Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Should Pilots Have Guns?; Are Any Rules for New Media?
Aired May 03, 2002 - 19:00 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.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
Tonight, would you feel safer flying if you knew your pilot had a gun? The debate over arming commercial airline pilots takes off in Congress.
The new media, are there any rules? Matt Drudge and his "Drudge Report" have many asking, just what is news?
Longhorn Lefty and the Bow Tie Brawler face-off in the CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE, coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C. Tonight in the CROSSFIRE, the case of the Reverend Paul Shanley, the Roman Catholic priest facing child rape charges in Massachusetts. Should his superiors be held responsible?
Also, Matt Drudge, founder of the Internet "Drudge Report." Is he a right-wing muckraker, an Internet gossip or a legitimate journalist? We'll ask Drudge himself when we get him in the CROSSFIRE.
First, flying the not-so-friendly skies, would you feel safer if pilots were armed? One outspoken congressional critic is against having guns in the cockpit. We're going to introduce her now. Please welcome, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Democratic delegate from the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton, thank you. Welcome back.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Now, Ms. Norton, the majority, the vast majority of commercial airline pilots are strongly in favor of carrying guns in the cockpit on commercial airliners. You're against it. What do you as a delegate know about operating a commercial airliner that the majority of commercial airline pilots don't know?
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D), D.C. DELEGATE: Well, I know what Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta tells me, and I know what Homeland Security Adviser Tom Ridge tells me, and they are against it. And I think the reason they are against it is you don't want the guy who's flying one of these big busters up there also with a gun in his hand trying to protect his plane. You want air marshals to do that. You want flight attendants to understand how to protect the cockpit. And you want the redundancies that we have built in, redundancy after redundancy, working for you.
We are panicking the American people. They say, oh my God, I thought they had the hearings, I thought they did that. Here come the pilots saying, oh no, they haven't. We've got to have guns.
CARLSON: Well, actually, the pilots are right, as you know, because there aren't air marshals on the vast majority of airplanes. That's not the impression you get from listening to some members of Congress, but it's just true; there aren't. It turns out that flight attendants don't prevent terrorism...
NORTON: You have no idea how many there, because that is security.
CARLSON: Actually, actually, pilot after pilot after pilot has said -- the head of the Pilots Union has said, he's aware that -- of air marshals on virtually no flights except the ones that are required in and out of Washington. The point is, why not add more security? The pilots are already in charge of the airplane, why not give them more authority?
NORTON: It is true that until the end of time now you can put doomsday scenarios forward which will have you, you know, with nuclear bombs on every plane, you've got to protect yourself and so you've got to have (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Let me give you the best argument I know. You know, the people who are guarding the al Qaeda in Cuba and the people who guard rapists and murderers, the most cunning people in the world, don't have guns. Why? Because experts have made a cost/benefit decision that there is more harm than good done with putting guns in the hands of certain kinds of people. I trust the pilots. They would be an elite group. I'm not even talking gun control here, because this would be a group like cops. I'm talking about the airplane, and I'm talking about what you pay him to do, and her to do, which is keep that plane flying. I don't want them keeping the plane flying and having a gunfight at the same time.
BEGALA: Well, this is -- and that's why we're having you along, one of the rare instances where I'm probably wrong because I largely agree with Tucker, and that is -- the case of a prison guard, for example...
CARLSON: Oh, accept it, Paul.
BEGALA: If a criminal overpowers a prison guard, the criminal has a prison guard, and that is all. If a terrorist overpowers a pilot, he has an airplane, he has a weapon of mass destruction. And I don't want just a front line of defense. But why not give them the same training we give our air marshals? Our -- 70 percent of our commercial pilots already have military experience, and allow them to be just another air marshal on every flight? NORTON: The major reason you shouldn't do it now is at best it is premature, at worst it's over the top. I'm on the subcommittee. The committee has asked the Transportation Security Administration and the Justice Department to look at this issue and tell us to weigh the harm versus the benefit. They haven't come in yet. Why would we want to, excuse me, jump the gun and put guns on airplanes before the experts tell us what the cost/benefit is?
And I think we at the very best ought to wait. I would say that if experts said that as a last resort you really must do this, I would be very open to listening to it. I'm -- I'm against guns. But I'm not a fool. I just think you shouldn't do it now before you know what you're doing. The guys who know security on airplanes best, Ridge and Mineta, say no. Why should we say yes?
BEGALA: Well, Ridge and Mineta work for Bush. And this is where this is odd politics here. President Bush agrees with you, but the unions, a reliable Democratic constituency and the Pilots Union...
NORTON: Not the flight attendants. Not the flight attendants.
BEGALA: Tell us about the flight attendants.
NORTON: The flight attendants disagree altogether with this. They don't want pilots up there with gun shots and crossfire, if you forgive the pun, while they are back there trying to figure out what's going on. So you've got a split, even among the unions and the personnel on airplanes.
CARLSON: So the Flight Attendants Union have what sounds like a great idea. Why not, because they are obviously security experts, they say why not just put tasers on airlines? Well, people who have looked into tasers say they are unreliable. But don't just trust their word for it. CNN's Patty Davis, a reporter at CNN, tested on CNN the effectiveness of tasers. And I want you to take a look at the results.
There she is, shooting a man with a taser. He smiles. And so does he, and keeps coming. So tasers are clearly pointless.
