Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
President Lashes Out at Congress; Has Television Become Vast Wasteland?
Aired May 09, 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. In the CROSSFIRE tonight -- President Bush lashes out at senators who are blocking his choices for federal judgeships.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, I think it's raw politics. It is bad for the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Is this a case of political payback or justice delayed?
Ten years ago today, Vice President Dan Quayle questioned the values of TV character Murphy Brown. Where has television moved since then? Has it really become a vast wasteland?
And it's Thursday, time for CROSSFIRE's police blotter. The stories of those who mix their public images with a hint of scandal, ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to crossfire. We are coming to you, as always, live from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington, D.C.
Coming up, the state of American television, 40-plus years after Newton Minnow (ph) famously dubbed it a vast wasteland, some think it has only gotten worse. Others say it is simply more responsive to the market. TV -- impossibly vulgar or pure democracy? That is our debate later in the show.
But first, an angry George W. Bush stormed Capitol Hill today, outraged over what he says is the Senate's snail-like pace in confirming his judicial nominees. Of his first 11 nominees for top appeals courts, seen in this picture, only three have been confirmed. Senate Democrats say they are confirming judges faster than Republicans ran the place and that the Senate won't be a rubber stamp for any president. After meeting with Republican senators on the judiciary committee this afternoon, Bush slammed Democrats for playing what he called raw politics. Let's take up the issue with our first guest in the crossfire...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: These are well-qualified -- you know, they have relied upon the American Bar Association in the past. These nominees have been given well qualified or qualified ratings. Yes, I think it's raw politics. I think it is bad for the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: And now we are ready for our guest. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a member of the judiciary committee in the United States Senate. Please welcome him.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: Hey, Paul. Good to see you. Tucker. Thank you.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Senator Sessions, thank you for taking the time to join us. I don't want to get too deep into statistics, but this is a part about statistics, so let me put a few up on this big board here, and let the folks at home see them as well.
The number of judges who have been confirmed by your colleagues in the United States Senate, now run by the Democrats, far exceeds the number that were confirmed by your colleagues in the Republican party when President Clinton was president. Fifty-six Republican nominated judge for President Bush have been confirmed by the current senate. In a similar time period only 36 confirmed when your party ran the senate. What in the world is our president whining about?
SESSIONS: Well, a lot of reasons for that. Mainly there were a bunch of resignations after the Republicans -- after President Clinton left office. It was down to 67 vacancies when President Clinton left office, with only 41 nominees he submitted to the Senate.
During that time, a number of vacancies have occurred, and some of the judges have moved but we have, as a percentage basis, a very slow movement, and we have a lot of concern because the Democrats have flat out stated they want to change the ground rules, they want to consider ideology, they want to put the burden on the nominee himself or herself to be confirmed. Those are changes that we think indicate a desire to slow down the process. And that's what has been happening, particularly with the first group of highly qualified nominees the president submitted.
BEGALA: While there may have been a few retirements, the vacancies were in fact created because your colleagues refused to nominate -- or rather to confirm, qualified nominees under President Bush. And in fact...
SESSIONS: Let me say this about that. When President Bush left office, he had -- I forgot -- more vacancies than when President Clinton left office. In other words, the Democrats, when they controlled the Senate, left President Bush with more unfilled vacancies than when Senator Hatch finished his tenure as chairman of the judiciary.
BEGALA: In fact, at a time when there were 103 vacancies, this is what Senator Hatch had to say about vacancies -- and there were 103, which is more than we have today -- but Bill Clinton was nominating judges.
And Orrin Hatch, who is the leading senator on the judiciary committee in your party, said this. "The claim that there is a vacancy crisis in the federal courts is simply wrong. Using the Clinton administration's own standards the federal judiciary is currently at virtual full employment. This is when we had more vacancies, so this is just a matter of convenience and ideology.
SESSIONS: No, the numbers he was talking about were the 60s. When judgeship numbers were in 60s, President Clinton said that is about full employment because it takes about that much time to get a judge confirmed.
We're now at about 90 vacancies. So we have a good many more, and we had the eight sterling nominees for the circuit courts have even had a hearing in one year to date.
CARLSON: Now Senator Sessions, it's obvious to you, to me, I think probably even to Paul, the Democrats are in fact creating a bottleneck in the Senate over the president's nominees and they are doing so for ideological reasons. That's clear. They have almost said that.
My question to you is, why is that wrong for the United States Senate, where ideology is debated every day, to take a hard look at a nominee for a lifetime post and argue about it?
SESSIONS: Well, you can do that, and the big complaint the president has is that we're not even calling these nominees up for a hearing so they can be engaged on the issues. Many of those nominees received a unanimously high rating by the American Bar Association.
These are people who have in the mainstream of American law. They believe in judicial restraint, so the American people ought not to be afraid of Bush nominees. They are not going to abuse the power in office to carry out a political agenda.
