Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Corporate Scrutiny Turns to Bush Administration; New Study Suggests Working Mothers Need to Spend More Time With Kids; Tiger Woods Creates Furor By Refusing to Bash Male-Only Club

Aired July 18, 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: Why women are teed off at Tiger.

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight we're going to make working mothers feel guilty. And should Tiger Woods feel guilty about the policies at some of the world's most expensive golf courses?

But first our own guilty pleasure, the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

The most important man you've never heard of has been forced out of his job. As head of the Transportation Security Administration, John Magaw was only in charge of improving security at all of the nation's commercial airports. Blame bureaucratic turbulence.

Sources tell CNN Magaw was ousted over problems pitting his agency against airport operators and Capitol Hill. The TSA is scrambling to meet a year-end deadline to screen all bags at all airports.

Magaw had a mild heart attack trying. Apparently that meant he wasn't trying hard enough.

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: It was a rocky day for the Bush administration -- not that the president was in town to notice. He was in suburban Detroit talking up Polish-American relations --- we've got a problem with Poland? -- and coping with anti-war protesters who tried to disrupt his speech at Oakland University.

Just as they started chanting, "Stop Your War," Bush appeared to look at them and said, you need to know the United States will track these terrorists down one by one and bring them to justice.

The protesters were escorted out. The audience stood and cheered.

It's one thing to get tough with college students, Mr. President. Now how about your business buddies, Osama and Osama bin Laden?

CARLSON: Remember, his business buddies are not the same as Osama...

CARVILLE: I think that some of their people -- we'll find out.

In tonight's Robert Torricelli update, the New Jersey Democrat's effort to pay off his massive legal bills continues. According to "Roll Call," Senator Torricelli has paid a total of $3 million to lawyers who defended him against allegations he took hundreds of thousands in cash, rugs, Rolex watches and antiques from a contributor, and that he bragged about having friends in the Mafia.

The contributor, meanwhile who, unlike Torricelli, did not have five law firms working on his behalf, is now in prison.

Most of the $3 million was funneled through the senator's legal defense fund, whose contributors include at least one Las Vegas casino owner. The senator's staff points out that paying one's bills is the honorable thing to do and, of course, the right.

Senator Torricelli might consider sharing his deep insight with his old friends the Clintons who, despite becoming obscenely rich, have yet to pay their bills. They owe their lawyers more than $1 million, and they're not paying.

And it's appalling, isn't it James?

CARVILLE: Not at all..

CARLSON: You've got to pay your bills.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... Senator Torricelli has a legal defense fund, because he's a victim just like the Clintons were of these idiotic things that you -- if you want to investigate something, go investigate Enron and WorldCom and all these other crooks they...

CARLSON: He's paying their bills, and they're not.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... you know, a Rolex watch. It'd be nice if all that got stolen in this country was a Rolex watch.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has issued an order to the lower- downs at the State Department: knock off the snide remarks about people who approved my budget. Powell has gotten his eyes on some e- mail in which a couple State Department employees trashed New York Congressman Benjamin Gilman.

One e-mail says Gilman is getting ready to announce that he died back in 1992, but that no one noticed until now, and they created people at the State Department.

Another one says Gilman has no brain, like the scarecrow in the "Wizard of Oz."

Actually, Congressman Gilman reminds me of what Dorothy Parker said when she was told former President Calvin Coolidge just died. She asked: "How could they tell?"

CARLSON: So these are the people in whose hands American diplomacy rests.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: I'm stunned they have that much creativity.

CARLSON: Knock it off and get to work.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... friends over there they hired...

CARLSON: A survey of the "Boston Globe" has found that 19 journalists have given money to candidates in the race for governor of Massachusetts. Eighteen of them wrote checks to Democrats, one contributed to a Republican.

Carla Hayer-Fiedelman (ph) of the Newton tab wrote a check to Robert Reich the same week she profiled him for her newspaper, quote: "At functions, Bob Reich is the center of attention," she wrote, in a typically hard-hitting passage. "He's not scared to poke fun at himself or anything else."

Hayer-Fiedelman did not disclose that she'd recently given money to Reich, or that she had been a delegate for him at the Democratic State Convention in June. The writer said she did not see the, quote, "conflict of interest."

At least two reporters from the "Boston Globe" also gave money to Reich. The revelation is not expected to affect the newspaper's reputation, however, since almost nobody takes the "Boston Globe" seriously anyway.

