Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
Could Trent Lott Have Saved Himself And His Leadership Post?
Aired December 20, 2002 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN HOST: And good evening, again, everyone.
We assume only Democrats are shedding tears that the Lott affair has ended. Well, perhaps a few news editors are, as well. There's nothing like a good story over the holidays, and the Lott matter was better than good.
It was a real story. At its core it was about an important and difficult issue in American life. And no one died. A career ended, but losing a big office and a lot of perks is hardly a death sentence.
There is one nagging question that remains: Why did it take so long? Trent Lott's affection for his good old days was hardly a secret. He'd been saying similar things for years. He praised the membership of a neosegregationist group and it hardly caused a flutter. He extolled his affection for the Confederacy and its leader, and he was re-elected majority leader time and again.
Even this fiasco would likely have passed with little fuss had it not been for young conservative reporters and commentators, both black and white. It wasn't a mainstream press, by and large, or liberal commentators who brought Trent Lott down. It was largely the work of conservatives, the Robert Pages, Andrew Sullivans, Deroy Murdocks, Stephen (AUDIO GAP) and others.
If you really followed the story you could not help but be impressed, not simply by the power of their arguments, but by the intensity of their anger. They were weary of hearing that conservative and racism are one and the same. And now they and we and you have an opportunity to engage in a fuller debate on the issues of race in America. And the debate will be better should it actually happen for their inclusion, perhaps even leadership in the discussion.
And it is the last chapter of the Lott affair that leads "The Whip" tonight. CNN's Jonathan Karl has that.
Jon, a headline from you, please.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's over. Senator Trent Lott is out. And Bill Frist is in.
BROWN: Jon, back to you at the top tonight. The White House relief that at least one distraction is gone, which leaves Iraq. Suzanne Malveaux has the duty tonight.
Suzanne, a headline from you.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Middle East peace. It's a single vision of two states, Palestinians and Israelis living side by side peacefully to be established in three years. But the administration recognizing it is going to take more than a ceasefire to jump start this Middle East peace process. The administration is first going to have to deal with a defiant Iraq.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.
Reaction to situation in Iraq, CNN's Rym Brahimi is there. A headline from you tonight.
RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Iraqi officials are saying that this is all a political game, Aaron. They're saying that the U.S. has no evidence. The words they use, the U.S. has nothing to pin us on.
BROWN: And we'll get back to you in a moment, as well.
And finally in "The Whip" tonight, Wall Street, a large fine, much in the same way a tidal wave is just moisture we guess.
Allan Chernoff has been working this. So Allan, a headline from you tonight.
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wall street firms agree to pay $1.5 billion to cut a deal with regulators. But will it be enough to bring investors back to the stock market?
BROWN: Allan, thank you.
Back to all of you shortly.
Also coming up on the program, cutting the state budget by cutting inmates loose from the state pen. It's going on in Kentucky. Other states are looking at the idea, as well. These are tough fiscal times for state governments, which cannot run deficits.
Bob Costas here tonight to talk about the year in sports and who knows what else.
And we'll close out the evening and the week with a visit from "the Wall Street Journal's "wine couple." It's been that kind of a week. That kind of a year.
All of that to come in the hour ahead.
We begin with Trent Lott's resignation as Senate Republican leader. To our ears a quiet ending to a noisy and ugly episode. His resignation came in a written statement issued by his office in Washington, Mr. Lott home in Mississippi.
As we said this ends an episode, but not the larger drama about who comes next in the political fallout, if any. We'll spend some time on this tonight. We begin with the news of the day and CNN's Jonathan Karl.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (voice-over): Trent Lott could fight, but he couldn't win. He bowed out with a simple written statement.
"In the interest of pursuing the best possible agenda for the future of our country, I will not seek to remain as majority leader."
Just hours before, Lott's office insisted he would fight on, something Lott had been telling his colleagues up until Thursday night.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just didn't make sense to him that for this one statement, he was going to be run out of office. And he was prepared to dig in and go all out.
KARL: But one by one, Lott's fellow Republicans started telling him as early as Wednesday that the controversy raised issues more important than personal loyalty.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: I related to him that this issue was more than politics, and it was much more than personalities. The issue had become an issue about the heart and soul of the Republican party.
KARL: And Lott's strongest allies gave him the bad news. He just didn't have enough votes.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY: This has really been a nightmare for those of us in the Republican conference in the Senate, and for Senator Lott. He did the courageous and correct thing this morning in stepping aside.
KARL: With Lott out, Republicans acted quickly. Within three and a half hours, Tennessee's Bill Frist was a lock as a leader, securing more than enough votes to replace Lott.
Even Lott's staunchest defender would move swiftly to support the man who helped bring him down.
MCCONNELL: I think it's important that we not have a contest in the middle of Christmas for the new leader and I've endorsed Senator Bill Frist.
KARL: The damaged leader is out, the Republican infighting over. But the Democrats are determined to use the Lott controversy to taint the Republican party on race.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (R-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Just because Senator Lott stepped down, doesn't mean that we're rid of the issue.
KARL: Back home in Pascagoula, Lott's wife delivered a note to news crews, saying he would have no further comment, adding, please go home. The note was written on majority leader stationery.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: President Bush reacted to the news saying he respected the decision, and saying -- calling Senator Lott a valued friend and a man I respect. Those were exactly the kind of words we did not hear out of the president while this controversy raged on, and while Trent Lott was trying to fight for his political life -- Aaron.
BROWN: Let's talk about the White House a little bit and what the White House did and did not do here. It's not so much that they encouraged the end, it's that they did nothing to prevent it.
KARL: That's exactly right. I mean, the big thing happened, of course, when the president came out, condemned the remarks and then said nothing about whether or not the Republicans should continue to have Trent Lott as their leader.
Ari Fleischer, the press secretary, said the president did not believe Lott needed to resign, but said nothing about the leadership struggle. So that was seen as a signal that they could go up here and go all-out to remove Trent Lott and replace him.
BROWN: And any -- how did it all sort of come down today? Why today did it end?
KARL: Well, the big developments happened shortly before NEWSNIGHT last night, when you had a situation where Bill Frist officially came out and said that he would be a candidate to replace Trent Lott.
And then you had John Warner, a respected old bull committee chairman coming out and saying that he would lead the fight for Bill Frist. That was the writing on the wall. That's when everybody realized, not Trent Lott at first, but all his allies realized there was no way he would have enough support.
BROWN: And Jon, very quickly, does Trent Lott get anything out of this deal? Does he get a committee chairmanship or is he just one more member of the Republican caucuses now?
KARL: He's just a relatively junior member right now. They may try to give him something later, but he got no promises.
BROWN: Jon, thank you. Terrific work on this. Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill for us tonight.
We'll have more on the ramifications of Senator Lott's decision a bit later in the program. We'll bat things around with conservative columnist Robert George, and then later get the political read from CNN's Jeff Greenfield and Judy Woodruff. So that's coming up in just a bit.
On to Iraq now. President Bush weighing in today on the Iraqi declaration, even as he took perhaps one last run at another huge problem in the Middle East.
Here again, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice-over): A warning to Saddam Hussein -- cooperate and disarm. President Bush met with the quartet -- Russia, the European union and the United Nations to discuss paving the way for Middle East peace. A big part of that: confronting a defiant Iraq. Mr. Bush says Saddam Hussein's declaration of its alleged weapons program falls short of what the U.N. Security Council resolution requires: full disclosure.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We expect Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. Yesterday's document was not encouraging. We expected him to show that he would disarm and, as the secretary of state said, it's a long way from there.
MALVEAUX: So far from disarming, Secretary Powell said Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, strong language that may, further down the road, trigger military action.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: This declaration fails totally to move us in the direction of a peaceful solution.
MALVEAUX: The problem, the White House says, is that Iraq's declaration doesn't account for many components that have been identified by weapons inspectors back in 1998, like shells, VX nerve gas and anthrax. White House aides say in the weeks to come the administration will push for weapons inspectors to enter into an aggressive auditing phase to get Iraq to show how it has destroyed its weapons stockpiles. But already, there is frustration and even criticism from the international inspection team, that the United States is not providing the intelligence needed to help catch Iraqi violations.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We would like to have clues as to where U.S. and other countries's intelligence feel they know that the Iraqis are storing weapons of mass destruction.
MALVEAUX: Evidence, the White House says, that will come in due time as it weighs its options for a possible war with Iraq.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We'll continue to work with them to provide them information. The one thing we won't do is do anything -- around the world, not just in Iraq but around the world -- to compromise sources or methods.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: And late today, the president postponed his trip to Africa, which was scheduled for mid-January, the White House saying that it was domestic, as well as international considerations for rescheduling the trip.
A senior White House administration official telling me that there are a number of reasons, but most notably that the president had to monitor the developments in Iraq -- Aaron. BROWN: Can you tell us any more about this decision not to share the intelligence and is it as simple as not wanting to blow sources and methods?
MALVEAUX: Well, the White House says that it's actually not that simple. They don't want to blow their sources or their methods. But one of the main considerations here is that if the president does decide to use military action, if there is a war with Iraq, that those same sites that they actually point out to the inspectors, if they tip their hand to Iraq, those same sites may be the sites that they end up targeting if, in fact, they use military action.
So that is not the kind of information that they want to give to Iraq until it's absolutely necessary.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you very much. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.
The president is counting on British support in a war with Iraq. He now knows with some certainty he can't count on full support from British editorial writers.