NORTON: Well, I am not pro-taser. And I think you've got an awfully good point about tasers. I have to tell you that the state of the art will immediately be there if we say, according to the experts, we the Congress say we need non-lethal weapons.
One of the things the Congress has asked the Justice Department to do is to look at the whole array of non-lethal alternatives, things that won't bust up the airplane as they shoot off and things that will work. And you're right about tasers. And we've got to make sure whatever we put in there works and won't, in fact, disrupt or throw into chaos the plane at the same time.
CARLSON: But with all due respect, two things. One, terrorists who take over a plane aren't armed with non-lethal weapons, they are armed with lethal weapons. And two, by definition, they have already disrupted the path of the aircraft. They are already disrupting everything, and the threat implicit in what they're doing is that the plane is going to kill everyone on board and possibly people on the ground.
NORTON: What you want to have happen, you want the guy who's flying that 747 to keep flying it and land it, and you want everybody else to disrupt him. You don't want him to get into the fight, too. He's got a big job on his hands. He's got hundreds perhaps of passengers depending on him. There are air marshals on many of these flights. You don't know how many there are; I don't know how many there are. There are flight attendants who are trained there. Now you've got folks on airplanes ready to do their job. I think I want the pilot doing his job. His job is to fly the plane.
BEGALA: We know now what the last line of defense is. Right? We have a lot of security and it's getting better now that finally the Bush administration agreed to federalize the screeners. And as that comes online, it will improve the first line of defense.
The last line of defense today is an F-16. Vice President Cheney, in his odd exercise of authority outside the chain of command, gave the order on September 11, we know now from Mr. Cheney's interview with Tim Russert that he gave the order to shoot down civilian airliners. That today is the last line of defense. I guess I'd rather move one line up and have the last line be, God forbid we might need the F-16s, why not have a pilot who is well trained with a weapon?
NORTON: I'll make a deal with both of you guys. If we wait until the people whose job it is to tell us whether or not guns will work on airplanes, and they say, look, exactly what you said, more good than harm, considering that you might have to shoot down a plane, then I'm very open to listening.
The reason I'm opening to listen is that they train these pilots, you know, they would be like cops, I don't object to cops having guns, I don't object to security guards having guns. But I object to putting guns in the hands of pilots before we know what a study would tell us, whether or not they work.
CARLSON: We will take you up on that offer, Eleanor Holmes Norton. Thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.
BEGALA: Thank you, Ms. Norton.
CARLSON: Next on CROSSFIRE, why church officials took no action against a Catholic priest now facing charges of child rape. We'll debate the case of Paul Shanley in the CROSSFIRE.
Also, he's not quite human but they elected him anyway. You heard it before, details in the CROSSFIRE "News Order." We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Former the Roman Catholic priest Paul Shanley is in jail in California tonight, facing charges of child rape. Shanley has waived has right to fight his return to Massachusetts, where he's accused of molesting dozens of boys while a priest in the Boston archdiocese.
Documents released by the archdiocese show that church officials, including Cardinal Bernard Law knew about molestation complaints, but allowed Shanley to continue to serve as a priest.
And in a late development tonight, the archdiocese of Boston backed out of its settlement with 86 victims of defrocked the priest, John Geoghan. Lawsuits against Geoghan, which were the catalyst for the present sexual abuse scandal would have cost the church from between $15 million and $40 million.
For more on this scandal, let's welcome our guest, Patrick Scully, communications director of the Catholic League.
PATRICK SCULLY, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: Thanks for having me.
BEGALA: Mr. Scully, as a brother Catholic, I have to thank you for coming on on a difficult night.
SCULLY: My pleasure.
BEGALA: But I want to start with the breaking news that Tucker mentioned. The archdiocese of Boston has backed out of compensating 86 children who were raped. What worse sin could Cardinal Law be committing?
SCULLY: Well, Cardinal Law wanted the deal to go forward. So in this case he was trying to do the right thing.
BEGALA: Yet, he backed out today.
SCULLY: The finance committee would not approve it, and that is a big difference. For this to go forward the finance committee of the archdiocese of Boston has to approve the deal. The cardinal made a statement today, saying that he regrets the fact that the wouldn't make the deal. But the bottom line is that the finance committee is dead wrong. You're absolutely right. It's about time the victims become the center of this.
They bargained this in good faith, they came up with a settlement and now they backed out of it. is dead wrong. It shows two things. First of all, if you ever wanted to come up with a book on how not to handle a crisis, this is way to do it. And Secondly, I don't know what that says about Cardinal Law. This is the first time, since he's become cardinal in the archdiocese that one of his requests was turned down by the finance committee.
BEGALA: He is effectively not the cardinal. In fact, if he would step down, I think a whole lot of suffering people, these poor children who were raped and also the poor people, the indigent people of Boston who are being denied Catholic Charity's assistance. A wonderful charity. But people are holding back their money as their only means of protesting Law.
Why doesn't he resign when he sees the suffering he is inflicting on his people?
SCULLY: Well, I certainly think that has to be considered in the light of the crisis of confidence and the moral authority of the cardinal has been eroded, as we saw today. He can't get his people to approve what should have been approved. So, again, we need to take a good look at this. Whether he still has moral authority to continue. And how are we going to restore the confidence of the people that sit in the pews on Sunday. That's what we need to address.