CARLSON: Well, I agree, they are in the mainstream, but a lot of Democrats in Senate, as you know, are not in the mainstream. A lot of them are in the pocket -- I hate to say it -- but, of the abortion industry. And they...
SESSIONS: Well, they want to have the courts further their political agenda.
CARLSON: I think that's absolutely right, but what is odd about that? I mean, this is politics, so if you are stridently pro-choice, why wouldn't you want to block a judge who was stridently pro-life? SESSIONS: Well, I would just say this. I think that we'll continue to see a slowdown until the American people speak to the Congress and say they want their judges moved forward, and they do not want good and decent and highly qualified judges held up for political reasons.
It is a political process. Nothing is perfect. Some good judges under Clinton probably did not get confirmed that should have been confirmed. Some probably got confirmed that should not have.
Nothing is perfect, but I believe this system, as it is being operated now, has ratcheted up the pressure in an unusual and unprecedented degree against Bush nominees.
BEGALA: Let me actually go to another one of your colleagues, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is now working with -- I believe his ninth president in the United States Senate. He has seen them come and go. He commented on this after the president spoke out. Why don't you take a look and then ask for reaction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I can only see Republican complaints as an effort to bully Senate Democrats into rubber stamping their right-wing judicial nominees. Republicans don't understand that the issues at stake here go far beyond partisan games. This debate is about lifetime appointments to the courts that decide cases that shape the lives of all American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Now Senator sessions, President Bush is asking your colleagues to confirm people for lifetime jobs when, unlike most of his predecessors, he got fewer votes than his opponent did.
The legitimacy of the judges, you well know as a member of the judiciary committee, derives from the fact he or she is nominated by a president who got most votes, and therefore senators often will defer and say, well, we knew what we were getting when we voted for that candidate but we didn't vote for President Bush, and therefore isn't there a special problem with legitimacy with the president?
SESSIONS: I don't think so. I don't think there is a legitimacy problem at all, and when Clinton was getting his judges through, he got 377, only one voted down. When he got his judges through, we had as many as 55 Republican senators.
They are saying well, there's 50/50 in the Senate, so now we should assert ourselves more. Republicans had as many as 55 and we are running his nominees through on a regular basis.
BEGALA: With all due respect, senator -- you are a fine senator -- that is revisionist history.
SESSIONS: No, it is not. BEGALA: I worked for President Clinton at the time. We couldn't even get a hearing, much less a vote, on 22 out of 24 of our appellate courts, one step below the supreme court nominees, not even a hearing, much less a vote.
The Democrats at least, under Senator Leahy, are calling up judges and having votes. They voted down Judge Pickering, which I know Republicans were angry about, but that is the Democratic system isn't it?
SESSIONS: Well, it's certainly a Democratic system, and the Senate has every right to vote the way they choose to vote, but what was done to Judge Pickering was not right. This is one of the finest, most decent men to come before the Senate. He should have been confirmed, and it did cause a lot of us concern about the tactics that we would be looking at.
CARLSON: Well, I can see why. It was revolting, and we wanted to ask some of your Democratic colleagues to defend it tonight -- not that they could, but not one took us up on our offer.
We called almost every Democrat on the judiciary committee, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Kennedy, Feinstein, Joe Biden, Feingold, Leahy, Reed. We even called Joe Biden. Now these are people who have been on CROSSFIRE a lot, expect to see them the future, and they are all strong debaters. They are obviously afraid.
You know them well. How afraid are they?
SESSIONS: I don't think they feel real good about this. Maybe there was some thought -- I think a lot of Democrats thought their nominees had been mistreated and I don't think the facts show that.
Under Senator Hatch's leadership he confirmed 377, one was voted down, there was only 41 left pending when President Clinton left office that had been nominated and not confirmed. When President Bush left office -- former President Bush -- there were 54 pending.
So his nominees were treated fairly. Sure, some of them took some shots. I voted against a few, but I voted for 95 percent. But most of his people went right on through.
BEGALA: Senator, we are almost out of time. Let me ask you, finally, though, what does this augur for a fight over the next Supreme Court nomination? Are you going to advise President Bush to send somebody up who is moderate and maybe can earn some Democratic support, or to send another ultra-conservative who the Democrats will stop?
SESSIONS: Don't use that word ultra-conservative.
BEGALA: Conservative, then. Moderate.
SESSIONS: I want him to send the judge he believes is the finest legal mind in the country. That's what I hope he'll do, and we'll take it to the American people and we will have a debate and we will decide it.
But I think the special interest groups who are involving themselves to an extraordinary degree in this process, really driving some of the opposition by Democratic colleague, those special interest groups are going to try to make a lot of money with direct mail and other things, and they are going to fight any nominee he puts up, so Bush better be ready.