CARVILLE: Ask Colin Hawk (ph) if he takes the "Boston Globe" seriously.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... when you were working at the "Weekly Standard," are you going to tell me that Bill Kristol didn't give money to Republicans?

CARLSON: You know what? The "Weekly Standard" is an opinion magazine that advertises...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: The "Boston Globe" can give money to whoever they want to give money to.

CARLSON: Not a straight news reporter shouldn't.

CARVILLE: Texas Governor Rick Perry thinks he has a scandalous new issue to use against his Democratic challenger Tony Sanchez. It seems that Sanchez's poked up the tab for a bunch of staffers who went to Hooters. Wow.

A Sanchez campaign spokesman said, hey, they're on the road, they had to eat. A Perry spokesman accused Sanchez of acting, quote, "like a big boob."

CARLSON: There's something to that.

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) blue nose? Anyone not voting for Sanchez before should definitely do so now.

Ain't that something? They're running off with Enron and they're worried about a couple of kids in the campaign going...

CARLSON: You will admit that at least 40 percent of any vote in a Democratic race is humorless feminists. They're not going to vote for the guy over this. Come on.

CARVILLE: A Senate committee today had trouble when it went looking for the line between the public's business and the Bush administration's big business connections. Army Secretary Thomas White was on Capitol Hill defending his record, not with the military, but in his old job. White was an executive at Enron.

Joining us from Capitol Hill are Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of the great State of California, and Republican Senator Charles Grassley of the equally great State of Iowa.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Senator Boxer, thanks for joining us.

There was a fascinating, fascinating piece in "Roll Call" today that quoted the House minority leader, Dick Gephardt, outlining his strategy for the coming midterm elections. And this is a colleague of his, a fellow Democrat, quoting him in a private meeting.

He said -- and I'm quoting now -- he said: "If this thing" -- and by "this thing" he means the disintegration of the American economy -- "If this plays out right, we could pick up 30 to 40 seats."

In other words, he's hoping financial markets will die.

This -- isn't this really like sort of hoping for the house to burn down so you can collect insurance? Isn't this really over the line, this political strategy?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I don't know anything about it. But I would say this, it's true that if people don't regain their confidence in this economy, we are in trouble. And clearly there's going to be a check and balance on this Bush administration that leans so much towards corporate America. So I don't think it's any great shakes that that would be the case.

CARLSON: Well, I'm so glad you admitted that, Senator, because what you just said is the Democratic Party has an interest, a political interest...

BOXER: No, I did not say that, sir.

CARLSON: ... in Americans not regaining their confidence...

BOXER: No. No, no, no.

CARLSON: ... Republicans suffer.

(CROSSTALK)

BOXER: That is not what I said. I'll repeat it.

CARLSON: Well, then please explain your strategy that Mr. Gephardt outlined.

BOXER: I said, No. 1, I don't know about the strategy. But what I said is true, is the following: that if Americans don't regain their confidence -- and I want them to; that's why I'm fighting so hard for justice, for the Sarbanes bill -- to make sure we do the right thing.

But if the American people don't think we are, clearly they're going to want a change in the House, and I think they want to keep us Democrats in charge of the Senate in order to be a check and balance against the Bush/Cheney/Thomas White team.

That's what I think.

CARVILLE: Senator Grassley, you're on the Finance Committee, and you follow this closely.

Tell us why you have some more confidence in a team of Paul O'Neill, Glen Hubbard (ph) and Larry Lindsey than you would, say, in a team of Bob Rubin, Larry Summers and Joe Stiglitz? What is it about this president's economic team that you think would give investors confidence to go out and invest in this market?

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R) IOWA: I think what you have to look at, James, is the fact that if people are going to be in the blame game, eventually they're going to have the finger pointed at themselves.

Over the last 10 years, you know, we've had divided government except for the first two years of the Clinton administration, when they controlled both houses and the presidency, and 135 days of the first part of the Bush administration. Otherwise we've had divided government.

So consequently it doesn't matter which team I think is in favor. Anybody that's playing this blame game, they've got to be ready to have both parties accept some responsibility.

CARVILLE: Senator, I'm asking you to bolster your guys. I'm asking you out there to tell America why this is a strong team that the president has. I'm giving you a chance to speak up on them and tell you why they were better than other guys.

GRASSLEY: Well, you don't think we're going to measure the economy by the stock market? Every other index shows that we have a very strong economy.

Now normally, in every other recession, you know, the stock market is out ahead of the economy. In this particular instance, I don't know. But it surely isn't because President Bush has been in office 18 months, compared to the eight years of the previous administration. The Clinton bubble has burst now, and consequently we're in a place where this has turned around.