This is the front page of today's "London Daily Mirror." The editorial inside calls President Bush a bigger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein.
Now there are lots of papers in London and lots of points of view. "The Mirror" gives you a sense that debate over there is heating up, as it may well over here in the days ahead.
Front pages in Baghdad on the other hand, pretty much all say the same thing, to say otherwise would be more than just a bad career move. So with that in mind, we turn once again to CNN's Rym Brahimi in Baghdad where they'll soon be reading the morning papers there.
BRAHMI: Yes, Aaron.
Well, so far the paper -- editorial in the papers we've seen in the past few days have said pretty much what they've said in the past few weeks, which was that they knew the U.S. was going to try and find any pretext to attack Iraq. One of the latest things they've said in those editorials, Aaron, interestingly, they've said that the U.S. administration was trying to find some pretext because it had failed in Afghanistan and failed the American people with the economy.
Now, that declaration that Iraq gave over to the United Nations Security Council has created a lot of noise, as you know. A lot of controversy. Iraq saying that the U.S. has no evidence when it alleges that Iraq -- that there are still weapons of mass destruction. Also saying that this is all a political game, that if they have questions -- if anyone has questions, why don't they come forward and ask the Iraqis? They will be happy to answer.
That declaration, Aaron, has also given the inspectors here on the ground more sites to visit. They've intensified their work in the past few days. A couple more inspectors arrived ,so that brings the team up to 115 here on the ground.
They went to several sites, despite this being the Muslim day of rest, Aaron. They went to a site they already visited six times, the nuclear experts. They also went to another site checking on radiation levels. So a lot of activity on that field.
The people, Aaron, well, pretty much the same line, as well. They say, We knew it. The Americans are going to try to find a pretext. What they've been saying is, Well, we know that the Americans are after our oil. They're not interested in disarmament. But they say they're just not surprised with the American reaction -- Aaron.
BROWN: There are a couple of big stories on this here this week. I'm curious if they got reported there.
One is that a war plan might go in a very end of January or the first part of February. And the other is that Saddam has a Scorched Earth plan should a war begin. Either getting reported there?
BRAHIMI: Well, the first one you mention, Aaron, that's something that they've been well aware of, and it's something that they've made quite public. A lot of newspaper editorials, again, on the subject.
And also very regularly, the foreign minister of Iraq, Naji Sabri, writes to the United Nations saying it is unacceptable. This is what the U.S. is trying to do. Only a couple of days ago, Aaron, he wrote a letter to the United Nations, for instance, to Kofi Annan, complaining that the United States had released millions of dollars to encourage the opposition in London, and basically do something illegal in the view of the Iraqis against Iraq.
Now, the people here don't know necessarily about the second plans you mentioned. And that's because it's also very difficult for us to know. I'm in Baghdad, Aaron, and I don't see anything here. I hear all you're telling me but I really don't see any specific plans. All I know is people are aware there are serious military plans on the side of the United States. And they're just looking to prepare themselves. Do I take my countries to the countryside is what they're asking themselves. If something happens, Do I stay in town? Do I leave the country? these are the basic things that people are aware of right now -- Aaron.
BROWN: Rym, thank you very much. Thank you. Rym Brahimi in Baghdad tonight.
We go to Wall Street next. You may remember it is a place where early retirement was only a dollar, a dream and a hot tip away. Wait, that sounds a lot like a race track. Only it turns out the race track was a lot more honest.
On Wall Street, many of the touts (ph) were crooked and in some places the house had a thumb on the scale. Now to be fair, none of this seemed especially important three years ago when everyone felt like they were getting rich. But today, with customers a lot scarcer, and wiser, and brokerage houses can no longer afford to treat them like pigeons. But just to make sure everyone gets the message, regulators have tightened the screws and today settled with Wall Street on a huge fine.
For those of you who keep score on such matters, federal overseers here were not overseeing. It was the New York State Attorney General who uncovered the scams.
Here again, CNN's Allan Chernoff.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHERNOFF (voice-over): The settlement is intended to clean up Wall Street's conflict of interest scandal. Analysts courting investment banking business at the expense of individual investors.
ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL: This has been only about one thing. It has been about ensuring that retail investors get a fair shake.
CHERNOFF: The deal will force new restrictions on major brokerage firms, a split of research and investment banking divisions,a ban on granting initial public offerings to corporate executives, with power to hire investment bankers and a requirement to distribute independent research to clients.
RICHARD GRASSO, NYSE CHAIRMAN: In '03, we want to begin with a fresh slate, a clean business model. Practices that have been uncovered will not be tolerated.
CHERNOFF: Ten of the biggest investment companies will pay $900 million in fines. The biggest chunk, one-third, to come from Salomon Smith Barney. The firms will pay $450 million to support third party independent research for five years. And $85 million is slated for investor education.
Investors today on Wall Street were applauding.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's way past due, and I think there's been a lot of greed involved, and all the big corporations around the country.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were telling people to buy those stocks. And you had a personal relationship.
JACK GRUBMAN, FMR. SALOMON TELECOM ANALYST: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No?
CHERNOFF: Former Salomon telecom analyst Jack Grubman also reached a tentative settlement, calling for him to pay $15 million and be banned from the securities business for life.
And other investment executives may face charges in the continuing investigation. SPITZER: We will be continuing to look where the evidence persuades us that there is scrutiny that is worth pursuing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHERNOFF: The settlements should be finalized within several weeks. Now, they offer no protection against private investor lawsuits, and, in fact, the brokers and Mr. Grubman are facing many class action suits from angry investors who will certainly want to see these reforms well in place before they regain much confidence in the stock market -- Aaron.
BROWN: What were the arguments that the brokerage houses made in support of the way they were doing business?
CHERNOFF: They basically felt that they were offering quality research, lots of investigation.
But the bottom line is, they really couldn't justify these conflicts of interest. They couldn't make a good argument to the regulators.
BROWN: That always makes it harder to defend yourself.
Thank you, Mr. Chernoff. Have a nice weekend.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, more on the Lott resignation. And a little bit later, Kentucky is letting prisoners out of jail because it's too darn expensive to keep them there.
That and more as NEWSNIGHT continues on a Friday from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: It has become a truism, but it also happens to be true that the foot that shoved Trent Lott out of the Republican leadership belongs to an elephant, not a donkey.
The anti-Lott rallying cry came first and strongest from the pages of "The Weekly Standard," "The Wall Street journal," others, including from columnist Robert George who makes his home at the "Post" and was one of the first shots fired. We're glad to have him with us again tonight.
ROBERT GEORGE, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK POST: Good to be back.
BROWN: All's well that ends well? Is that how to look at this?
GEORGE: Yes, I think so. This certainly there was some short- term damage, I think, to the image of the Republican party and conservatives.
But, Lott's final stepping aside in this and everybody rallying around Frist, I think, is going to kind of nip that in the bud.
And obviously you've got the holidays coming up. Iraq, people will start to move on.
BROWN: Short attention span. Has anything changed?
GEORGE: I think -- I think there -- I think a couple of things have changed. I think the country saw a clear signal that, you know, this kind of either racial insensitivity or racial blindness, if you will, is intolerable.
And you really had this -- as you pointed out, there was a strong coalition from both the left and the right saying that Lott's original statement was -- was horrendous, and his apologies just didn't -- just didn't cut it. And he could not stay in a leadership position in the Republican Party.
BROWN: Once he said it, was there anything he could have done to save himself, to you?
GEORGE: I think, if he had -- if he had made, I don't know whether it was apology three or four...
BROWN: I know. It was hard to keep track, wasn't it?
GEORGE: Yes. By the time he was on BET, he was apologizing for dreaming of a white Christmas -- getting a little out of control.
No, I think if he had made -- if he had made a statement -- if he had made the original statement I think that Friday when he was in Mississippi, recognizing, you know, how immoral segregation was, and that he had said something like, you know, I shouldn't have even been making a joking reference about that.
If he had said that on day one or day two, or when the media started paying attention, he may have been able to save himself. But by then, by the time the Friday one came around I think it was just too little, too late.
BROWN: If the only people who had spoken out were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, and Tom Daschle.
GEORGE: He'd still be here.
BROWN: He'd still be there, wouldn't he?
GEORGE: He would still be there.
BROWN: So what -- what is the importance here, then, that it was "The Standard," "The Post," you guys...
GEORGE: "National review."
BROWN: "National review," certainly, and Andrew Sullivan, others. What is the importance of that in a broader understanding of a discussion on race in America?
GEORGE: Well, conservatives feel that while Democrats and liberals had been on the right side of history when it came to race in the '50s and into the '60s, the Democratic Party has gotten so involved in kind of identity politics, and what we feel are racial preferences and affirmative action and so forth, that they no longer have the high ground, but that conservatives who believe in the ideas of equal opportunity and not selecting by race, we are now -- we now have the high ground.
So when you have a sitting United States senator who's in a leadership position in the Republican Party, seeming to wax nostalgic about the days of segregation, it is anathema to what the modern-day conservatives believe.
And so -- as you said, Andrew Sullivan noticed it almost immediately. And then, of course, you had individuals like myself who, in my previous life, working for the Republican Party, working on things like, you know, outreach and trying to, in a sense, send a message to the African-American community that Republican policies can be effective, you know, we saw so much of our work in a sense being endangered. Because you had a senator almost becoming the very stereotype that Democrats tried to portray Republicans as.