CARLSON: Well, I have a suggestion for you then. This priest, Paul Shanley, who was arrested just the other day, was a known child molester for more than 20 years, spoke at NAMBLA conference, bragged about having venereal disease.
And I'm wondering why the church didn't call the police about him 20 years ago. But how about just even a year ago? How about six months ago when the first stories of this came out?
SCULLY: That's a very good question. And the answer is, they feared confrontation, they feared scandal, and they didn't have the courage to do it. That's been the problem all along. They were so busy trying not to bring scandal on the church and not rock the boat, that they almost sank the ship.
So, I think, your question is a good one. And everyone's wondering the same thing. And the answer, they were afraid to do it because it would bring -- they put avoiding scandal ahead of the victims and that's a mistake.
CARLSON: Well, here's an idea, then. More than 100 priests have been suspended, just in the last couple of weeks. And I'm wondering how many of them have been reported to authorities? I mean, they have all been suspended because they are suspected of molestation, some have admitted it. And you think the church would refer each one of them to the authorities. How many of...
SCULLY: I don't know. I don't have a number. But in many cases it's happened in New York. It is now happening in Boston, where everything is being turned over. It may be too late. You know, when it comes to people's lives, better late than never really doesn't help much. But they are doing...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: But they could still go to jail.
SCULLY: Absolutely. In fact, this Shanley character ought to go to jail if it's prove he did this. And I'm reading in the news this morning, about how this is another blow for the Catholic Church. How awful this is, this is exactly what we need. We need a bloodletting and we need these people exposed, and we need these people put in jail so the Catholic Church can get past this, and go back to what it does, which is to be the greatest social engine in our society. BEGALA: Well, I completely agree with that. But I also don't want to let the hierarchy off the hook. In the case of Father Shanley, several of his victims, one of whom was a 6-year-old boy who was raped repeatedly at church by Father Shanley -- Mr. Shanley -- they filed a lawsuit.
The archdiocese, Cardinal Law responded to the lawsuit. I will put up on the board some of the language that they used in this lawsuit. Blaming this 6-year-old boy. Here it is, Patrick.
"... the negligence of the plaintiffs," that is the little boy and his parents, "contributed to cause the injury or damage complained of." Cardinal Law is blaming the victims. Can anything be lower? And this man is supposed to be a moral leader.
SCULLY: It's absolutely appalling and it's outrageous. And as a member of the Catholic League, which is a great defender of the Catholic Church, we don't defend the indefensible. And this statement from this cardinal is indefensible.
Now I know that the lawyers play games with negligence, and you try to reduce the amount of awards. Leave it to lawyers. For a cardinal to some out and say this...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: This is actually -- I am not -- this was a legal document.
SCULLY: Right.
BEGALA: And I am a lawyer, by training, and lawyers do put that kind of boiler plate in. But when you are dealing with a case like this, it's the moral obligation of the cardinal, I believe, before he signs off on anything like that -- to expunge anything suggesting that a little boy could be responsible...
SCULLY: Especially...
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) animal like that raping him.
SCULLY: ... in a situation we are in now, he is under a microscope as it is. In some ways it's another demonstration that he doesn't get it. And I think people need to respond appropriately to that. And I think they are doing that. There is a great discussion going on now in Boston. I understand that the Vatican -- when the cardinals were in Rome, what to do about this.
But again, the answer is we need to restore -- we need to take care of the victims first and foremost, and that's what this settlement would have done if they went through with it. But we need to restore the confidence of the people who sit in the pews. There's a whole new generation of Catholics out there that want to raise their families in the Catholic Church. And they are looking at this, saying we need to clean this up. CARLSON: But don't you think, before you clean anything up -- you need to answer the question, why did this happen? We heard from the beginning, people saying the Catholic Church has not a higher percentage of child molesters than any other institution. That's clearly not true.
There's no school district in America, for instance, that has the same percentage of child molesters as the Catholic Church -- what about the culture of the culture of the Catholic clergy allowed this to happen?
SCULLY: I have to disagree with you. Because every...
CARLSON: Well, name one.
SCULLY: Ever sociologist that I have seen, Phillip Jenkins (ph), Professor Phillip Jenkins has said that the percentage of this problem in the priesthood is no greater than the general population.
CARLSON: Well, name another institution that has this magnitude of the sexual scandals.
SCULLY: Well, it's all coming out at once and, of course, it's under the microscope. Now that's not to divert from the main point. The culture of the Catholic church has not caused this. In fact, if the rules and the teachings of the Catholic church had been followed by everybody involved, especially the priests, then we wouldn't have had that. You know, one of things...
CARLSON: Well, of course. But what about the culture allowed people to break the law and the rules of the church without being apprehended (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
SCULLY: That's absolutely right. And one of the things I'm tired of hearing about is how the church is so rigid and it's so dictatorial. That's clearly not true because this man, Shanley, did whatever he wanted, advocated man/boy sex and nobody did anything to him.
BEGALA: But, Patrick, I think there is very little doubt that if he had advocated, oh say, women priests or married priests, that he yanked them -- in fact, it happened in the Boston archdiocese. A man stood up, a priest, and said, well, maybe we should be open to ordaining married men or women, and they yanked him in nine days.
SCULLY: Well, if...