CARLSON: And we have one of them on in just a moment. We intend to ask him those same questions. Senator Sessions, thank you for joining us. We appreciate it.
SESSIONS: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thanks. Don't move your hands. Don't put the clicker down. We'll be right back and we'll hear from representatives of the People for the American Way about the judicial nominees stuck in the Senate.
And this -- great entertainment or Hollywood garbage at its worst? We'll debate that in the crossfire. And as always, our intriguing quote of the day. Here is a hint. Ten years ago this month, he jumped into the middle of TV furor over single motherhood. All this and more when CROSSFIRE returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Our debate continues over President Bush's judicial nominees. Our president today was squealing like a pig stuck under a gate about the judges he sent up to Capitol Hill. Why?
Well, we have someone here who may be able to give us an answer. Welcome, Elliot Mincberg, Vice President for the People for the American Way. Welcome.
ELLIOT MINCBERG, VICE PRESIDENT, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY: Paul. Tucker. Good to see you.
CARLSON: All right. Elliot Mincberg, liberals have all sorts of excuses for why they are preventing the president's nominees from becoming judges. One of them -- they did it to us, we have established that's not true.
Here is the next one, that they are not fully qualified. Now you remember, I'm sure you were part of this debate at the time, this arguing over the American Bar Association and its ratings of judges and Democrats at the time said, look, this is a really important -- this is the gold standard, really, that tells us who is qualified and who is not.
Well, it turns out that every circuit court nominee that this president has nominated has been rated qualified or well qualified by the ABA, and they're still not getting through. So what is the excuse? MINCBERG: It is not an excuse, Tucker. It is a reason that the American people have said is very important as to what the Senate ought to be doing. You don't look at paper qualifications, as the ABA does, where they went to law school, but as Senator Trent Lott himself said in 1996, and Senator Hatch, you look at their judicial philosophy. What are they going to do when they get on the bench?
And particularly this first group of nominees that everybody seems to be complaining about so much are very clearly right-wing activists. There is one of them, for example, who served on the Texas Supreme Court at the same time as Alberto Gonzalez, now the White House general counsel, and she dissented from an opinion, and Gonzalez said that adopting her view would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. Somebody like that deserves careful scrutiny.
CARLSON: I think you're talking about Priscilla Owen.
MINCBERG: I am.
CARLSON: And I am sorry that she and Mr. Gonzalez didn't get along in the past, but as far as I know, the radical views you are talking about, the scary world-changing view you are talking about -- there is only one that I know of, and that is her position on parental consent over minors having an abortion. She believes that before a girl under 18 has an abortion, her parents ought to know about it.
This is the radical view? Because the vast majority of Americans agree with that.
MINCBERG: No, the radical view was the Texas legislature had adopted a law saying under what circumstances there should be parental notification, and under what circumstances a minor should be able to go to a judge and say, look, I have a family breakdown and I need to exercise my independent rights.
The legislature, the people that should be deciding that, made a decision. Owen wanted to commit what Gonzalez called an act of judicial activism and put her views in the way. Bush himself...
CARLSON: Well, I think you're saying the same thing I just said, and it doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans you just alluded to agree in poll after poll with her position on this.
MINCBERG: Bush himself has said that he wants judges who will interpret the law, not not make the law. Unfortunately, a lot of his nominees would be making the law in a very right-wing direction.
BEGALA: Let me ask you about a comment that Senator Sessions made when he was out here a moment ago about the nomination of Judge Pickering. Charles Pickering of Mississippi, who is currently a district court judge, President Bush wanted to elevate him to a higher bench in the appellate courts, and he was defeated.
I think that was the right result because he admitted when Senator Edwards was questioning, he admitted that he had violated the canons of judicial conduct. But I have to say, as someone who loves the People for the American Way and many of the other liberal groups who went after him, I think it was unfair and unfortunate that he was branded a racist, because I read the record and I don't think he is.
Wasn't that the wrong thing for our side to do?
MINCBERG: I will tell you very clearly. We were very clear, if you look, Paul, at our materials, we never called Judge Pickering a racist. What we did say was was that his record in a number of civil rights cases was very troubling. There were some people in Mississippi that felt that strongly about Judge Pickering.
BEGALA: But whether -- I'm not here to defend Pickering, believe me, but some of our friends on the Left did accuse a good man, who shouldn't be on the appeals court for other reasons, of being a racist, and I think it cheapens our very valid case, in part on ideology, against these people when we resort to tactics like that.
MINCBERG: To the extent that that happened, I don't disagree with you, but I think the point is you have to look at that nomination on the merits. He had two full hearings to put out his points of view, to answer a lot of questions. His opinions were looked at very carefully, and as you pointed out, on the record he came up far short.