BROWN: It was, from where we sat, fascinating to watch how it played out, the role that you and others played in it. Thanks for coming in. It's good to talk to you. Good to meet you.
GEORGE: Good to see you again.
BROWN: Have a good holiday.
GEORGE: You too. Thank you.
BROWN: Thank you very much. Robert Page.
Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, an election year reunion -- yes, election night reunion. CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield, "INSIDE POLITICS" Judy Woodruff join us to talk a little bit more about the politics of the Lott affair.
Later in the program, we'll be joined by preeminent sports anchor in television, pretty good journalist too, I must say, Bob Costas. That and more on a Friday night. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Continuing our discussion of Trent Lott, talk about politics of it all, we're joined by Jeff Greenfield here in New York, and in Washington, by the host of CNN's "INSIDE POLITICS," Judy Woodruff.
Good to see you both.
Judy, the white house was pretty sensitive about being seen as having fringerprints on this, right?
JUDY WOODRUFF, ANCHOR, "INSIDE POLITICS": Very sensitive, Aaron.
But there's no doubt from the very beginning that the White House -- I'd say from about three days after this happened when Trent Lott didn't come out with a significant apology, I just heard you talking to Robert George about this, and I agree with him.
If Trent Lott had come in the day or two or three after this happened and made a really significant apology, he might have been able to avoid it. When he did not do that, the White House viewed him as an albatross. The president went out, you know, that week, and made a very damning statement about him. And you never really heard anything very supportive after that.
It was damning with faint praise. You remember they said, We don't want to see him resign. But they never said anything positive about him, either. The nicest thing we've heard from the White House has been the statement they put out today after he had stepped down.
BROWN: Jeff, do you think there was anything he could have done to save himself at nay point in the process?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Not after the second or third go-around. Because I think what happened was that, that the quality of what Senator Lott had to say, it was almost like a time warp. Almost like that Lenny Bruce routine about the liberal at the cocktail party who doesn't know how to talk to a black person and says things like, "That Joe Lewis was a hell of a fighter."
That coupled with the fact that conservatives like Robert George and Charlie Krauthammer and Bill Bennett and "The Weekly Standard" and Peggy Noonan all weighed in, which made it impossible for the Republicans to say, this is a liberal media piling on.
I think that did it. And the reason is race. Race is the most combustible issue in American public life, has been for 200 years. And it's the one thing you cannot escape if you stumble into that morass.
Earl Bucks (ph) learned that with that racist joke of his. James Watt learned it in 1983 with the dismissive comment about blacks and women.
I don't think so. I think this was doomed.
BROWN: To both of you -- Jeff, are there obvious winners and losers? I suppose, the majority leader will be one and the old majority leader is the loser.
Who else won or lost in all of this, do you think?
GREENFIELD: Well, the Republicans won.
BROWN: Because...
GREENFIELD: Because they -- both the Republicans and Democrats had addition by subtraction in the last week or two.
The Democrats won when Al Gore chose not to run and free the field. The Republicans now take over, unified, both houses of Congress and the presidency without this -- this Banquo's ghost hanging around them.
And I think the younger conservatives won. Because they began to try to make the case that we will not accept a racialist tinge to conservatism, even though we know that a generation ago the Republicans in the south benefited tremendously on the white background. They won.
BROWN: Judy, do you think that this will, as some have suggested, affect the kind of appointments the president is able to make, the judges he puts before the Senate, and the like?
WOODRUFF: I do think that there's going to have to be more sensitivity. Because, some of the very conservative names that it was assumed after the Republicans did so well in the midterm elections they were going to be able to roll through, some of these very conservative people, I think they're going to have to be more careful.
I would just add, one of the winners is clearly Bill Frist, the Republican senator from the state of Tennessee. Heart/lung transplant surgeon. I mean, his resume reads like something out of Hollywood. He flies his own planes. He's a marathon runner.
A couple of things interesting about him, though, Aaron, if I could just put this in. He didn't vote until he was 36 years old. He had a very busy career as a surgeon. Maybe you can give him a pass on that. Maybe not.
And the other thing is that when he ran for the United States Senate, you know, eight years ago, he said that he would serve only two terms. So that means, if you take him at his word, he's only got four years left.
BROWN: And actually I think he reiterated that not that long ago; I heard him.
Judy, thanks, have a great weekend and a wonderful holiday.
Same to you, Jeff. Thanks for coming in on Friday.
GREENFIELD: You bet.
BROWN: Thank you.
And I think that ends all we're going to say about Trent Lott for tonight and for the week.
Still to come on NEWSNIGHT the 411 from Bob Costas. Mr. Costas joins us tonight.
Straight ahead, state of Kentucky tries to close its budget gap by opening up its prison doors. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: And ahead on NEWSNIGHT, a get-out-of-jail-free card for hundreds of inmates. That story and more is next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A few more stories from around the country tonight, Beverly Hills first. The home of the mother of talk show hosts Dr. Laura Schlessinger, police today discovered a badly decomposed body inside, too badly decomposed to say for certain it is that of Miss Schlessinger's mom. More tests underway. Dr. Laura and her mom had been estranged for many years.
Court tussle over Ted Williams' body apparently now over. His eldest daughter dropped her objections today, so the slugger's body will remain frozen in Arizona. That apparently part of an agreement with her half brother and sister. No details released.
And Boeing announced it will not be making a futuristic jet called the sonic cruiser. Good reason, no airline wanted to buy it. The plane would have traveled at nearly the speed of sound. Not really fast enough to trim that much time off most flights, though fast enough to burn a lot more expensive fuel.
When times are a little tough you cut back on extras: fewer restaurant meals first, fewer movies, maybe you put off purchasing those new golf clubs for awhile. Maybe you don't.
Governments go through essentially the same process. Though, of course, the cutbacks come in areas like street cleaning, keeping schools open after hours, special programs. That's when times are a little tough.
When times are very tough, people have to be let go. And that's exactly what's happening in some states right now. Governments are letting people go. Letting them go free. The people we're talking about are prison inmates.
Here's CNN's David Mattingly.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By commuting sentences, we will be releasing Wednesday and Friday 567 inmates from various state facilities.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a decision that has everything to do with the sagging economy, 567 criminals are being released from Kentucky state prisons just in time for Christmas.
ADRIAN PANNELL, RELEASED PRISONER: I miss my family too much. It's not worth me being in here for anything that you do wrong.
RODNEY TOLLIVER, RELEASED PRISONER: I feel bad that the budget's in a place where it's going to come down to releasing early, you know, inmates early, but, you know, we're in the community every day working. It's not that much of a change.
MATTINGLY: They're all nonviolent felons serving time for things like theft and drug violations. Let out early this week because the state can't afford to keep them behind bars. GOV. PAUL PATTON, KENTUCKY: We would save by maintaining the population, we would save about $3 million between now and the first of July.
MATTINGLY: But that $3 million could be just a drop in the bluegrass bucket. Facing a projected half billion dollar budget shortfall by 2004, Kentucky may also have to make due with fewer police, fewer prosecutors, and cuts in services if the economy doesn't improve.
CORINA ECKL, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES: Personally, income tax collections, corporate income tax collections, sales taxes, the three principal categories for states, the three major tax categories, are failing to perform as expected in many states.
MATTINGLY: All this at a time, as prison costs continue to rise.
Oklahoma, for example, is also exploring a possible release of up to 1,000 inmates. Some states may follow the lead of Michigan, which recently repealed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. The goal here, send fewer people to prison in the first place.
ECKL: This fiscal environment that states are facing, practically everything is on the table. So, it's not surprising that we're seeing these range of actions. And, in fact, we're likely to see many more serious cuts around the country before this is all over.
MATTINGLY: But prison spending is just the tip of a massive budget iceberg. A recent report from the national conference of state legislatures shows 33 states caught in a shortage of expected revenues. Twenty-nine states are over budget.
Kentucky is among those last year dipping into rainy day funds after an $800 million shortfall. And bail-out options are now limited. A reported 18 states raise taxes by one percent or more in 2002.
Without an economic turnaround, inmate releases may be just the beginning of deeper state budget cuts.
David Mattingly, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: A number of stories from around the world we want to get in before we go to break.
At the United Nations tonight, Syria sponsored a resolution condemning Israel for the killing of several U.N. workers and the destruction of a world food program warehouse. Twelve Security Council members voted for the resolution. Two abstained. The United States voted against it. The resolution, therefore, fails.
Hard to say things have gone from bad to worse in Venezuela, given how bad things have already been. For the last 19 days, general strike there. But today there was what strike leaders called a mega march in Caracas, with hundreds of thousands of whistle blowing demonstrators essentially taking over the streets, demanding the resignation of President Hugo Chavez.
The Organization of American states now attempting to mediate the talks between the pro- and anti-Chavez factions, though a breakthrough seems distant at the moment.
And at the Vatican, Mother Teresa moved a step closer to sainthood. The pope signed a decree recognizing as authentic a miracle attributed to the late nun. She's scheduled to be beatified next October, sainthood the next step after beatification. But that requires recognition of another miracle.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, planning to go to a holiday party this weekend? Need to know what wine to bring? Grab the pencil or whatever you take notes in. The "Wall Street Journal's" wine couple will be here.
But first we'll talk sports with Bob Costas. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: When NEWSNIGHT continues, Bob Costas joins us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We're joined now by the Swiss Army knife of sports.