BEGALA: If they're very rigid about doctrine, but then here's rape and they turn their...
SCULLY: Well, if you want to have a discussion about celibacy or ordination of women, have that. But you don't change the rules of an institution because a portion of the institution which promised to abide by it can't. So, if you want to have the discussion, fine, but let's be honest about it and be up front about it. I got news for you, if Paul Shanley -- if there wasn't celibacy, Paul Shanley is not looking at Halle Berry. OK, there's a whole other problem there. It has got nothing to do with celibacy or the ordination of women.
CARLSON: Or Halle Berry.
SCULLY: Or Halle Berry.
BEGALA: You know, I think one of the reasons they let these guys go so long is that they didn't have enough priests.
SCULLY: Well, you know...
BEGALA: If you let married men and women become...
SCULLY: Well, one of the things I hear more and more is one of the reasons that they didn't boot these guys is because, quote, "we can't afford to lose any priests." I got news for you, you can't afford to keep some of them.
BEGALA: I'm with you.
SCULLY: I'd rather have a hand...
BEGALA: I'm sorry to cut you off, Patrick, but they're telling me we have got to go. I really do appreciate you coming on a difficult night, Patrick Scully from the Catholic League.
SCULLY: Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
BEGALA: And when CROSSFIRE returns, attention all you couch potatoes. We've got a scoop on a summer job that you cannot refuse. Learn all about it in our CROSSFIRE "News Alert."
Also, our "Quote of the Day." Here's the first hint: She's a former host of this broadcast, but she's pulling no punches on what she thinks about the new CROSSFIRE. Back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for a look at those unusual and interesting stories you might not find anywhere but in our CROSSFIRE "News Alert."
Prosecutors in Las Vegas are trying to outlaw private dancers in hotel rooms. Businesses with names like Mature Dolls, College Cuties and Dream Girls of Las Vegas, do a booming business in Sin City. But local law enforcement is beginning to suspect some of those girls might in fact be prostitutes rather than dancers.
Las Vegas law enforcement officials last week proudly announce they have driven all of the hookers out of town. But apparently that conclusion was premature as all the hookers returned to Las Vegas a few days later. In other news, the NRA members proclaimed last week's meeting in Reno, Nevada the best darn tooting time we ever had.
CARLSON: Viva Las Vegas.
And from the birthplace of modern representative government comes this news. A monkey has been elected mayor of Hartlepool, England. Stuart Drummond (ph), a local man who campaigned for office under the name Hangas (ph) the Monkey while wearing a full-body monkey suit, beat out his Labor Party opponent to win this week.
Analysts declared the election a bad omen for the Labor Party, which despite bouts of well deserved popularity isn't accustomed to being beaten by primates. Meanwhile, Drummond, like so many politicians before him, immediately attempted to reinvent himself in the wake of his election. Quote, "I do not want to be associated with the monkey," he told reporters adding that his campaign pledge of free bananas for all school children was no longer, quote, "a priority." There was no word on what would become of the monkey suit.
BEGALA: I've heard of a lot of candidates that were monkeys.
Police in Lacrosse, Wisconsin say a naked man drying his clothes in a laundromat stormed off when two young women laughed at him. Police say the man told the women that he got his clothes wet and needed to dry them. The women then told police he had become angry when they laughed at his undressed state. They say that after the women laughed at him, the man took out his clothes, got dressed and left through the back door of the Cass (ph) Street Laundromat in Lacrosse. Police describe the man as around six feet tall with thick, unruly hair and wearing nothing but a bow tie.
CARLSON: The good news, I got away with it.
And finally, they told you that if you worked hard and stayed focus, you'd succeed in life. They lied. Nintendo of America has announced that it will hire 50 people this summer to play video games. Each will make $100 a day. Their job, again, playing video games. Nintendo's vice president, Peter MacDougall, describes the promotion as, quote, "the best summer job ever." It is certain to lead to copycat offers. Several large corporations are already considering paying teenagers to sleep, hang out, eat Captain Crunch and smoke dope while watching cartoons. That's our news.
When CROSSFIRE returns, part of Cleveland Airport is evacuated. Find out what happened in the CNN "News Alert."
And then our "Quote of the Day." Here's another hint: She served in Congress and ran for vice president. Now she's a media critic. Her first target, CROSSFIRE. We'll reveal the offender's name when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Time for our CROSSFIRE "Quote of the Day." It comes from Geraldine Ferraro, the only woman ever to be the vice presidential nominee of a major party, and more important, a former CROSSFIRE host. She recently had this to say about the new CROSSFIRE, and it's our quote of the day. "There was so much yelling I just didn't watch it." That was Geraldine Ferraro, the media critic. Let's take a look at Geraldine Ferraro, the CROSSFIRE host. Here she was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GERALDINE FERRARO: And suppose she dies, who's responsible -- I mean, can they come back to you guys in the Senate and say you voted for that so that you're responsible?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact of the matter is that perinatolgists, people who work in this area in his risk...
FERRARO: You're not a doctor. You're a lawyer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got hundreds and hundreds of letters from doctors...
FERRARO: I don't care how many.
You have in a regular criminal court case. No, wait.
JOHN SUNUNU: That begs the issue.
FERRARO: No, it doesn't. No, no, John. Just a minute let me just tell you one thing.