CARLSON: Mr. Mincberg, you sort of slipped and eluded that question, so I hope I can pin you down on this. In fact, People for the American Way did imply he is a racist. You just implied it by saying he had a troubling record on civil rights.
MINCBERG: That doesn't make you a racist.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ...renounce, and I doubt you will, but the race card for future nominees. I wonder if you will resist, I wonder if you will now pledge not to imply, in the slippery way you do, that someone has a troubling record on civil rights, which means to average Americans that person is a racist.
MINCBERG: Absolutely wrong. That is a view of conservatives sometime like you who think that. But just because...
CARLSON: You get a lot of mileage out of implying that, I have to say.
MINCBERG: What, that you are conservative?
CARLSON: No, that every conservative Republican is a racist. I think that is...
MINCBERG: No, not at all. And that's exactly wrong. What we do say is there is a very big difference between someone who is an old fashioned racist and somebody who doesn't fully and effectively enforce the civil rights laws.
(CROSSTALK)
You're the one who is saying that.
CARLSON: No, you are the one who is implying it.
MINCBERG: I am not at all. Well, let me make as clear as I can, we were not saying it, we will not say it, what we are saying is that you have to look at somebody's record. This is a man who said to the Senate judiciary committee that it is only the frivolous employment discrimination cases that ever get to his court because all of the non-frivolous ones are taken care of by the EUC (ph). This despite the fact...
CARLSON: Well, that may be true. It doesn't make you a racist.
(CROSSTALK)
MINCBERG: No, but what it shows is that he is not sufficiently sensitive to the importance of civil rights issues even though in his heart he is not a racist. And that is what you can't tell the difference between.
BEGALA: Elliot Mincberg of the People for the American Way, thank you.
MINCBERG: You are very welcome.
BEGALA: Thank you very much for coming on and for dealing with Tucker.
When CROSSFIRE returns, what in the world has Janet Reno done to find herself in the CROSSFIRE police blotter?
And our quote of the day. He was once one of most powerful men on earth and today he was publicly musing about hosting this broadcast. We will tell you who he is and what he said when CROSSFIRE returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
It's that time again. Our Thursday night police blotter. When public figures intersect with law enforcement, CROSSFIRE is there.
In political news, control of the House of Representatives in 2002 could be decided by none other than nine-term Congressman, beloved CROSSFIRE guest and newly convicted felon on appeal James Traficant of Ohio.
Despite his recent legal troubles, Traficant has decided to run again for the 17th Congressional District. Although Traficant will be campaigning as an Independent, analysts believe he will appeal mostly to Democrats, probably more now than ever since his conviction on bribery charges. This could sink the actual Democrat in the race, thereby helping to ensure the House remains in Republican hands.
Will he save the day once more? We'll ask him went he joins us right here on CROSSFIRE next Tuesday. Stay tuned.
BEGALA: I know I'll be there. Former attorney general Janet Reno was involved in a fender bender today. The Associated Press reports Ms. Reno, who is running for governor of Florida, was running errands in her pickup truck when it was bumped by another car. Police at the scene said there were no injuries.
Ms. Reno's beloved little red pickup truck has become something of a symbol of her grassroots campaign. She has driven it all across the Sunshine State. But sources close to the former Attorney General tell CROSSFIRE that after the fender bender she said, "It's times like this I wish I was still Attorney General and could ram anyone I wanted with a tank."
CARLSON: She was dangerous with a tank, as you will remember.
And more from the "your tax dollars at work" department. After an extensive investigation, the Federal Trade Commission has determined that advertisements for electronic abdominal exercise belts may be -- steady yourself -- misleading.
Confirming what every cable television viewer in America already knows, the government has concluded that donning the Abtronic will not turn consumers into spitting images of a young Arnold Schwarzenegger. A lawyer for Fast Abs, another product under fire from the FTC, responded with this less than ringing defense. "The belt alone will not cause weight loss, but when used in conjunction with diet or exercise, may cause weight loss."
In other words, all we can promise is we don't think it will make you fat.
BEGALA: This is one of those moments you can be glad you are watching. It is time for the one and only CROSSFIRE quote of the day, and it is a doozy. It comes from a man who has produced memorable quotes over the years, one of my heroes, Dan Quayle.
At the National Press Club here today in Washington, the former vice president gave his opinion on the widely reported and of course completely discredited and false story that my old pal Bill Clinton might host a TV talk show. And get this, though. Quayle thought it would be a good career move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN QUAYLE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They are talking about $50 million. I mean, if he can get $50 million, if I would think about that, I could be -- let's see, what would I be worth? Marilyn would like to know!
But, no -- I would be very surprised if he would take a full time commitment. Now he may work some part time thing like that, but full time, that is a lot of -- even though it is a lot of money, it is a lot of work on just one subject.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You could do a version of CROSSFIRE. QUAYLE: Everybody has their price!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: He would look -- I don't know, bow tie maybe, or he could have -- borrow Novak's vest once in a while.