We've got a very strong economy. Greenspan said that this week. The stock market resulted well as a -- in what he said, and consequently, eventually the stock market will speed up. And it's a lack of confidence right now because of CEOs, not because of President Bush.

CARLSON: Now, Senator Boxer, Democrats have criticized Secretary White for selling his Enron stock, they say too early. They were minimizing his losses. I remember Democrats criticized Vice President Dick Cheney for selling his Halliburton stock too late, and thereby minimizing his losses. When is the perfect time Democrats think Republicans ought to sell their stocks? When the maximum loss occurs?

BOXER: Well, you've created some kind of a made-up thing. Democrats today said that we are very concerned that as Secretary White sold his stock, he did it in coordination with 77 different phone calls, 54 of which were after 9/11, and 50 of which were after we had our young people in Afghanistan in harm's way 24-seven. So that is a very concerning thing to me personally and to many other colleagues, and we are asking the SEC to investigate.

Martha Stewart made four calls. She is being investigated by the SEC, and the House Republicans are turning all their anger on her. I'm glad they are looking at Martha Stewart's four or five calls. I'm simply asking that they look at Mr. White's 77 calls to Enron insiders.

CARLSON: You're implying -- Senator Boxer, you seem to be implying that this administration was not able to prosecute the war in Afghanistan because Mr. White was on the telephone. Is that what you're saying? I mean, that's the implication.

BOXER: No, no, again, you are making up what I said. You said the Democrats were upset -- you said that Democrats were upset with Mr. White because he sold too soon or too late. I don't know exactly what you said. What I'm saying is we are upset that he sold his stock in coordination with 77 phone calls to insiders at Enron while he should have been busy doing his job. And I think that's a very fair criticism when people are looking at Martha Stewart, who made four calls or six calls. She ought to be looked at. He ought to be looked at as well by the SEC.

CARVILLE: Senator Boxer, we want to give Senator Grassley a chance to respond to what you said before we go to break here.

GRASSLEY: OK. Well, first of all, I think it's a fact based on the last six months, Enron, Halliburton has no legs for the Democrats, and the other thing is that if you want to put some blame on -- use Enron -- you know, there was $2 billion of help through the export/import bank or the overseas private investment corporation during the Clinton administration to Enron.

And the other thing is, if we are investigating Enron and Halliburton, when are we going to start investigating Global Crossing and the Democratic Chairman McAuliffe?

CARLSON: That is a great question, Mr. Grassley. I hope we'll get to that. Mrs. Boxer, we'll be right back in just a moment. When we come back, we'll ask how the United States Senate is doing on drugs?

Also, he may be a great good golfer, but is he out of bounds on the Augusta National issue?

And later, our quote of the day. Yes, his record-breaking run remains intact. We'll tell you who he is. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Business back in the headlines, not good news. Someone is going to benefit from this politically. The question is, who. That's the discussion under way. Still with us is Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, she's a Democrat, and Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa.

CARVILLE: Senator Boxer, I want to talk one more Thomas White question and we can go to prescription drugs. In the Secretary White's opening statement, tell us about the remorse that he expressed for the thousands of people that lost their jobs and his life savings when he made $30 million his last year at Enron. What did he have to say about these poor people?

BOXER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) not even in passing. And I have to commend Senator John McCain, because he said, "what do you think about all this?" I mean, he made him think about it, and his answer was, "yeah, I went through the same thing. I lost all my options." And I made the point that it's true that he got stuck with some options, but the man made over $50 million, and the average person in America makes $25,000 per capita. And they lost their life savings, and I didn't think it was comparable.

So I didn't see the remorse, frankly, and I didn't see a man who took any responsibility for what happened to my people in California when the electricity rates just soared and there were all kinds of phony schemes. It was a very upsetting day, frankly. And I hope he resigns; I do. CARVILLE: Well, I wonder being a former corporal, I wonder being a former corporal if he doesn't care about the Enron employees if he cares about the enlisted people in the Army, being that he's secretary of the Army.

CARLSON: Well, that's another outrageous comment by James Carville. But Mr. Grassley, since we're switching sides here really quick, I just want to know if you think this idea, or this implication, and it is an implication that somehow Mr. White was not able to run the Army or perform his duties in his capacity as Army secretary because he was on the phone 77 times. That's border line slander, don't you agree? And I want to know what the Republican plan for rebutting it is.