SUNUNU: Okay. Go ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now Paul, my only hope is six months from now, when you have moved on from here to become the head of PETA, say, you don't look back and say, oh, CROSSFIRE, it's a shout-fest.
BEGALA: You know what though? Geraldine Ferraro made history. She's a wonderful woman. She's at Fox now.
CARLSON: Paul, you're wrong.
BEGALA: No, she's a fine person.
CARLSON: No, you're wrong. That's outrageous.
BEGALA: I can't believe you'd come on national television like this -- Gerri, we were kidding, babe.
Coming up next on CROSSFIRE, Matt Drudge. A legend in his own mind or a high quality Internet gossip? And round six, I'll pound some sense into Mr. Tucker Carlson about the White House's whining over federal judges.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: You may love him, you may hate him. You may even pretend you don't know who he is. But of course you do. He's Matt Drudge, Internet gossip monger, one man news services, one of the biggest names on the worldwide web. He joins tonight to debate the state of American journalism and his place in it. Ladies and gentlemen, Matt Drudge.
CARLSON: Nice to see you, Matt.
Thanks for joining us.
MATT DRUDGE, "DRUDGE REPORT": So I'm still a gossip monger at all of these years?
BEGALA: I left it as a question.
CARLSON: But you're outside that. I think of you as being in a darkened room with computer screens. It's nice to see you out.
DRUDGE: Thank you.
CARLSON: You're welcome. Now Clinton, talk show. Now if you're a member of the new media, it strikes me that Clinton would be the new, new media, kind of post modern talk show. Do you if he does it, it would work?
DRUDGE: We're still crazy after all of these years? I mean, I'm looking at a calendar that's the 21st century. I don't think Bill Clinton's got a chance on television. I don't think NBC would pay him $1 million, let alone $50 million. I think these are his friends. You know them, Jeff Zucker, Andy Lack, very close to the Democratic party. I just assume it's friends getting together in Burbank over wild turkeys.
BEGALA: Andy Lack fired my ass at MSNBC. He wasn't a very good friend of mine back then. I don't know friends of Democrats. In fact, though, President Clinton, of course, not going to do anything like that. But let me read you a statement that his spokesperson gave to CNN. I'll put it up on the screen here. "President Clinton has no plans to do a talk show, but he has told me he's jealous of Paul and James' gig on CROSSFIRE." That's from Julia Payne.
CARLSON: That shows us how low he has sunk.
BEGALA: He's actually watching. No what he does is he hits the mute button when Carlson is speaking. Makes it a much better show. You show try that at home.
DRUDGE: But the press certainly is -- you know, Bush is being, you know, quite boring when it comes to show business and media. We're having this big White House dinner tomorrow night. Ozzy Osborne's the big star over at Fox News channel. Greta Van Susteren's hired Ozzy for the night. I would think we miss Clinton because it was so dramatic, it was so soap opera, where Bush is a little bit more sober, and not sort of staining the carpet.
BEGALA: You know, Bush actually used to bite the heads off of live bats, too. It's just -- it's not well known. But I'm from Austin. He and Ozzy were like this.
DRUDGE: But we miss him, I think's the bottom line. So does the press. The front page of every paper today is this report that's years old that he may do a TV show, which we clearly know he won't do. BEGALA: Right. Actually, let me ask you about part of your role in that little melodrama. And it was one that affected a dear friend of mine personally. It was a lawsuit. It's long gone. It's gone away. But my view, you were told something that was defamatory.
DRUDGE: Yes.
BEGALA: About a friend of mine, Sid Blumenthal, I used to work with at the White House.
DRUDGE: He's a friend of yours?
BEGALA: Yes, he is.
CARLSON: If you can even imagine that.
BEGALA: And you reported that -- you reported that. You later apologized.
DRUDGE: Uh-huh.
BEGALA: You've refused to reveal your source. And it seems to me, and I teach journalism and have for many years, that a reporter does owe a duty of confidentiality of sources until the reporter realizes that the source has been using him to spread defamatory false information. Why don't you tell us who this source is? So other journalists won't rely on him or her?
DRUDGE: Did CNN reveal its sources for the nerve gas story that they got...
BEGALA: I have no idea. I wasn't working here.
DRUDGE: Well, let me finish. Your -- CNN tonight or your representative, CNN, is asking the Internet reporter to reveal sources. And Mr. Begala, I ought to ask you, how did that lawsuit settle, by the way? Did he, Sidney Blumenthal, in fact pay my side to get out of it, a lawsuit he brought? Is that a yes or no?
BEGALA: I'm curious if you think a journalist has the duty to...
DRUDGE: Then tell us. Is it yes or no?
BEGALA: ...to warn other journalists, and to tell the public when he or she receives false and defamatory information?
DRUDGE: I...
BEGALA: You were used as a conduit for someone else's defamation.
DRUDGE: No, no, no. I cannot believe CNN, with all of its errors, with all of its lawsuits would dare challenge a single guy, who's done pretty well on his own, quite frankly, and has broken quite a few stories on a national scale with these fingers and this little peanut brain, why would a corporation the size of AOL/Time Warner dare suggest that I reveal my sources?
BEGALA: Why would you protect someone who has used you and to spread false and defamatory information? I understand protection of sources gives you truthful information. You know, that's important. But I'm curious as to where your journalistic standards lie?