CARLSON: See, you -- we mock what we fear, Paul. You're afraid he'd trip you up in a malapropism, then move in for the kill and you'd be toast. He's a pretty good debater, actually, beat Gore in '92.
BEGALA: You know what, he is quite effective against mythical TV characters, which we are going to talk about in just a minute.
CARLSON: Good for him. When CROSSFIRE returns, we'll tell you what Maryland's governor did today about executions in his state. Also, the Murphy Brown flap ten years later, and whether what we watch today is better, the same, or much worse.
And are we putting troops' lives at risk because we were overly concerned about the environment? Of course we are. Paul Begala and I go at it in Round 6.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to the second half hour of the all-new CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C.
If you're just joining us, you missed Tucker Carlson breaking down and weeping piteously over the plight of George W. Bush's right wing judges. But now, we move on to something even more emotional, American entertainment television today. Pure trash or programming you die for? Ten years ago, the sitcom wonder woman "Murphy Brown" set off a storm by having a baby out of wedlock. Vice President Dan Quayle delivered a blistering speech denouncing Hollywood and Murphy for glamorizing such behavior.
Later, it was explained to Quayle that sitcoms are made up stories. And who can forget his plaintiff wail, "You mean Fonzi's not real?" Consider a TV landscape today at the dawn of the 21st century. Tomorrow night, the Fox network will air a primetime special on, are you ready for this, the select of a Playboy centerfold. Or what about the newest TV sensation on cable, "The Osbournes." Or how about "Jerry Springer," or "Friends?" Love them or hate them, people are watching them.
So let's now turn to our guests on this topic. Please welcome Genevieve Wood. She is the vice president of the Family Research Council. And Sandy Kenyon, who is "Parade" magazine contributing editor. He will be joining us from New York.
CARLSON: Sandy Kenyon, thanks for joining us. I mean, there's really no argument, is there, that television's become more vulgar since the famous Murphy Brown speech? I mean "THE FEAR FACTOR" show has starlets eating pig genitals on television. You don't get much more vulgar than that. Actually, I suppose you could Maybe they will. But it has gotten more out of control in the past decade, hasn't it?
SANDY KENYON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "PARADE" MAGAZINE: Absolutely, Tucker. And I think it's time for Republicans to own their part in it. Frankly, one of the reasons that it's gotten so bad is a little thing called deregulation from the Reagan era. You remember that. Before broadcast deregulation, there were standards and practices departments, all kinds of government oversights to sort of prevent some of the excesses, shall we say. The rise of cable, sure, that was a factor. But you know with all of the whining and everything, I never hear Republicans say, you know, yes, that was an industry we deregulated and look at what we've wrought?
TUCKER: Well, that's actually a pretty clever line. And doubtless Begala's taking notes even as you're talking. But it doesn't really address the problem, does it? I mean, there's no law against screaming profanity in church, but you don't. You don't need a law. Because people understand that there are limits. Why don't television programmers understand that?
KENYON: Absolutely, because it's driven by capitalism. The fact is, in your audience tonight, a lot of young people, these young people are extraordinarily hard to reach. And advertisers pay an extraordinarily high premium to reach them. And they love "The Osbournes." Some eight million of them are watching, an incredible number for cable.
I have a question for those out there in the audience. I have a dear friend from high school, Brian and is wife, Louise. They have a teen daughter, Maggie, in Pasa Robles, California, two channels. They will not buy cable. And Maggie's a perfectly normal teenager without MTV. Where are the other parents? Where is the other responsibility here besides Big Brother or network executives acting against their own interests and saying, okay, we won't program that stuff?
BEGALA: Genevieve, let me bring you...
GENEVIEVE WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: We're right here.
BEGALA: You are right here. And I'm glad you are. Sandy's right. This is hypocrisy. And it's worse. This is simply the free market working. Republicans are whining about it. And by the way, the chief purveyor of the sleaze is the Fox Network, which is the one right wing network in America.
WOOD: First of all, the Fox network that you're talking about is not the Fox News Channel. Very different there. The fact that...
BEGALA: Owned by the same hypocrite Rupert Murdoch owns both.
WOOD: Well, I'm ready to criticize Rupert Murdoch. The fact is here, parents do have responsibility. But let's not forget these are the public airwaves, Paul. And we all help pay for some of that. And while yes, we do have the First Amendment. We have freedom of speech, the fact is we also have decency standards. And when you want to talk about whether Republicans did something right or wrong, the Clinton administration for seven years would not define decency, they wouldn't go back to the SEC and try to enforce some of this stuff. Thankfully, President Bush has come into office, has put Michael Powell at the head of the SEC. They have finally defined what is indecent. Now it's a matter of getting Congress and the broadcasters to go along with it.