GRASSLEY: Well, here's what we are up to. He gave his testimony today. He's under investigation. His testimony today is going to be tested against that investigation. And I think for the sake of fairness, we ought to just wait until the investigation is over, and if he should resign or be fired, then at that point make that decision. But you don't make those decisions in the middle of an investigation, if you are going to be fair under the rule of law.

CARVILLE: Senator Grassley, let me give you a chance -- there's an issue before the Congress right now about drugs coming in from Canada to the United States, and under the theory I think that drugs are cheaper in Canada than they are here. What's your position relative to this, what's going on right now?

GRASSLEY: The drugs that are safe should come in, and we should have as much competition as we can get in America, and that competition is going to drive the price of drugs down.

Now, there are some programs before Congress that would have the government issue and have performance risk for getting drugs out to seniors, but the Congressional Budget Office that scored those plans, which are basically Democrat plans, as driving prices up. When we have competition, we will get prices down. And also, the prescription drug program for seniors that I support called the "tripartisan plan" is one that has competition and is the only plan before Congress that will keep prices down.

CARLSON: Now, Senator Boxer, really quick, we're almost out of time, but do Democrats support bringing in prescription drugs from any other foreign countries, say in Latin America or Africa?

BOXER: At this point -- it was a Democratic amendment to allow the importation from Canada.

And I think we'd be open to see if there are other places in the world that have the same safety standards as we do. But, at this point, the Dorgan amendment, which is a Democratic amendment which passed overwhelmingly, I think about 30 Republicans voted no, would allow those drugs to come in from Canada if they meet the safety standards. And that's important.

CARLSON: OK. Well, thank you very much. Senator Boxer, Senator Grassley, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.

Still to come, we consider a woman's place. A new report says if she's a mother, her place ought to be in the home. Tiger Woods says Augusta National's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of a woman's group is a private matter. Both explosive.

But first, our "Quote of the Day." He is back, as if he ever left. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Things don't look good for Ohio Congressman James Traficant. The jury has already found him guilty of bribery, racketeering and tax evasion. A House subcommittee today concluded he broke congressional ethics rules. And a full ethics committee is now considering whether Traficant should be fined or remanded or expelled or all of the above. There's one consolation. He keeps getting our "Quote of the Day."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So any chance of your resignation?

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: Why do you keep using that word? You ain't getting (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I'm going to fight these bastards. Hey, only the second one since the Civil War.

I will not resign, God save the Republica and God save the Constitution. Is it any wonder why, if you are the government, and why they think the government screws them. I am pissed off. Where is the justice?

Janet Reno committed treason. I am a fashion leader. Mary Matalin called me a fashion leader because I didn't want in my last experience to wear denim on the House floor.

You could possibly expel a member that's gets a new trial and makes you look like a bunch of fools. And I am sure as hell not resigning. I've had it. I'm a trophy. And then you could just go ahead and throw me the hell out, and I'll accept it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: Well, Tucker, the good thing is is when they throw him the hell out, maybe he won't keep being CROSSFIRE'S "Quote of the Day."

CARLSON: You heard him say your wife likes him. He is my favorite Democrat. Of all the many Democrats I know who commit felonies, he's my favorite.

CARVILLE: That's because he only spoke Republican. That's why you and him like him, because he's actually a Republican.

CARLSON: He is just a wonderful Democrat.

CARVILLE: Right. He's just a Republican (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

CARLSON: They don't make them that way anymore.

Next, the defendant says he's guilty. The judge says, not so fast. CNN's Connie Chung has the details next.

And we'll consider the mommy track. How soon should new mothers go back to the office?

And later, should private golf clubs be allowed to exclude women? Tiger says that's not my department.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you, as we always do, from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C.

There's more bad news tonight for the day care enthusiasts. New research from Columbia University says mothers may hurt their children's mental and verbal development if they go back to their full-time jobs before their babies are nine months old. Joining us from Richmond, Virginia is Charmaine Yoest. She does research on work and family issues at the University of Virginia and is on the national advisory board of the Independent Women's Forum. She is also author of a book called "Mother in the Middle."

CARVILLE: How are you doing, Miss Yoest?

CHARMAINE YOEST, BRADLEY FELLOW, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Hey, James.

CARVILLE: Would you join me in going to the Hill and let's do everything that we can to beat this Bush Republican idiotic welfare bill?

YOEST: Well, James, I think there's a lot that needs to be done on Capitol Hill to help mothers. In particular, what you have to start with...