DRUDGE: Well, it's also going back to where you had executive privilege in the White House. Why would in the world would Bill Clinton have used executive privilege over panties, Paul Begala?
BEGALA: You won't tell us why.
DRUDGE: You want to know my source? Why do you want to know my source?
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Paul.
BEGALA: Or your reason for...
DRUDGE: Why do you personally want to know my source?
BEGALA: I personally don't care. I'm curious as to your journalistic standards.
CARLSON: No, look, he's not going to snitch. He's not going to snitch.
DRUDGE: You're the one that's not revealing your sources, Paul Begala. And once you get further into this business, and you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) politics when you had executive privilege...
BEGALA: Even when they lied to you? Even when they use you for defamation?
CARLSON: Now -- I actually I completely agree with you, Matt Drudge. And in fact, I'm a reader of "The Drudge Report." I think it's an excellent digest of interesting stories. But I remember you gave a speech to the National Press Club a couple years ago, where you predicted the end of the old media.
DRUDGE: Mm-hmm.
CARLSON: And in those ensuring years, I've read "The Drudge Report" almost every day. And I've learned a lot of interesting things. A ton about the weather, a lot about cloning, a lot about the four-year-old eaten by the iguana. I've liked every one of those. And I'm not patronizing. I mean, I really have. But it has not replaced "The New York Times" or CNN as a source for other news, for a fuller account of news. And neither has the Internet. So aren't your predictions about the new media taking the place of the old?
DRUDGE: Oh, I don't know. Well, premature, I think you may be premature. How many years are we into the Internet revolution? Probably five since Netscape was launched and it became simple with Windows. You go to the museum across the river here, you -- it took hundreds, maybe a couple 150 years for "The New York Times" and others to really catch up to speed to the prominence they have now.
It doesn't happen overnight. But I still do see a future where individuals do make a difference, reporting what they know, and what they believe to be true as opposed to corporations and gigantic news rooms...
CARLSON: Well, then address that, then. One of the tropes about the Internet is you don't make money from a Web site. But you -- how much do you make every year off "The Drudge Report?"
DRUDGE: Probably more than both you combined at this table.
CARLSON: Well give us a pretty specific number?
DRUDGE: It's nearly seven figures. And it's a great living, because I don't have to share it with anybody. There's no production cost. There's no makeup artist. There's no music and there's no lighting. It's...
BEGALA: The hat's got to set you back a bunch though, right? Did you have a whole closetful of them?
Let me ask you about...
DRUDGE: But it can be lucrative. This whole notion that the Internet's a dud is ridiculous. Otherwise, we all wouldn't have Web sites.
BEGALA: Well, let me ask you though about more traditional media, where you have tried and frankly not done as well. You had a radio show that got canceled. You had Fox television how that I wanted to ask you about. That you and Fox parted company, a very bitter acrimonious way. And in November of '99, you told 'The Washington Post" that the Fox executives were weak-kneed suits, who allowed you free rein to attack Clinton, but then crack down on you when you wanted to show a photo of a 21-year of fetus that had been shown apparently on "Oprah Winfrey" and other shows.
DRUDGE: You're taking -- no, that's not an exact quote.
BEGALA: Pretty close.
DRUDGE: Who's your -- did you prepare the fact sheet?
BEGALA: Sure I did, absolutely.
DRUDGE: My radio show was canceled? On Sunday night, I'm on 200 stations, including...
BEGALA: Well, forgive my...
DRUDGE: ...including WMAL and WABC and KFI in Los Angeles. Paul Begala, you have to do better. If you're hitting the major leagues here.
BEGALA: I'm curious about... DRUDGE: This is not a Clinton White House where you spin lies. This is big time. This is satellite television.
BEGALA: Matt, did you...
DRUDGE: And you're making these up as you go.
BEGALA: Did the Fox people tell you that you could have free reign to attack Clinton and then crack down on you when you wanted to show a photograph of fetus?
DRUDGE: There was no dictation at the Fox News channel, a lot like I don't believe there's dictation here. I hope they're not telling you in your ear right now to get tougher on me or whoever's calling the shots. We're not robots, we're individuals, hopefully.
BEGALA: So did you correct that when "The Post" reported that on November...?
DRUDGE: To try correct Howard Kurtz, that'd be a full-time job.
CARLSON: Now well...
BEGALA: So you're more accurate than Howie Kurtz?
CARLSON: One of the ways you became famous was by attacking other reporters, including Mike Isikoff, of "Newsweek", whose story you essentially took and put it up on the Web site. I'm glad you did, because it was a great story, and great reading. But you have made somewhat of a career of slamming conventional reporters. Who do you like?
DRUDGE: I love Bob Novak. I miss him here tonight, Tucker.
CARLSON: He'll be back.
DRUDGE: It is -- I don't have many heroes in the press. It is a generation or two where I have to go back and look at some of the people that I adored for their moxie, for their -- Hunter Thompson, if he would ever sober up in the hills of Colorado.
CARLSON: But don't you see the difference between someone like Hunter Thompson...
DRUDGE: No.
CARLSON: Hold on. Essentially a reporter and yourself, who's essentially runs a clipping service linking to other people's reporting, which I think is a valuable...
DRUDGE: How, but, Tucker how...
CARLSON: ...thing you do. Don't you think there's a difference between what you do and reporting?