BEGALA: In fact, it was President Clinton who fought against the Republicans to put the V-chip in televisions. Your party...
WOOD: Paul, you know as well as I do....
BEGALA: I was working there and I was working on it.
WOOD: Barbra Streisand and your buddies out in Hollywood...
BEGALA: No, but if parents are armed with the V-chip that President Clinton wanted and the Republicans opposed, they could do what Sandys suggesting. Instead of only having two channels, they could have all of them but say, let their kids watch good programs. And there are plenty. There's "WEST WING." There's "E.R." There's whole stations dedicated to travel, and exploration, and science and medicine. TV is better.
WOOD: There's always good stuff. You're right. But you know, it's very hard to find that good stuff. Because increasingly, it's not just MTV we're worried about, it's not just HBO we're worried about. What's going to be on tomorrow night, it's on the Fox broadcast channel network, which is a Victoria's Secret show. It's on Friday night. The reason it is is because it's aimed toward a young male teenage audience. You know what? That is soft porn. And it's exploiting women. It's totally doing nothing...
BEGALA: You're driving the ratings through the roof, I hope you know.
WOOD: Well no, well yes, I'm sure. I hope you're not going to tune in. The fact is, it exploits women. And we shouldn't be trying to portray that on our young people. We shouldn't be glorifying it on television. And Fox isn't the only one. Look, ABC had the Victoria Secret thing. Tomorrow night's Playboy on Fox.
CARLSON: And Sandy Kenyon, you sort of glossed over, in the way the network executives do actually, this idea of corporate responsibility here. You said basically if you don't like it, don't watch it. But the fact is, you know, that there is restraint in the industry. CNN has tape of people jumping off the World Trade Center. You've never have seen it on CNN, you never will. The reason we don't run it, not because it wouldn't get ratings, but because we think it's bad for people to see something that horrible. And I wonder why that same sentiment doesn't exist in other networks?
KENYON: Because the dollars and the stakes are too high. What you have at the network level is a tremendously competitive arena, where they're trying to reach younger advertisers. And the standards have slipped. I'm with you on that.
But you know, the whining has continued for years. I'm one of the few people who actually went down to Mississippi and talked to the Reverend Donald Wildman. Remember him? Remember Terry Recolta? Remember all the whining back in the '80s? What's changed? The standards have slipped. The programs are more shocky. Well why is that? Why is that? Because people watched. People watch this stuff. "Fear Factor," I cringe with you, Tucker.
WOOD: But Sandy, hold on a second. People also smoke, but Hollywood made a decision that they were going to stop glorifying smoking. They took it off, because smoking is bad for people. We don't want young people to smoke.
Yet they tend to do nothing but glorify sexual promiscuity on television. And you know what? You can smoke one cigarette and you're not going to get lung cancer. But you have sex with the wrong person who's got a sexually transmitted disease one time, and you can die. But you know what? All the sex that we see on television, five times more than married couples or committed couples, it's between unmarried partners. And they never talk about what comes out of that. And that's dangerous. And Hollywood ought to do something about it.
(CROSSTALK)
KENYON: But...
CARLSON: Sandy Kenyon, I'm afraid to interrupt you. We'll lead with you the second we come back. We have to take a quick commercial break. We will be back. And when we do come back on CROSSFIRE, a foul-talking family, the search for a Playboy centerfold. Types of shows many Americans love to watch. We continue our debate. And this, "round 6", slugfest over Democrats fighting to deny the army much-needed training space in order to save the spotted owl. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Has TV gone down the tubes? We have two excellent guests to help us sort it out, neither of whom has ever bit the head off a live bat on television. Genevieve Wood is the vice president of the Family Research Council. And Sandy Kenyon is "Parade" magazine's contributing editor. He is in New York City.
CARLSON: Sandy Kenyon, Paul made a fairly big assumption about you. I hope it's true.
KENYON: Yes.
CARLSON: You were telling us before we left off essentially that nothing has worked so far, that network executives push us garbage because it sells. People like Donald Wildman down in Mississippi have had no affect on stopping it. And I wonder where you think it's going to end. I mean, do you think it is possible we'll see say an execution, someone being murdered or killed on television, sex on television? KENYON: Goodness, I hope not, but you have to consider this. Part of it is a changing climate of morality in the country.
I mean, you have an environment where Ozzy Osbourne, where every third word is the "f" word bleeped, seemingly, has this very successful show. And he is invited to the White House correspondent's dinner and acknowledged by the president of the United States. That is the situation here. And what that spelled to me as an entertainment reporter, is hey, the man is a hit.
