to this other child, took her into the house and immediately built the 8-foot-high fence all around the property, including the compound.
Nobody ever talked to the neighbors. No parole office interviewed the parents. No parole officer interviewed the children. Talking to the neighbors seems like a pretty basic thing that we could expect parole officers to do. Some parole officers didn't even talk to the neighbors who complained, who called and said there is something strange goings on with children in this backyard. I mean, this is just a colossal failure across the board.
COOPER: Yes. It's unbelievable. Lisa, Bloom, appreciate it.
Jeff Toobin, thanks very much.
Next, a presidential gathering canceled. Why was a joint event featuring Bill Clinton and George W. Bush called off? We'll tell you.
And Carrie Prejean caught on tape. Oh, Carrie, Carrie, Carrie. She's dropped her lawsuit against pageant officials about, you know, her augmentation surgery, but only after they dropped a bombshell. We'll tell you what changed the game ahead. You're going to be surprised.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Time to get caught up in some other important stories we're covering tonight. Erica Hill has a "360 Bulletin" -- Erica.
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Anderson, the Senate voting unanimously to extend unemployment benefits for up to 20 weeks. That Bill would also expand the $8,000 tax credit for homebuyers. And that would be for those who sign a contract by April 30 and close by June 30.
The legislation will now go to the House, which is also expected to approve it, and from there it will be sent to President Obama to sign.
Here in New York, an event featuring former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton canceled. Both men dropped out of the event because the promoter over-hyped the appearance as a debate. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton says it was just going to be a moderated conversation, no fireworks.
And the one-time Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, remember her?
COOPER: Sure.
HILL: Maybe vaguely? Apparently, she doesn't have to worry about paying for her $5,200 boob job, because Miss USA pageant officials have dropped their lawsuit seeking that money. She has dropped her lawsuit against the pageant, too. Why?
COOPER: Why?
HILL: Well, the deal is confidential, Anderson, but a source close to the settlement tells CNN the agreement happened after a sex tape featuring Prejean surfaced.
COOPER: What?
HILL: Yes.
COOPER: What?
HILL: According to TMZ, she's alone on it.
COOPER: Really?
HILL: Yes.
COOPER: Please.
HILL: And apparently, she's got a book coming out, so look for more. We're not done with her yet. But the next Miss California USA to be crowned November 22.
COOPER: Really?
HILL: Set your TiVo.
COOPER: OK, we'll be watching. For tonight's "Shot," Erica, say your dog has had a tough day, needs to unwind, a little tense. Well, if so, Mary Jean Balner (ph) can help. She's an expert on dog massages. She has some tips, watch.
HILL: Be afraid.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are four massage speeds. Let's start with no-mo. During a no-mo moment, bonding occurs just from being together. So actually encourage no-mo moments like this.
Slow-mo, which means slow motion. Leisurely is a medium speed. Fast and frisky, this speed stimulates the nervous system. It really wakes up your dog.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: As you can see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Maybe not Henry Winkler but most dogs.
Continue waving down the neckline. And call it waving down the back. As you can see, massage techniques...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: You know, if she looks familiar, there's a good reason. Remember the cat massage video?
COOPER: No.
HILL: That was Mary Jean, too.
COOPER: Really?
We found this on YouTube. Mary Jean Balner (ph), not...
HILL: There it is. She's the author of two books, Anderson, on both cat and dog massages.
COOPER: We should point out, she's not only a licensed massage therapist. She's also an author.
And I want to warn people: please don't try this at home, unless you are fully, you know, feel you're fully capable of doing the frisky -- what was the frisky one called?
HILL: Fast and frisky, which wasn't waking up Henry Wrinkler.
COOPER: All right. That's about it for us tonight. Believe it or not, how both sides A few minutes from now, believe it or not, how both sides are spinning the election results. Both parties in 2010 and maybe more dog massages ahead. Who knows?