You want facts and statistics, he's got 'em. You want analysis, perspective, stories, he's got those, too. Nostalgic recollections, colorful tales, word portraits of great players. He's got all of that.
He could probably open cans and bottles, as well.
Bob Costas is here. He's got a couple of programs on HBO and does something at NBC. He's a goofy guy. We're glad he's with us tonight.
BOB COSTAS, NBC SPORTS: Swiss Army knife, I like that. I hadn't heard that before. I'm absent a corkscrew, but I'll do better next time.
BROWN: I saw today that the commissioner of baseball has invited all the living Hall of Famers to a meeting, presumably to talk about Pete Rose.
How can Pete Rose now acknowledge that he gambled on baseball, which he has to do? How does he do that?
COSTAS: I'm assuming that Bud Selig is going to divide this into two parts and set up fairly stringent conditions for each of them. He's going to separate the Hall of Fame from reinstatement to baseball as an ongoing participant. And that seems valid to me. He could gain entry to both under different conditions. Or only one, or neither if he's not willing to meet Selig's conditions.
BROWN: There are Hall of Famers, Bob Feller, Joe Morgan, I think, I feel reasonably sure about Joe Morgan, too, who are not going to accept this unless Rose, even the Hall of Fame part of this, unless Rose apologizes.
COSTAS: I think Feller and some others, even if Rose apologizes and fully and specifically acknowledges what he does -- did rather, Feller is not going to go for it.
But Joe Morgan is one of those trying to broker the deal. If Pete comes clean. And if Selig sets down appropriate conditions, there might be a path to get Pete back in the game.
But I think Pete will not be able to say, yes, I'm sorry. Or yes, I bet on baseball. He's going to have to acknowledge specifics.
I think if Selig is smart, he'll make, as one of the conditions, that if and when Pete is elected to the Hall of Fame, that in his acceptance speech, on the steps at Cooperstown, along with everything else he wants to talk about, he's going to have to acknowledge having bet on baseball. He's going to have to acknowledge that the suspension or the banishment at the time was legitimate. That's step one. That's the Hall of Fame.
If he's ever going to get back in baseball's total good graces, to be employed by baseball in some way or at least eligible to be, there might be another set of conditions, and that might be further down the road.
BROWN: Talk about some other sports things. Who's the -- who would you pay to watch play? You probably haven't paid to watch anything in 20 years.
COSTAS: Who would I pay to watch play?
You know, I think I would pay to watch Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal. Maybe not right now, but last year.
I think you'd have to pay to watch Barry Bonds, even if you're skeptical about the circumstances surrounding what he's done in the last couple of years. It's historic. You'd have to pay...
BROWN: Would you pay today to watch Michael Jordan?
COSTAS: Today, no. Unless I hadn't seen him before.
BROWN: Who haven't you seen -- who -- what athlete do you wish you'd seen that you didn't? Did you ever see Ali fight?
COSTAS: I only saw Ali fight on television or closed circuit. I remember being 19 years old and a freshman at Syracuse University when he fought Frazier the first time. And I saw it on closed circuit television at the Loeb's Theater (ph) in Syracuse, N.Y. BROWN: You had a little money in your pocket.
COSTAS: I had to save up. I think it was about 25 bucks.
Let me tell you, the atmosphere there was so electric. All the things that surrounded that fight. It wasn't just a great athletic event. It had all the sociological significance and everything. I can only imagine what the atmosphere must have been like at Madison Square Garden. But I never saw him in person.
BROWN: Any...
COSTAS: I never saw DiMaggio. I never saw Ted -- I saw Ted Williams in person at Yankee Stadium when I was 8 years old. My dad took me in 1960.
BROWN: So you did see Ted Williams.
COSTAS: I saw Ted Williams in person. Saw Stan Musial.
BROWN: I saw Willie Mays play once.
COSTAS: So did I. I saw Koufax pitch.
BROWN: Came to -- I saw Koufax pitch, too, World Series in Minneapolis. Saw Willie Mays come play a minor league baseball game in Minneapolis. And they threw him a pitch that I could have hit. I mean, that ball is still traveling to Richfield and southern North Dakota.
Who's the next great media athlete, you know, that the media will focus on? Is it this kid the basketball player?
COSTAS: Well, they're focusing on him too soon with too much hype and kind of this crassness that's part of modern sports. But it's pretty clear that this LeBron James has a chance, this high school athlete, basketball player, has a chance to be a terrific player.
A lot of high school players who have come to the NBA really weren't ready. A few actually were ready to play at that level almost right off the bat and then got better from there, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and people who have seen LeBron James say he's in the same category.
That doesn't justify pay-per-view telecasts and ESPN telecasts of a high school kids' games. But that's the directions the sports world's going.
BROWN: Terrible last question, I apologize. Why is there so little sports journalism on television?
COSTAS: Well, I think and, forgive the shameless plug, but I do some work with HBO, and HBO's mandate is entirely different from the networks. I think the networks don't go in that direction for two reasons. One, they think, as noble as it may be, the audience isn't there. The audience would rather watch pure sports programs, games, action, rather than think pieces.
Plus they're loathe to get under the skin of the leagues with whom they consider themselves to be partners. Even though they're the ones who have to pay all the money and the leagues just take the money. It's a strange partnership.
BROWN: I wish there were more, and we appreciate the sports journalism you do. And have for a long time.
COSTAS: Thank you very much. Good to see you.
BROWN: Nice to see you.
COSTAS: Happy holidays.
BROWN: Same to you.
Bob Costas with us tonight.
We'll talk wine in just a moment as we wrap it up for the week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: John Brecher and Dottie Gaiter are with us tonight. They write the wine column for the Wall Street Journal. And we'll talk wine for four quick minutes here to wrap it up for the week.
What have you got? You've got a nice champagne there, don't you?
DOTTIE GAITER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" WINE COLUMNIST: Yes, we do. This is a wonderful champagne for people who think they have everything for Christmas.
BROWN: This is serious champagne.
GAITER: This is serious champagne.
JOHN BRECHER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" WINE COLUMNIST: This is very serious. When we do tastings, this is the Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill Cuvee. It always beats the more famous ones like Dom Perignon and Crystal, and as a result, because it's not as famous it's a relative bargain at a measly $120 a bottle.
Truly for your very, very best guests.
BROWN: May I?
GAITER: Please.
BROWN: I assume you poured three, so...
GAITER: That's all right.
BROWN: Here's to a great new year, by the way.
GAITER: You, too.
BROWN: All right. This is a serious question. Mm-hmm. It's less serious now. I'm spending -- thank you. I'm spending Christmas literally with someone who owns a vineyard. What kind of wine do we bring?
GAITER: Oh, my gosh.
BRECHER: Well, actually, we brought a couple of wines that you can impress anyone with.
BROWN: OK.
BRECHER: White Bordeaux. People don't usually drink white Bordeaux. They think of Bordeaux with red. But get a greves -- G-R- E-V-E-S -- nobody's expecting it. And it tastes so different from Chardonnay that it's always unexpected and always a pleasure.
BROWN: But drink it the same as, you know, with fish and...
GAITER: Exactly.
BROWN: Great with food.
GAITER: Great minerals, great lemony acids, kind of a honey citrus thing going on. Really complex.
BRECHER: And the other thing we brought is a Pinot Noir, because in California these days, more and more wineries are making fabulous Pinot Noir. There was a time, a long time, when the experts said California can't make great pinot and by taking a great pinot, to some extent what you're saying is they were wrong all that time. And it will impress a vineyard owner that you know that.
BROWN: My wife is sitting there going, I hope I did the right thing. Because she goes and buys the wine.
GAITER: It's the thought that counts.
BRECHER: That's right.
BROWN: You're having a dinner party over the holidays, and you want to pour a nice but reasonable wine. Perhaps not a $100 bottle of champagne.
GAITER: Well, if we were cooking.
BROWN: Yes.
GAITER: We would have a Pinot Noir, because it goes with everything. You can have this with duck. You can have it with salmon.
BROWN: It's great with salmon, actually. GAITER: Yes. And Saintsbury makes it in several different price ranges, so it fits everyone's budget.
BRECHER: You can always find it. And don't forget, champagne is not just a celebratory beverage to have around this time of year, although it's good at that, it's also terrific with food.
People don't think of champagne and food. But with cream sauces, champagne is fabulous. With sushi, champagne is fabulous. Not just champagne, but of course, great American sparklers.
BROWN: I almost knocked it over. OK, we've got...
BRECHER: Don't do that.
BROWN: ... thirty seconds. These are questions I've always wanted to ask, what kind of corkscrew do you use? Do you have one of those things where you go -- and it's gone?
GAITER: We have an industrial strength one that looks like...
BRECHER: It goes like that. And it costs a fortune. And we wouldn't have it except we taste six to eight bottles a night and we're old and we just can't do that any more.
BROWN: Is a nice corkscrew, that's not a bad gift to a friend, right?
GAITER: No, it's a great gift.
BRECHER: Very good gift. Very good gift.
BROWN: But not one of those that's really hard to work.
BRECHER: No, no, no. Wine gifts, the truth is, is that wine lovers really need regular stuff. Good corkscrews, good inexpensive glasses. The kinds of things that we really use every day. Not bizarre stuff but everyday stuff that will make you think of the person who gave it.
BROWN: Column's great. So are you, you guys have a wonderful new year.
GAITER: You too.
BRECHER: Thank you. You, too.
BROWN: Thank you very much.