People are watching this. And may I say the same people who are whining about the Playmate search, will their husband will be secretly taping it, or going to see it on Fox. You know, the fact of the matter is, these shows work. What I was very interested in is when you had "THE BACHELOR," there was a lot of hue and cry from our friends, the feminists over on the left. Well, when the stats were in, 75 percent of the audience for the finale, well, who was that audience? Women. Mostly women.
BEGALA: Sandy, I want to pick up on this point, and turn it to Genevieve about "The Osbournes," because not only was he recognized and teased in a quite clever way. It was good jokes that Bush had about Ozzy. He was endorsed today by someone who will, I think, just floor you. Let me show you a piece of videotape from somebody who spoke today and was asked about "The Osbournes." And here's what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN QUAYLE, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT: You have a mother and father, that are very involved with their children. The mother and father, at least on the sitcom that I saw, are loving parents. They may use language that you and I wouldn't use. But they do talk about curfews. They do talk about no drugs, no alcohol. They encourage their children to do that. So I actually found some redeeming value of this rather bizarre family relationship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: So Dan Quayle attacked the character for having a baby instead of an abortion 10 years ago. Now he's praising "The Osbournes." What the heck's going on with Quayle?
WOOD: Well, I'll tell you what's going on with Osborne, let me -- let's start there first. The fact is Ozzy Osbourne, I'll agree with Sandy on this. Look, we've been so desensitized, we think that's normal. I mean, the fact that there's an intact family, a mom and a dad in the household. And you two kids. And they come home at night. And we consider that normal, even though they're bleeping out every second and third word. The one positive thing about Ozzy Osbourne's program is I think you see what you end up like if you've use drugs, and abuse your body, and led the life that he lived, you end up like Ozzy.
But you know, I do think it's unfortunate the president, you know, kind of gave him the platform. I mean... BEGALA: He was joking. I'm not a Bush defender.
WOOD: He was joking, but it comes to the point, there was a time you wouldn't have done that, because it's -- I mean I don't think the president probably wants his kids watching that every night or acting like that. So why do we glorify it? And it's because of people out there desensitized.
CARLSON: And on that note, Sandy Kenyon, quickly?
KENYON: Can I make a point? What happens here is that folks become hip and square politicians try to up their hip quotient by saying, hey, the Ozman's okay.
CARLSON: But what are -- I mean at some point, and very quickly, Mr. Kenyon, are advertisers -- I mean at some point, is it going to hurt GE to be attached to "The Osbournes" or to the "The Bachelor" or to the, you know pig genital eating program. I mean, is it going to hurt the advertisers to be affiliated with these shows?
KENYON: Absolutely. And there are some shows, like "Jerry Springer" that cannot command the ad rates as a result. The advertisers talk in terms of environment. This is what they mean by environment. They don't like -- certainly the blue chip advertisers do not like the crazier shows. And some shows in fact, have gone off the air because they were too extreme. Every so often it'll be a little bit more than advertisers can take. And then the advertisers don't advertise, and the show dies. Again the free market of work.
WOOD: I just want to quickly say, we shouldn't really frankly be concerned about the advertisers. That is not who I'm concerned about being...
KENYON: That drives the whole thing.
WOOD: What we ought to be concerned about is the American public. And I'm going to sit here and say women in particular deny it, because it's increasingly on the rise is sex, sex, sex. It exploits women. And look, porn is a problem. It's a problem that's coming to television. It's not just on cable television. You're going to find it on broadcast television soon. We need to turn it off.
KENYON: But that is whining. That is whining.
WOOD: That's not whining. It's responsibility.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Sandy Kenyon in New York, Genevieve Wood here in Washington. Thank you both very much.
Coming up later on CROSSFIRE, a viewer sides with me on a weighty issue. It's in our segment where you fire back at us. And then save the spotted owls. We give our fighting men and women more land for training to go after Osama? It's a tough question. It's the fight in round 6. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our TV version of a bar room ball. There's the bell. Just Tucker and me. We call it round 6. The issue tonight, another Republican attempt to roll back America's environmental laws. George W. Bush has slipped an item in his huge defense bill that actually eliminates protection for endangered species on military land. Tucker, this is classic Bush. We're going to repeal the Constitution. Now we're going to repeal the environmental laws. We're going to have to destroy the country in order to save it.
CARLSON: Paul, this is actually a pretty clear choice. It's between protecting the rights of the spotted owl, the horned tree toad or whatever, or allowing the United States military to prepare to deter another terrorist attack. It's actually a no brainer. As you know, this is all about the Endangered Species Act. Did you know that right now, the military is required to get a permit, literally a permit, from the federal government before removing migratory birds from runways? That's outrageous. That's crazy, Paul.
BEGALA: Did you notice any degradation of our military's ability in Afghanistan because they actually lived under those environmental laws when Clinton was president? I didn't. I thought they kicked bin Laden's ass over there. And they can still keep our environment clean and still fight a war.