DRUDGE: No, because I'm not a clipping service. And you know damn well I'm not. You come to me to get the first wave on everything, including that "Newsweek" story. I mean, to report...
CARLSON: But they are other people's stories most of the time. That's all I'm saying.
DRUDGE: But hold on. How is it someone else's story to report "Newsweek" is not running a story? That is an original story.
CARLSON: Well, that is. But most of the time, you are the person who finds other people's stories, and gathers them in one place, correct?
DRUDGE: No, recently a big media story that Peter Jennings is going to be asked to take a pay cut here. That's an original. You turn a big media and salaries, that was an original story of mine. I mean, I guess if you expect me to break an exclusive that shakes the world every day, a dirty dress, or a cigar, I mean, maybe I'm not up to that task. But every once in a while, I got to show my hand.
BEGALA: Well, let me show you, actually, what Mr. Isikoff of "Newsweek" magazine, who Tucker referred to, had to say about you and ask you to respond. He described. You can put it up on the screen here. "Drudge is a menace to honest, responsible journalism. And to the extent that he's read and people believe what they read, he's dangerous." Michael Isikoff, "Newsweek." What is your response?
DRUDGE: Well, as he's probably refreshing "The Drudge Report, I've been in his office. And he was fast to show me what his home page was. So...
BEGALA: Which is?
DRUDGE: Well at the time it was me. That was a while ago.
CARLSON: But he still calls you dangerous, why?
DRUDGE: Dangerous, because I don't report to a boss that will spike my story, the way they did to him at "The Washington Post" and "Newsweek". He was spiked twice. We call him Spiky in the vast right wing conspiracy, because he had the stories. And as opposed to being brave and say, I quit and I'm going down Pennsylvania Avenue, and I'm going to tell the world what I know, he says, "No, I'm going to play it safe." And he stays in his -- the safety of the suites.
CARLSON: Well you see him tomorrow night at the dinner you're going to?
DRUDGE: I will.
CARLSON: Have a great time.
DRUDGE: Thank you.
BEGALA: We'll give your regards to brother Novak when he comes back. Matt Drudge, thank you very much for joining us on CROSSFIRE.
DRUDGE: Thank you. BEGALA: Coming up a little bit later, your chance to fire back at us. And then round six, where I take on Carlson over a hissy fit that President Bush threw today over the confirmation of federal judges. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. The guests have gone home. That means one thing. It's time for round six, an intimate moment where Paul and I chat about the president's understandable outrage over what the Senate has done or hasn't done with his nominations for federal judgeships. and it is outrageous. It was not phony outrage the president displayed today. 10 percent of all federal judgeships remain unfilled, as you know. And why? Because of a Democratic controlled Senate. Mr. Lahey. And do you know why he is held them back? Over ideology, specifically abortion.
That's outrageous, they ought to stop it. And it's actually paralyzing the administration of justice in this country, as you know. And there's really no defending it. Maybe we should just stop now.
BEGALA: Well, maybe we should just, for the hell of it, let's interject a few facts. George W. Bush has had more of his judges confirmed by the Senate in his first year than any president in the last 20 years.
CARLSON: Because he's nominated more.
BEGALA: 52. President Clinton got only 17 through the Republican Senate in '96. Only...
CARLSON: 52 out of how many, Paul? Out of 100.
BEGALA: ...36 in 1997.
CARLSON: A little bit more than half.
BEGALA: No, by the way, the time lag under Bush has been a third, 109 days on average. It was over 300 days when Clinton was in office. So Democrats have only promised they're confirming too many, and too fast.
CARLSON: Oh, oh.
BEGALA: They ought to stop these right wing troops...
CARLSON: I think...
BEGALA: Because Bush doesn't have a legitimate claim to fill these judgments.
CARLSON: I think I understand what you're saying. They did it to us, so we should do it to them. And you are looking...
BEGALA: They're passing his judges through. CARLSON: With no shame, you are saying that that's a morally valid reason to suspend the careers of people who've done nothing wrong because they did it to us?
BEGALA: Let me explain again.
CARLSON: That's indefensible.
BEGALA: And pardon me for talking while you're interrupting. Let me explain again. They have confirmed 52. We're not doing it to them. Bush is just...
CARLSON: But not...
BEGALA: Oh, why don't they call daddy. Let me go call Chief Justice Renquist and run to them. It's all the Constitution.
CARLSON: You know, you can call them what you want.
BEGALA: The Senate is supposed to advise and consent. And I think they've confirmed too dang many.
CARLSON: You know what, Paul? The sad part is, it all comes down to one issue. And you know this to be true, because some of them say that.
BEGALA: With legitimacy.
CARLSON: No, no, no. Comes down to abortion. It's the abortion industry is against anybody who is against abortion, period.
BEGALA: So how did you get 52 judges...
CARLSON: And you know, as well as I do, that any federal judge who has -- expresses a clear view on the one specific subject gets boycotted.
BEGALA: Did do you think Bush has nominated 52 pro-choice judges?
CARLSON: No, I don't.
BEGALA: I think they've been 52 pro-life judges.
CARLSON: I think he's nominated.
BEGALA: And they have been passed through.
CARLSON: No, I bet, probably a lot of them are pro-choice, but the point is there are at least 48 who aren't. And so, they're being held up. But -- you always talk about every night...