And thank all of you. Have a wonderful Christmas and we'll see you in a week. Good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Post?>
Aired December 20, 2002 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN HOST: And good evening, again, everyone.
We assume only Democrats are shedding tears that the Lott affair has ended. Well, perhaps a few news editors are, as well. There's nothing like a good story over the holidays, and the Lott matter was better than good.
It was a real story. At its core it was about an important and difficult issue in American life. And no one died. A career ended, but losing a big office and a lot of perks is hardly a death sentence.
There is one nagging question that remains: Why did it take so long? Trent Lott's affection for his good old days was hardly a secret. He'd been saying similar things for years. He praised the membership of a neosegregationist group and it hardly caused a flutter. He extolled his affection for the Confederacy and its leader, and he was re-elected majority leader time and again.
Even this fiasco would likely have passed with little fuss had it not been for young conservative reporters and commentators, both black and white. It wasn't a mainstream press, by and large, or liberal commentators who brought Trent Lott down. It was largely the work of conservatives, the Robert Pages, Andrew Sullivans, Deroy Murdocks, Stephen (AUDIO GAP) and others.
If you really followed the story you could not help but be impressed, not simply by the power of their arguments, but by the intensity of their anger. They were weary of hearing that conservative and racism are one and the same. And now they and we and you have an opportunity to engage in a fuller debate on the issues of race in America. And the debate will be better should it actually happen for their inclusion, perhaps even leadership in the discussion.
And it is the last chapter of the Lott affair that leads "The Whip" tonight. CNN's Jonathan Karl has that.
Jon, a headline from you, please.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's over. Senator Trent Lott is out. And Bill Frist is in.
BROWN: Jon, back to you at the top tonight. The White House relief that at least one distraction is gone, which leaves Iraq. Suzanne Malveaux has the duty tonight.
Suzanne, a headline from you.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Middle East peace. It's a single vision of two states, Palestinians and Israelis living side by side peacefully to be established in three years. But the administration recognizing it is going to take more than a ceasefire to jump start this Middle East peace process. The administration is first going to have to deal with a defiant Iraq.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.
Reaction to situation in Iraq, CNN's Rym Brahimi is there. A headline from you tonight.
RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Iraqi officials are saying that this is all a political game, Aaron. They're saying that the U.S. has no evidence. The words they use, the U.S. has nothing to pin us on.
BROWN: And we'll get back to you in a moment, as well.
And finally in "The Whip" tonight, Wall Street, a large fine, much in the same way a tidal wave is just moisture we guess.
Allan Chernoff has been working this. So Allan, a headline from you tonight.
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wall street firms agree to pay $1.5 billion to cut a deal with regulators. But will it be enough to bring investors back to the stock market?
BROWN: Allan, thank you.
Back to all of you shortly.
Also coming up on the program, cutting the state budget by cutting inmates loose from the state pen. It's going on in Kentucky. Other states are looking at the idea, as well. These are tough fiscal times for state governments, which cannot run deficits.
Bob Costas here tonight to talk about the year in sports and who knows what else.
And we'll close out the evening and the week with a visit from "the Wall Street Journal's "wine couple." It's been that kind of a week. That kind of a year.
All of that to come in the hour ahead.
We begin with Trent Lott's resignation as Senate Republican leader. To our ears a quiet ending to a noisy and ugly episode. His resignation came in a written statement issued by his office in Washington, Mr. Lott home in Mississippi.
As we said this ends an episode, but not the larger drama about who comes next in the political fallout, if any. We'll spend some time on this tonight. We begin with the news of the day and CNN's Jonathan Karl.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (voice-over): Trent Lott could fight, but he couldn't win. He bowed out with a simple written statement.
"In the interest of pursuing the best possible agenda for the future of our country, I will not seek to remain as majority leader."
Just hours before, Lott's office insisted he would fight on, something Lott had been telling his colleagues up until Thursday night.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just didn't make sense to him that for this one statement, he was going to be run out of office. And he was prepared to dig in and go all out.
KARL: But one by one, Lott's fellow Republicans started telling him as early as Wednesday that the controversy raised issues more important than personal loyalty.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: I related to him that this issue was more than politics, and it was much more than personalities. The issue had become an issue about the heart and soul of the Republican party.
KARL: And Lott's strongest allies gave him the bad news. He just didn't have enough votes.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY: This has really been a nightmare for those of us in the Republican conference in the Senate, and for Senator Lott. He did the courageous and correct thing this morning in stepping aside.
KARL: With Lott out, Republicans acted quickly. Within three and a half hours, Tennessee's Bill Frist was a lock as a leader, securing more than enough votes to replace Lott.
Even Lott's staunchest defender would move swiftly to support the man who helped bring him down.
MCCONNELL: I think it's important that we not have a contest in the middle of Christmas for the new leader and I've endorsed Senator Bill Frist.
KARL: The damaged leader is out, the Republican infighting over. But the Democrats are determined to use the Lott controversy to taint the Republican party on race.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (R-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Just because Senator Lott stepped down, doesn't mean that we're rid of the issue.
KARL: Back home in Pascagoula, Lott's wife delivered a note to news crews, saying he would have no further comment, adding, please go home. The note was written on majority leader stationery.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: President Bush reacted to the news saying he respected the decision, and saying -- calling Senator Lott a valued friend and a man I respect. Those were exactly the kind of words we did not hear out of the president while this controversy raged on, and while Trent Lott was trying to fight for his political life -- Aaron.
BROWN: Let's talk about the White House a little bit and what the White House did and did not do here. It's not so much that they encouraged the end, it's that they did nothing to prevent it.
KARL: That's exactly right. I mean, the big thing happened, of course, when the president came out, condemned the remarks and then said nothing about whether or not the Republicans should continue to have Trent Lott as their leader.
Ari Fleischer, the press secretary, said the president did not believe Lott needed to resign, but said nothing about the leadership struggle. So that was seen as a signal that they could go up here and go all-out to remove Trent Lott and replace him.
BROWN: And any -- how did it all sort of come down today? Why today did it end?
KARL: Well, the big developments happened shortly before NEWSNIGHT last night, when you had a situation where Bill Frist officially came out and said that he would be a candidate to replace Trent Lott.
And then you had John Warner, a respected old bull committee chairman coming out and saying that he would lead the fight for Bill Frist. That was the writing on the wall. That's when everybody realized, not Trent Lott at first, but all his allies realized there was no way he would have enough support.
BROWN: And Jon, very quickly, does Trent Lott get anything out of this deal? Does he get a committee chairmanship or is he just one more member of the Republican caucuses now?
KARL: He's just a relatively junior member right now. They may try to give him something later, but he got no promises.
BROWN: Jon, thank you. Terrific work on this. Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill for us tonight.
We'll have more on the ramifications of Senator Lott's decision a bit later in the program. We'll bat things around with conservative columnist Robert George, and then later get the political read from CNN's Jeff Greenfield and Judy Woodruff. So that's coming up in just a bit.
On to Iraq now. President Bush weighing in today on the Iraqi declaration, even as he took perhaps one last run at another huge problem in the Middle East.
Here again, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice-over): A warning to Saddam Hussein -- cooperate and disarm. President Bush met with the quartet -- Russia, the European union and the United Nations to discuss paving the way for Middle East peace. A big part of that: confronting a defiant Iraq. Mr. Bush says Saddam Hussein's declaration of its alleged weapons program falls short of what the U.N. Security Council resolution requires: full disclosure.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We expect Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. Yesterday's document was not encouraging. We expected him to show that he would disarm and, as the secretary of state said, it's a long way from there.
MALVEAUX: So far from disarming, Secretary Powell said Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, strong language that may, further down the road, trigger military action.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: This declaration fails totally to move us in the direction of a peaceful solution.
MALVEAUX: The problem, the White House says, is that Iraq's declaration doesn't account for many components that have been identified by weapons inspectors back in 1998, like shells, VX nerve gas and anthrax. White House aides say in the weeks to come the administration will push for weapons inspectors to enter into an aggressive auditing phase to get Iraq to show how it has destroyed its weapons stockpiles. But already, there is frustration and even criticism from the international inspection team, that the United States is not providing the intelligence needed to help catch Iraqi violations.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We would like to have clues as to where U.S. and other countries's intelligence feel they know that the Iraqis are storing weapons of mass destruction.
MALVEAUX: Evidence, the White House says, that will come in due time as it weighs its options for a possible war with Iraq.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We'll continue to work with them to provide them information. The one thing we won't do is do anything -- around the world, not just in Iraq but around the world -- to compromise sources or methods.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: And late today, the president postponed his trip to Africa, which was scheduled for mid-January, the White House saying that it was domestic, as well as international considerations for rescheduling the trip.
A senior White House administration official telling me that there are a number of reasons, but most notably that the president had to monitor the developments in Iraq -- Aaron. BROWN: Can you tell us any more about this decision not to share the intelligence and is it as simple as not wanting to blow sources and methods?
MALVEAUX: Well, the White House says that it's actually not that simple. They don't want to blow their sources or their methods. But one of the main considerations here is that if the president does decide to use military action, if there is a war with Iraq, that those same sites that they actually point out to the inspectors, if they tip their hand to Iraq, those same sites may be the sites that they end up targeting if, in fact, they use military action.
So that is not the kind of information that they want to give to Iraq until it's absolutely necessary.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you very much. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.
The president is counting on British support in a war with Iraq. He now knows with some certainty he can't count on full support from British editorial writers.