CARVILLE: But this particular welfare bill, well, you've got to be against this.

YOEST: Well, as it relates to work and family, I think what you are getting at is the fact that it requires -- it has work requirements. But mothers of infants...

CARVILLE: Well, it requires 40-hour work weeks. Right, it requires 40-hour work weeks.

YOEST: Right, mothers of infants are exempted from that. And so I think that's an important part of the bill. You know, what's important about this research that we have got is it is emphasizing mothers. And so often, when we talk about work/family issues -- I'm sorry. CARVILLE: Why would we be for -- why would you be for a welfare bill that hurries mothers back to work when you are an author of research that shows that work is bad for young kids?

YOEST: Well, I tell you, one of the things I like the most about the welfare bill is that it emphasizes the two-parent family. And I think that is one of the things this research calls us back towards is looking at the fact that it takes a lot of people to raise children well, and to have a stable married family is very important. And that's one of the main emphasis that you see in the welfare bill, James.

CARVILLE: I understand that. But these kids -- the kids don't have a daddy when it's born. You support -- the research is saying they ought to be at home. And now you're supporting a bill that drives the mother back to work. It's completely contradictory.

YOEST: Well, James, you know, this is something I don't understand about you liberals. A child does have a daddy, biology 101. There are dads out there and they should be taking responsibility for helping to raise their children. And that's what we need to be talking about.

CARVILLE: You know, I agree with that and I wrote about that in my book, if you had taken the time to read it. And I'm the oldest of eight kids and grew up in...

YOEST: I read your first book, James. That was enough.

CARVILLE: I'm asking you why would you support a bill that you do research that says that mothers ought to be at home with their children, and yet you support a bill that drives the mother out of the house and puts her back to work. It doesn't make any sense.

CARLSON: Now, let me rescue you from this colloquy and also point out that those are criticisms leveled by liberals against the Clinton welfare bill when it first passed. But my question to you is I understand this research to say to parents, look, it is better if you raise your children, at least when they are very young than a total stranger raising them. This strikes me as obvious. I'm sure most people feel the same way. Why has it taken until 2002 for us to get a study, at least on the front page of the "New York Times" that confirms what we know already?

YOEST: Well, and, Tucker, there are several other things that are important that come out of this research. What it shows is that it's the level of employment that mothers have and particularly as it relates to welfare reform. What we are looking at is not just infants. And that is what this research is about.

Mothers of infants in welfare reform are exempted, at least partially from the work requirement. And this research is critical because it looks at that very important first year of life. It's so often when we talk about work/family issues, we talk about children across the lifespan and we talk about preschool children as if they are all the same thing. An infant's need for its mother is entirely different than a 3- year-old, a 4-year-old, a 5-year-old. As a father, you know that.

CARLSON: Well...

YOEST: And so, I think if we can focus really on that first year of life and how critical that is, and that's what these researchers are really emphasizing, I think we'll have done some real good.

CARLSON: But here's the part that confuses me. The federal government pays for studies on the needs -- on every possible need a child could have from birth until college and beyond, their nutritional needs, their educational needs. Why was it not until this week that the "New York Times" printed the results of a survey on page one that said it's better if they are raised by their mothers rather than by strangers? I mean, there's something weird going on here.

YOEST: Tucker, that's a really good point because one of the things that I find so intriguing about these headlines is they are saying that it is new research. And, of course, it is new, this particular study. But there has been research over the years that has made this very same point, that has shown that infants do need their mothers and that there is a definite correlation, some troubling implications to full-time work. And yet people have tended to just kind of push it off to the side and say, well, no, that's not really true. And yet, now we are seeing that it is being demonstrated over and over again.

CARVILLE: I have no idea what you are talking about. I talked to Sarah McClanahan (ph) at Princeton who is a very good Democrat and a liberal who has produced a whole volume of research about how important it is to have fathers in the House. Barbara Defoe-White (ph) here from Massachusetts, I talked to her when I wrote my book. I wrote a chapter that said daddy is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) big time. It's the Republican Party that keeps nominating presidential candidates that they didn't stay home with their kids, not the Democratic Party. So I don't have an idea where all this is coming from about something being new.

Now, my question is this. You want these women should stay at home. I agree. But, hell, with this Bush economy, who can afford to keep the mother at home? They both have got to go out and do anything for the kids.