BEGALA: The issue is legitimacy. These are lifetime appointments. The legitimacy derives from the fact that the president gets a majority of votes. Here, the president didn't get the majority of votes. So I'm very scared of him setting up the federal... CARLSON: Well, then how --
BEGALA: Since the federal judiciary selected him to be our president.
CARLSON: Paul, by that standard, he ought not to be running the government or waging war around the world if he's not a legitimate...
BEGALA: Those aren't lifetime powers.
CARLSON: That's -- what an argument. He ought to step down now. Think about what you're saying, Paul.
Straight ahead on CROSSFIRE, your chance to fire back at us. And don't be surprised if we fire back at you, rather harshly in fact. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We call this segment "Fire Back." And man, do you. Let's begin with today's "Washington Times," which took a shot at yours truly. Here is Paul Begala's smear campaign. "The Washington Times" today excoriates me for saying, and they're quoting me here, "the Republican right, under the sponsorship of President Bush and Vice President Cheney's been engaged in a strategy they call demonizing Daschle. This despite the fact Tom Daschle was the victim of anthrax attacks by someone who wanted to kill him."
Seems to me those are two simple statements of fact. But of course, I got the idea that they were targeting Daschle from none other than, "The Washington Times." Let's put up "The Washington Times" story. The White House is escalating its attacks against Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle. President Bush, last week, ordered senior advisers to take the gloves off and sharpen their rhetoric. These orders came down from on high to start getting toufer, a White House official said. So I want to apologize for relying on "The Washington Times" accuracy in making that comment.
CARLSON: You know what? I like the first story better.
E-mail from Bert Davis, just received. "If President Clinton is looking for a talk show, I cannot think of a better place than CROSSFIRE. I would love to see him and Tucker go at it!!! Think of the ratings." Well Bert, bad idea on two counts. One, we'd fear for the female staff. But more importantly, is the crying. The president cries and bites his lip. And there's no crying or lip biting on CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: Oh, stop. Bush was whining and whimpering at the White House today.
Here's from D. Wercholak of Monroe Township, New Jersey. "If you really want to pick up some rating points, hook Paul Begala up to a lie detector. Every time he lies, a bell goes off. It would be a noisy show, but interesting nonetheless." Thank you for that... (RINGING BELL)
... comment. There's a lie. I do respect President Bush.
(RINGING BELL)
There's a lie. You know we should go on.
(RINGING BELL)
Oh, there's another lie. He's right. Thank you D. Wercholak.
CARLSON: And Donna Lane from Okmulgee, Oklahoma writes, "I just love it when you get tucker backed into a corner! His bow tie begins to spin around and all he can do is screech, Clinton, Clinton." Well, Donna, you are missing it. In fact, I begin by screeching Clinton, Clinton. That is my starting point tonight and every night.
BEGALA: And here's S.D. Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia. "Having watched Begala and Carville for several weeks now, I have come to the conclusion that if were brains were dynamite, the two wouldn't have enough to blow their nose." Thank you, S.D. Cooper.
CARLSON: Those nasty...
BEGALA: Somebody who cares about brains would desperately be supporting Bush, I know.
CARLSON: And the question from the audience? Yes?
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
MATT: Hi there. My name is Matt and I'm from Washington, D.C. And the question I have for you is, when do you think Bill Clinton will realize he's no longer president and not try and broker a Middle East peace deal?
CARLSON: That is an excellent question. I think he'll believe it when he reads it in his own obit, which is to say never.
BEGALA: No, in truth, the president has been very, very respectful of President Bush as he botched the Middle East. I'm sure like President Carter, or former President Bush, he'd be glad to go to the reach and help his country, but I think Bill Clinton's forbearance and his silence, as Bush has botched the Middle East has been heroic.
CARLSON: Well, he's been getting busy, very busy, giving $500,000 speeches to rich people in Australia.
BEGALA: And earning every -- yes, sir? What's your question or comment?
BRENDON: Brendon Boyle from Philadelphia. If John McCain decided to run for president as a Democrat, could he win the nomination?
BEGALA: No.
CARLSON: And he would never do it, the fact is. I mean, John McCain is very annoyed by the Republican party, and it shows. But as you know, probably, there's no group more annoying than liberals. And I think they would drive him so crazy, he couldn't get through the nomination process.
BEGALA: Yes, we've got plenty of qualified Democrats.
CARLSON: No, you don't. That's the...
(RINGING BELL)
Oh, the lying bell goes off. Yes?
A.J.: My name's A.J. Feni Ruiz. I'm from Martinsville, Indiana. And my question is, how do you feel sites like "The Drudge Report" and "Worldnetdaily" are going to change the way news reaches America?
CARLSON: Well, they make it faster. I mean, I think we're saying up here, I don't think most people read "The Drudge Report" or "Worldnetdaily" to find fresh reporting. I mean you read the newspaper. You watch CNN. But it's nice to have someone take the time to bring it all together. I mean, if an iguana does eat a child in a foreign country, how are you going to know about it? "The Drudge Report."
BEGALA: I prefer the analysis on like Mediahorizon.com. I don't read Drudge.
CARLSON: And if you want to wreck your day and scramble your brain, sign on to the Web site Paul just mentioned.
BEGALA: Try it. From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again Monday night, next week, for another edition of CROSSFIRE. see you then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