This is the front page of today's "London Daily Mirror." The editorial inside calls President Bush a bigger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein.
Now there are lots of papers in London and lots of points of view. "The Mirror" gives you a sense that debate over there is heating up, as it may well over here in the days ahead.
Front pages in Baghdad on the other hand, pretty much all say the same thing, to say otherwise would be more than just a bad career move. So with that in mind, we turn once again to CNN's Rym Brahimi in Baghdad where they'll soon be reading the morning papers there.
BRAHMI: Yes, Aaron.
Well, so far the paper -- editorial in the papers we've seen in the past few days have said pretty much what they've said in the past few weeks, which was that they knew the U.S. was going to try and find any pretext to attack Iraq. One of the latest things they've said in those editorials, Aaron, interestingly, they've said that the U.S. administration was trying to find some pretext because it had failed in Afghanistan and failed the American people with the economy.
Now, that declaration that Iraq gave over to the United Nations Security Council has created a lot of noise, as you know. A lot of controversy. Iraq saying that the U.S. has no evidence when it alleges that Iraq -- that there are still weapons of mass destruction. Also saying that this is all a political game, that if they have questions -- if anyone has questions, why don't they come forward and ask the Iraqis? They will be happy to answer.
That declaration, Aaron, has also given the inspectors here on the ground more sites to visit. They've intensified their work in the past few days. A couple more inspectors arrived ,so that brings the team up to 115 here on the ground.
They went to several sites, despite this being the Muslim day of rest, Aaron. They went to a site they already visited six times, the nuclear experts. They also went to another site checking on radiation levels. So a lot of activity on that field.
The people, Aaron, well, pretty much the same line, as well. They say, We knew it. The Americans are going to try to find a pretext. What they've been saying is, Well, we know that the Americans are after our oil. They're not interested in disarmament. But they say they're just not surprised with the American reaction -- Aaron.
BROWN: There are a couple of big stories on this here this week. I'm curious if they got reported there.
One is that a war plan might go in a very end of January or the first part of February. And the other is that Saddam has a Scorched Earth plan should a war begin. Either getting reported there?
BRAHIMI: Well, the first one you mention, Aaron, that's something that they've been well aware of, and it's something that they've made quite public. A lot of newspaper editorials, again, on the subject.
And also very regularly, the foreign minister of Iraq, Naji Sabri, writes to the United Nations saying it is unacceptable. This is what the U.S. is trying to do. Only a couple of days ago, Aaron, he wrote a letter to the United Nations, for instance, to Kofi Annan, complaining that the United States had released millions of dollars to encourage the opposition in London, and basically do something illegal in the view of the Iraqis against Iraq.
Now, the people here don't know necessarily about the second plans you mentioned. And that's because it's also very difficult for us to know. I'm in Baghdad, Aaron, and I don't see anything here. I hear all you're telling me but I really don't see any specific plans. All I know is people are aware there are serious military plans on the side of the United States. And they're just looking to prepare themselves. Do I take my countries to the countryside is what they're asking themselves. If something happens, Do I stay in town? Do I leave the country? these are the basic things that people are aware of right now -- Aaron.
BROWN: Rym, thank you very much. Thank you. Rym Brahimi in Baghdad tonight.
We go to Wall Street next. You may remember it is a place where early retirement was only a dollar, a dream and a hot tip away. Wait, that sounds a lot like a race track. Only it turns out the race track was a lot more honest.
On Wall Street, many of the touts (ph) were crooked and in some places the house had a thumb on the scale. Now to be fair, none of this seemed especially important three years ago when everyone felt like they were getting rich. But today, with customers a lot scarcer, and wiser, and brokerage houses can no longer afford to treat them like pigeons. But just to make sure everyone gets the message, regulators have tightened the screws and today settled with Wall Street on a huge fine.
For those of you who keep score on such matters, federal overseers here were not overseeing. It was the New York State Attorney General who uncovered the scams.
Here again, CNN's Allan Chernoff.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHERNOFF (voice-over): The settlement is intended to clean up Wall Street's conflict of interest scandal. Analysts courting investment banking business at the expense of individual investors.
ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL: This has been only about one thing. It has been about ensuring that retail investors get a fair shake.
CHERNOFF: The deal will force new restrictions on major brokerage firms, a split of research and investment banking divisions,a ban on granting initial public offerings to corporate executives, with power to hire investment bankers and a requirement to distribute independent research to clients.
RICHARD GRASSO, NYSE CHAIRMAN: In '03, we want to begin with a fresh slate, a clean business model. Practices that have been uncovered will not be tolerated.
CHERNOFF: Ten of the biggest investment companies will pay $900 million in fines. The biggest chunk, one-third, to come from Salomon Smith Barney. The firms will pay $450 million to support third party independent research for five years. And $85 million is slated for investor education.
Investors today on Wall Street were applauding.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's way past due, and I think there's been a lot of greed involved, and all the big corporations around the country.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were telling people to buy those stocks. And you had a personal relationship.
JACK GRUBMAN, FMR. SALOMON TELECOM ANALYST: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No?
CHERNOFF: Former Salomon telecom analyst Jack Grubman also reached a tentative settlement, calling for him to pay $15 million and be banned from the securities business for life.
And other investment executives may face charges in the continuing investigation. SPITZER: We will be continuing to look where the evidence persuades us that there is scrutiny that is worth pursuing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHERNOFF: The settlements should be finalized within several weeks. Now, they offer no protection against private investor lawsuits, and, in fact, the brokers and Mr. Grubman are facing many class action suits from angry investors who will certainly want to see these reforms well in place before they regain much confidence in the stock market -- Aaron.
BROWN: What were the arguments that the brokerage houses made in support of the way they were doing business?
CHERNOFF: They basically felt that they were offering quality research, lots of investigation.
But the bottom line is, they really couldn't justify these conflicts of interest. They couldn't make a good argument to the regulators.
BROWN: That always makes it harder to defend yourself.
Thank you, Mr. Chernoff. Have a nice weekend.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, more on the Lott resignation. And a little bit later, Kentucky is letting prisoners out of jail because it's too darn expensive to keep them there.
That and more as NEWSNIGHT continues on a Friday from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: It has become a truism, but it also happens to be true that the foot that shoved Trent Lott out of the Republican leadership belongs to an elephant, not a donkey.
The anti-Lott rallying cry came first and strongest from the pages of "The Weekly Standard," "The Wall Street journal," others, including from columnist Robert George who makes his home at the "Post" and was one of the first shots fired. We're glad to have him with us again tonight.
ROBERT GEORGE, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK POST: Good to be back.
BROWN: All's well that ends well? Is that how to look at this?
GEORGE: Yes, I think so. This certainly there was some short- term damage, I think, to the image of the Republican party and conservatives.
But, Lott's final stepping aside in this and everybody rallying around Frist, I think, is going to kind of nip that in the bud.
And obviously you've got the holidays coming up. Iraq, people will start to move on.
BROWN: Short attention span. Has anything changed?
GEORGE: I think -- I think there -- I think a couple of things have changed. I think the country saw a clear signal that, you know, this kind of either racial insensitivity or racial blindness, if you will, is intolerable.
And you really had this -- as you pointed out, there was a strong coalition from both the left and the right saying that Lott's original statement was -- was horrendous, and his apologies just didn't -- just didn't cut it. And he could not stay in a leadership position in the Republican Party.
BROWN: Once he said it, was there anything he could have done to save himself, to you?
GEORGE: I think, if he had -- if he had made, I don't know whether it was apology three or four...
BROWN: I know. It was hard to keep track, wasn't it?
GEORGE: Yes. By the time he was on BET, he was apologizing for dreaming of a white Christmas -- getting a little out of control.
No, I think if he had made -- if he had made a statement -- if he had made the original statement I think that Friday when he was in Mississippi, recognizing, you know, how immoral segregation was, and that he had said something like, you know, I shouldn't have even been making a joking reference about that.
If he had said that on day one or day two, or when the media started paying attention, he may have been able to save himself. But by then, by the time the Friday one came around I think it was just too little, too late.
BROWN: If the only people who had spoken out were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, and Tom Daschle.
GEORGE: He'd still be here.
BROWN: He'd still be there, wouldn't he?
GEORGE: He would still be there.
BROWN: So what -- what is the importance here, then, that it was "The Standard," "The Post," you guys...
GEORGE: "National review."
BROWN: "National review," certainly, and Andrew Sullivan, others. What is the importance of that in a broader understanding of a discussion on race in America?
GEORGE: Well, conservatives feel that while Democrats and liberals had been on the right side of history when it came to race in the '50s and into the '60s, the Democratic Party has gotten so involved in kind of identity politics, and what we feel are racial preferences and affirmative action and so forth, that they no longer have the high ground, but that conservatives who believe in the ideas of equal opportunity and not selecting by race, we are now -- we now have the high ground.
So when you have a sitting United States senator who's in a leadership position in the Republican Party, seeming to wax nostalgic about the days of segregation, it is anathema to what the modern-day conservatives believe.
And so -- as you said, Andrew Sullivan noticed it almost immediately. And then, of course, you had individuals like myself who, in my previous life, working for the Republican Party, working on things like, you know, outreach and trying to, in a sense, send a message to the African-American community that Republican policies can be effective, you know, we saw so much of our work in a sense being endangered. Because you had a senator almost becoming the very stereotype that Democrats tried to portray Republicans as.