CARLSON: Actually, it's not -- as you know, it's a not a matter of keeping our environment clean. A federal judge just halted bombing by the U.S. military on a West Pacific island because it had supposedly an effect on migratory birds. The military needs to practice in order to win. That was a small war, compared to wars that are coming. And in the name of saving the spotted owl or other species, that are not absolutely not endangered, despite their coverage on the endangered species act. No truly, you would jeopardize -- Democrats would jeopardize military preparedness? This is not a winning issue for you, Paul.
BEGALA: If we would not allow you Republicans and the conservatives to take this war, which is a noble cause and a patriotic cause and use it, to trash the environment, trash the Social Security system, trash the Constitution. You're using this for too much. And that's a bad strategy, Tucker.
CARLSON: If you disagree with the military, disagree with it, but don't use the spotted owl to cloak your angst, please.
BEGALA: No, absolutely not. Tucker once again, misunderstands.
But straight ahead up on CROSSFIRE, the pleasure of flattery. Well, we'll share a little of that with you. We have at least one admiring viewer. We will feature in CROSSFIRE's fire back section, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We call this segment fire back. And by golly, you do. Let's open the e-mail bag. Our first e- mail from Patricia Finlay of Toronto, Ontario. "Dear Mr. Begala, since returning from Paris, where I lived and worked for several years, I have discovered CROSSFIRE, the only American news show that allows real political debate. Since you joined, it has become positively addictive." Patricia Finlay, merci beaucoup.
CARLSON: You know what the moral of the story is? People who identify with the French they love Paul Begala.
BEGALA: They love Jerry Lewis, too.
CARLSON: And next, "Calm Tucker down. Your guests deserve time to talk and enlighten your loyal viewers. I suggest six tranquilizers followed by two martinis. Stay tuned to CROSSFIRE. Walter Kent, Clearwater, Florida. Sounds very much like a recipe from the hemlock society.
BEGALA: A Marilyn Monroe I think is what they call it at the bar I used to work in.
Here's e-mail number three. "I'm a big fan of Carville and Begala, but I have to side with Tucker on this one. There's no way that Jazzercise should have to hire that overweight lady. Brian Burychka of Macungie, Pennsylvania. You won one of them over, Tucker. That'll be...
CARLSON: That would be a 240-pound Jazzercise instructor, yes it was.
BEGALA: Yes, I'd like to see Brian in a tutu dancing around for an hour.
CARLSON: I wouldn't.
Here we go from Gary Weaver, Woodstock, Illinois. I have an online petition which suggests nuclear waste should be shipped to D.C. Then the morons responsible for allowing its creation can be liable for 10,000 years. Funny, Gary Weaver, I was talking with beltway friends of mine the other day. And we decided that in fact Woodstock, Illinois would be an excellent place for a nuclear waste...
BEGALA: Well, no, of course, as he knows, we had this debate last night on the program. And I -- Crawford, Texas, how about that? Bush wants to put it so badly in Nevada, let's put it in Crawford. Yes, sir? What's your question or comment?
RANDY: Yes, my name's Randy from Alexandria, Virginia. It's for Paul. I think if you and your fellow Democrats don't stop whining about the last election, you're going to lose big in the next election. And Bush is going to have to worry about Mr. Daschle and Leahy and all the clowns.
BEGALA: No, I certainly appreciate your strategy and advice. And I'm sure you mean it very intensely. I just have a problem with stealing an election. This is my country. I live under the Constitution. And Bush should, too. I ain't going to stop. I am not going to stop.
CARLSON: Hello? Yes?
LINDSEY: Hi, my name's Lindsey. I'm from Arlington, Virginia. And my question is, why can't "The Osbournes" just be considered pure entertainment? Why does their show have to signify some breakdown of the American family?
CARLSON: Because if you look deeply into the program, the Osbournes, for the metaphors that lie beneath the surface, when Ozzy turns to his wife and snarls and shakes and has his words bleeped out, it really says a lot about contemporary America in sort of a -- no, I think it's entertainment.
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
BRANDON: Hi, I'm Brandon from New Orleans, Louisiana. I'm wondering if President Bush is sending former President Clinton to East Timor in good faith or just to appease those who would like to see Clinton involved in the Middle East.
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) East Timorese. I think that's why he said.
BEGALA: Why in the campaign, he famously called them the East Timorons, I think is what -- but it's the farther place away he could. No, it's a noble gesture. It's a decent act by Bush. I want to salute him for it. He ought to enlist former presidents, including Clinton. And I'm glad that he is. So good for you, George.
CARLSON: We saw at the end of all those eight years of Clinton, he winds up in East Timor. That is just too great.
BEGALA: He ought to be back in the White House, except for that 22nd amendment. From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good-night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night, Friday night, 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