BROWN: It was, from where we sat, fascinating to watch how it played out, the role that you and others played in it. Thanks for coming in. It's good to talk to you. Good to meet you.
GEORGE: Good to see you again.
BROWN: Have a good holiday.
GEORGE: You too. Thank you.
BROWN: Thank you very much. Robert Page.
Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, an election year reunion -- yes, election night reunion. CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield, "INSIDE POLITICS" Judy Woodruff join us to talk a little bit more about the politics of the Lott affair.
Later in the program, we'll be joined by preeminent sports anchor in television, pretty good journalist too, I must say, Bob Costas. That and more on a Friday night. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Continuing our discussion of Trent Lott, talk about politics of it all, we're joined by Jeff Greenfield here in New York, and in Washington, by the host of CNN's "INSIDE POLITICS," Judy Woodruff.
Good to see you both.
Judy, the white house was pretty sensitive about being seen as having fringerprints on this, right?
JUDY WOODRUFF, ANCHOR, "INSIDE POLITICS": Very sensitive, Aaron.
But there's no doubt from the very beginning that the White House -- I'd say from about three days after this happened when Trent Lott didn't come out with a significant apology, I just heard you talking to Robert George about this, and I agree with him.
If Trent Lott had come in the day or two or three after this happened and made a really significant apology, he might have been able to avoid it. When he did not do that, the White House viewed him as an albatross. The president went out, you know, that week, and made a very damning statement about him. And you never really heard anything very supportive after that.
It was damning with faint praise. You remember they said, We don't want to see him resign. But they never said anything positive about him, either. The nicest thing we've heard from the White House has been the statement they put out today after he had stepped down.
BROWN: Jeff, do you think there was anything he could have done to save himself at nay point in the process?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Not after the second or third go-around. Because I think what happened was that, that the quality of what Senator Lott had to say, it was almost like a time warp. Almost like that Lenny Bruce routine about the liberal at the cocktail party who doesn't know how to talk to a black person and says things like, "That Joe Lewis was a hell of a fighter."
That coupled with the fact that conservatives like Robert George and Charlie Krauthammer and Bill Bennett and "The Weekly Standard" and Peggy Noonan all weighed in, which made it impossible for the Republicans to say, this is a liberal media piling on.
I think that did it. And the reason is race. Race is the most combustible issue in American public life, has been for 200 years. And it's the one thing you cannot escape if you stumble into that morass.
Earl Bucks (ph) learned that with that racist joke of his. James Watt learned it in 1983 with the dismissive comment about blacks and women.
I don't think so. I think this was doomed.
BROWN: To both of you -- Jeff, are there obvious winners and losers? I suppose, the majority leader will be one and the old majority leader is the loser.
Who else won or lost in all of this, do you think?
GREENFIELD: Well, the Republicans won.
BROWN: Because...
GREENFIELD: Because they -- both the Republicans and Democrats had addition by subtraction in the last week or two.
The Democrats won when Al Gore chose not to run and free the field. The Republicans now take over, unified, both houses of Congress and the presidency without this -- this Banquo's ghost hanging around them.
And I think the younger conservatives won. Because they began to try to make the case that we will not accept a racialist tinge to conservatism, even though we know that a generation ago the Republicans in the south benefited tremendously on the white background. They won.
BROWN: Judy, do you think that this will, as some have suggested, affect the kind of appointments the president is able to make, the judges he puts before the Senate, and the like?
WOODRUFF: I do think that there's going to have to be more sensitivity. Because, some of the very conservative names that it was assumed after the Republicans did so well in the midterm elections they were going to be able to roll through, some of these very conservative people, I think they're going to have to be more careful.
I would just add, one of the winners is clearly Bill Frist, the Republican senator from the state of Tennessee. Heart/lung transplant surgeon. I mean, his resume reads like something out of Hollywood. He flies his own planes. He's a marathon runner.
A couple of things interesting about him, though, Aaron, if I could just put this in. He didn't vote until he was 36 years old. He had a very busy career as a surgeon. Maybe you can give him a pass on that. Maybe not.
And the other thing is that when he ran for the United States Senate, you know, eight years ago, he said that he would serve only two terms. So that means, if you take him at his word, he's only got four years left.
BROWN: And actually I think he reiterated that not that long ago; I heard him.
Judy, thanks, have a great weekend and a wonderful holiday.
Same to you, Jeff. Thanks for coming in on Friday.
GREENFIELD: You bet.
BROWN: Thank you.
And I think that ends all we're going to say about Trent Lott for tonight and for the week.
Still to come on NEWSNIGHT the 411 from Bob Costas. Mr. Costas joins us tonight.
Straight ahead, state of Kentucky tries to close its budget gap by opening up its prison doors. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: And ahead on NEWSNIGHT, a get-out-of-jail-free card for hundreds of inmates. That story and more is next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A few more stories from around the country tonight, Beverly Hills first. The home of the mother of talk show hosts Dr. Laura Schlessinger, police today discovered a badly decomposed body inside, too badly decomposed to say for certain it is that of Miss Schlessinger's mom. More tests underway. Dr. Laura and her mom had been estranged for many years.
Court tussle over Ted Williams' body apparently now over. His eldest daughter dropped her objections today, so the slugger's body will remain frozen in Arizona. That apparently part of an agreement with her half brother and sister. No details released.
And Boeing announced it will not be making a futuristic jet called the sonic cruiser. Good reason, no airline wanted to buy it. The plane would have traveled at nearly the speed of sound. Not really fast enough to trim that much time off most flights, though fast enough to burn a lot more expensive fuel.
When times are a little tough you cut back on extras: fewer restaurant meals first, fewer movies, maybe you put off purchasing those new golf clubs for awhile. Maybe you don't.
Governments go through essentially the same process. Though, of course, the cutbacks come in areas like street cleaning, keeping schools open after hours, special programs. That's when times are a little tough.
When times are very tough, people have to be let go. And that's exactly what's happening in some states right now. Governments are letting people go. Letting them go free. The people we're talking about are prison inmates.
Here's CNN's David Mattingly.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By commuting sentences, we will be releasing Wednesday and Friday 567 inmates from various state facilities.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a decision that has everything to do with the sagging economy, 567 criminals are being released from Kentucky state prisons just in time for Christmas.
ADRIAN PANNELL, RELEASED PRISONER: I miss my family too much. It's not worth me being in here for anything that you do wrong.
RODNEY TOLLIVER, RELEASED PRISONER: I feel bad that the budget's in a place where it's going to come down to releasing early, you know, inmates early, but, you know, we're in the community every day working. It's not that much of a change.
MATTINGLY: They're all nonviolent felons serving time for things like theft and drug violations. Let out early this week because the state can't afford to keep them behind bars. GOV. PAUL PATTON, KENTUCKY: We would save by maintaining the population, we would save about $3 million between now and the first of July.
MATTINGLY: But that $3 million could be just a drop in the bluegrass bucket. Facing a projected half billion dollar budget shortfall by 2004, Kentucky may also have to make due with fewer police, fewer prosecutors, and cuts in services if the economy doesn't improve.
CORINA ECKL, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES: Personally, income tax collections, corporate income tax collections, sales taxes, the three principal categories for states, the three major tax categories, are failing to perform as expected in many states.
MATTINGLY: All this at a time, as prison costs continue to rise.
Oklahoma, for example, is also exploring a possible release of up to 1,000 inmates. Some states may follow the lead of Michigan, which recently repealed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. The goal here, send fewer people to prison in the first place.
ECKL: This fiscal environment that states are facing, practically everything is on the table. So, it's not surprising that we're seeing these range of actions. And, in fact, we're likely to see many more serious cuts around the country before this is all over.
MATTINGLY: But prison spending is just the tip of a massive budget iceberg. A recent report from the national conference of state legislatures shows 33 states caught in a shortage of expected revenues. Twenty-nine states are over budget.
Kentucky is among those last year dipping into rainy day funds after an $800 million shortfall. And bail-out options are now limited. A reported 18 states raise taxes by one percent or more in 2002.
Without an economic turnaround, inmate releases may be just the beginning of deeper state budget cuts.
David Mattingly, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: A number of stories from around the world we want to get in before we go to break.
At the United Nations tonight, Syria sponsored a resolution condemning Israel for the killing of several U.N. workers and the destruction of a world food program warehouse. Twelve Security Council members voted for the resolution. Two abstained. The United States voted against it. The resolution, therefore, fails.
Hard to say things have gone from bad to worse in Venezuela, given how bad things have already been. For the last 19 days, general strike there. But today there was what strike leaders called a mega march in Caracas, with hundreds of thousands of whistle blowing demonstrators essentially taking over the streets, demanding the resignation of President Hugo Chavez.
The Organization of American states now attempting to mediate the talks between the pro- and anti-Chavez factions, though a breakthrough seems distant at the moment.
And at the Vatican, Mother Teresa moved a step closer to sainthood. The pope signed a decree recognizing as authentic a miracle attributed to the late nun. She's scheduled to be beatified next October, sainthood the next step after beatification. But that requires recognition of another miracle.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, planning to go to a holiday party this weekend? Need to know what wine to bring? Grab the pencil or whatever you take notes in. The "Wall Street Journal's" wine couple will be here.
But first we'll talk sports with Bob Costas. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: When NEWSNIGHT continues, Bob Costas joins us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We're joined now by the Swiss Army knife of sports.
You want facts and statistics, he's got 'em. You want analysis, perspective, stories, he's got those, too. Nostalgic recollections, colorful tales, word portraits of great players. He's got all of that.
He could probably open cans and bottles, as well.
Bob Costas is here. He's got a couple of programs on HBO and does something at NBC. He's a goofy guy. We're glad he's with us tonight.
BOB COSTAS, NBC SPORTS: Swiss Army knife, I like that. I hadn't heard that before. I'm absent a corkscrew, but I'll do better next time.
BROWN: I saw today that the commissioner of baseball has invited all the living Hall of Famers to a meeting, presumably to talk about Pete Rose.
How can Pete Rose now acknowledge that he gambled on baseball, which he has to do? How does he do that?
COSTAS: I'm assuming that Bud Selig is going to divide this into two parts and set up fairly stringent conditions for each of them. He's going to separate the Hall of Fame from reinstatement to baseball as an ongoing participant. And that seems valid to me. He could gain entry to both under different conditions. Or only one, or neither if he's not willing to meet Selig's conditions.
BROWN: There are Hall of Famers, Bob Feller, Joe Morgan, I think, I feel reasonably sure about Joe Morgan, too, who are not going to accept this unless Rose, even the Hall of Fame part of this, unless Rose apologizes.
COSTAS: I think Feller and some others, even if Rose apologizes and fully and specifically acknowledges what he does -- did rather, Feller is not going to go for it.
But Joe Morgan is one of those trying to broker the deal. If Pete comes clean. And if Selig sets down appropriate conditions, there might be a path to get Pete back in the game.
But I think Pete will not be able to say, yes, I'm sorry. Or yes, I bet on baseball. He's going to have to acknowledge specifics.
I think if Selig is smart, he'll make, as one of the conditions, that if and when Pete is elected to the Hall of Fame, that in his acceptance speech, on the steps at Cooperstown, along with everything else he wants to talk about, he's going to have to acknowledge having bet on baseball. He's going to have to acknowledge that the suspension or the banishment at the time was legitimate. That's step one. That's the Hall of Fame.
If he's ever going to get back in baseball's total good graces, to be employed by baseball in some way or at least eligible to be, there might be another set of conditions, and that might be further down the road.
BROWN: Talk about some other sports things. Who's the -- who would you pay to watch play? You probably haven't paid to watch anything in 20 years.
COSTAS: Who would I pay to watch play?
You know, I think I would pay to watch Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal. Maybe not right now, but last year.
I think you'd have to pay to watch Barry Bonds, even if you're skeptical about the circumstances surrounding what he's done in the last couple of years. It's historic. You'd have to pay...
BROWN: Would you pay today to watch Michael Jordan?
COSTAS: Today, no. Unless I hadn't seen him before.
BROWN: Who haven't you seen -- who -- what athlete do you wish you'd seen that you didn't? Did you ever see Ali fight?
COSTAS: I only saw Ali fight on television or closed circuit. I remember being 19 years old and a freshman at Syracuse University when he fought Frazier the first time. And I saw it on closed circuit television at the Loeb's Theater (ph) in Syracuse, N.Y. BROWN: You had a little money in your pocket.
COSTAS: I had to save up. I think it was about 25 bucks.
Let me tell you, the atmosphere there was so electric. All the things that surrounded that fight. It wasn't just a great athletic event. It had all the sociological significance and everything. I can only imagine what the atmosphere must have been like at Madison Square Garden. But I never saw him in person.
BROWN: Any...
COSTAS: I never saw DiMaggio. I never saw Ted -- I saw Ted Williams in person at Yankee Stadium when I was 8 years old. My dad took me in 1960.
BROWN: So you did see Ted Williams.
COSTAS: I saw Ted Williams in person. Saw Stan Musial.
BROWN: I saw Willie Mays play once.
COSTAS: So did I. I saw Koufax pitch.
BROWN: Came to -- I saw Koufax pitch, too, World Series in Minneapolis. Saw Willie Mays come play a minor league baseball game in Minneapolis. And they threw him a pitch that I could have hit. I mean, that ball is still traveling to Richfield and southern North Dakota.
Who's the next great media athlete, you know, that the media will focus on? Is it this kid the basketball player?
COSTAS: Well, they're focusing on him too soon with too much hype and kind of this crassness that's part of modern sports. But it's pretty clear that this LeBron James has a chance, this high school athlete, basketball player, has a chance to be a terrific player.
A lot of high school players who have come to the NBA really weren't ready. A few actually were ready to play at that level almost right off the bat and then got better from there, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and people who have seen LeBron James say he's in the same category.
That doesn't justify pay-per-view telecasts and ESPN telecasts of a high school kids' games. But that's the directions the sports world's going.
BROWN: Terrible last question, I apologize. Why is there so little sports journalism on television?
COSTAS: Well, I think and, forgive the shameless plug, but I do some work with HBO, and HBO's mandate is entirely different from the networks. I think the networks don't go in that direction for two reasons. One, they think, as noble as it may be, the audience isn't there. The audience would rather watch pure sports programs, games, action, rather than think pieces.
Plus they're loathe to get under the skin of the leagues with whom they consider themselves to be partners. Even though they're the ones who have to pay all the money and the leagues just take the money. It's a strange partnership.
BROWN: I wish there were more, and we appreciate the sports journalism you do. And have for a long time.
COSTAS: Thank you very much. Good to see you.
BROWN: Nice to see you.
COSTAS: Happy holidays.
BROWN: Same to you.
Bob Costas with us tonight.
We'll talk wine in just a moment as we wrap it up for the week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: John Brecher and Dottie Gaiter are with us tonight. They write the wine column for the Wall Street Journal. And we'll talk wine for four quick minutes here to wrap it up for the week.
What have you got? You've got a nice champagne there, don't you?
DOTTIE GAITER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" WINE COLUMNIST: Yes, we do. This is a wonderful champagne for people who think they have everything for Christmas.
BROWN: This is serious champagne.
GAITER: This is serious champagne.
JOHN BRECHER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" WINE COLUMNIST: This is very serious. When we do tastings, this is the Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill Cuvee. It always beats the more famous ones like Dom Perignon and Crystal, and as a result, because it's not as famous it's a relative bargain at a measly $120 a bottle.
Truly for your very, very best guests.
BROWN: May I?
GAITER: Please.
BROWN: I assume you poured three, so...
GAITER: That's all right.
BROWN: Here's to a great new year, by the way.
GAITER: You, too.
BROWN: All right. This is a serious question. Mm-hmm. It's less serious now. I'm spending -- thank you. I'm spending Christmas literally with someone who owns a vineyard. What kind of wine do we bring?
GAITER: Oh, my gosh.
BRECHER: Well, actually, we brought a couple of wines that you can impress anyone with.
BROWN: OK.
BRECHER: White Bordeaux. People don't usually drink white Bordeaux. They think of Bordeaux with red. But get a greves -- G-R- E-V-E-S -- nobody's expecting it. And it tastes so different from Chardonnay that it's always unexpected and always a pleasure.
BROWN: But drink it the same as, you know, with fish and...
GAITER: Exactly.
BROWN: Great with food.
GAITER: Great minerals, great lemony acids, kind of a honey citrus thing going on. Really complex.
BRECHER: And the other thing we brought is a Pinot Noir, because in California these days, more and more wineries are making fabulous Pinot Noir. There was a time, a long time, when the experts said California can't make great pinot and by taking a great pinot, to some extent what you're saying is they were wrong all that time. And it will impress a vineyard owner that you know that.
BROWN: My wife is sitting there going, I hope I did the right thing. Because she goes and buys the wine.
GAITER: It's the thought that counts.
BRECHER: That's right.
BROWN: You're having a dinner party over the holidays, and you want to pour a nice but reasonable wine. Perhaps not a $100 bottle of champagne.
GAITER: Well, if we were cooking.
BROWN: Yes.
GAITER: We would have a Pinot Noir, because it goes with everything. You can have this with duck. You can have it with salmon.
BROWN: It's great with salmon, actually. GAITER: Yes. And Saintsbury makes it in several different price ranges, so it fits everyone's budget.
BRECHER: You can always find it. And don't forget, champagne is not just a celebratory beverage to have around this time of year, although it's good at that, it's also terrific with food.
People don't think of champagne and food. But with cream sauces, champagne is fabulous. With sushi, champagne is fabulous. Not just champagne, but of course, great American sparklers.
BROWN: I almost knocked it over. OK, we've got...
BRECHER: Don't do that.
BROWN: ... thirty seconds. These are questions I've always wanted to ask, what kind of corkscrew do you use? Do you have one of those things where you go -- and it's gone?
GAITER: We have an industrial strength one that looks like...
BRECHER: It goes like that. And it costs a fortune. And we wouldn't have it except we taste six to eight bottles a night and we're old and we just can't do that any more.
BROWN: Is a nice corkscrew, that's not a bad gift to a friend, right?
GAITER: No, it's a great gift.
BRECHER: Very good gift. Very good gift.
BROWN: But not one of those that's really hard to work.
BRECHER: No, no, no. Wine gifts, the truth is, is that wine lovers really need regular stuff. Good corkscrews, good inexpensive glasses. The kinds of things that we really use every day. Not bizarre stuff but everyday stuff that will make you think of the person who gave it.
BROWN: Column's great. So are you, you guys have a wonderful new year.
GAITER: You too.
BRECHER: Thank you. You, too.
BROWN: Thank you very much.
And thank all of you. Have a wonderful Christmas and we'll see you in a week. Good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Post?>