YOEST: James, let me emphasize something that I think is important that we can't miss in this research. People keep talking about how the fact that the majority of mothers work today. But what -- again, what they are doing is they're lumping together all mothers. If you go back and you look at the latest Census research, what you find is that there is a trend in the direction of mothers of infants staying home with their children.

In fact, I think most of your audience may be surprised to discover that over 60 percent, over 60 percent, the vast majority of mothers of infants do not work full time. And so maybe, James, if you want to march up to Capitol Hill with me, you and I could start talking about making it easier for mothers to work part time, getting the IRS off the backs of mothers who are trying run home-based businesses, and doing some things to emphasize flexibility in the workplace because that's what this research is all about.

CARVILLE: So, you would be for a complete exemption for a work requirement for the mother with a child up to 1 year old?

YOEST: Up to 1 year old? I think...

CARVILLE: I, I -- just give me an answer. You'd be for it or not.

YOEST: I wanted to make sure I understood your question. I think it is...

CARVILLE: A complete exemption from a work requirement for a mother with a child up to 1 year old.

YOEST: As I understand it, at least the states have that option to look at that, and you see that across...

CARVILLE: I didn't ask you about an option. Are you for it or are you against?

YOEST: And I do think that there is some research that shows that might be a good idea.

CARLSON: OK. Now let me just ask you this. Why for -- I mean, Democrats constantly -- you hear the refrain from Democrats, well, we need more money for child care.

Well, if it turns out, and this study at least suggests that the child care maybe more dangerous for your kids than, I don't know, additives in the food or a lot of other things people get all exercised about. I mean, are we going to see a reduction in the rhetoric that says we need to spend more federal dollars on child care if in fact it does harm children?

YOEST: No, what you're going to here is an emphasis in saying that we've got to emphasize more quality child care. Let me just kind of be sure that James is understanding my point, is that I think we really have to emphasize the parents, that the mother needs help to be a -- as involved as she possibly can, depending on what her circumstances are, in that critical first year of her child's life.

I understand that people have a lot of different factors that they have to take into consideration. But so many times we act as if these children only have one parent, and there are two parents for every child, and we should be emphasizing the mother's role of taking care of that child as much as possible.

CARLSON: OK, Charmaine Yoest, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

Coming up in "Fireback," a cable guy reports suspicious activity for Attorney General Ashcroft, and sends us a copy of his e-mail. But first, he can sink a putt. Should he also try and change the system? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Time for the CROSSFIRE sports report. Tiger woods shot a one under par 70 today, his first round of the U.S. British open. Sixteen other golfers had better rounds and a whole lot of women are still teed off at him.

The world's top golfer got a tiger by the tail this week when we sidestepped a question about men-only policy at Muirfield, the club where the tournament is being played.

And it isn't just the British being stuffy. There's a no women policy at Georgia's Augusta National, home of the Master's tournament. Should Tiger use his prestige against the status quo?

Attorney Gloria Allred joins us from Los Angeles, and New York radio show host Steve Malzberg.

(APPLAUSE)

STEVE MALZBERG, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi.

CARLSON: Gloria Allred, thanks for joining us. Now, of all the things that annoy me about the story, and there are -- let me count the ways -- I think first on the list would be the way poor Tiger Woods is being treated.

I want to read from an editorial that ran on Thursday, this morning in the "Miami Herald." Here it is. This gets right to the point of what's annoying about this.

"There's an implication that athletes of color have a greater social imperative on this point, as if any African-American athlete unwilling to march arm-in-arm with Al Sharpton has rebuked his moral duty."

So why -- I mean the guy is a golfer. I mean, why should he have to get up and embrace some fashionable social cause just because you agree with it? Why don't you just leave him alone?

GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIM'S RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, actually equal opportunity for women and for girls is public policy in the United States, and if it's a fashionable social cause I'm glad, because I don't think that women should be shut out, barred, excluded from an opportunity like playing golf simply because they are female.

And I think Tiger Woods, like everybody else, has a duty to stand up and speak out and say that they are not going to play at a club that discriminates against women or discriminates against minorities.

CARLSON: Oh, is that right, Gloria Allred? I wonder then why you are not making the same demand of Jack Nicklaus? I'll tell you why, because Tiger Woods is black, or he appears to be. You are making what is essentially a racist assumption. He is black, therefore he has an obligation to stand up against injustice as you see it. Why don't -- again, why don't you leave the guy alone? It's not his fault that they have this policy at the club.

ALLRED: Well, I guess, Tucker, you didn't hear me, because I said that each of us, every person in this country, has a duty, I believe, to speak out.

I, as a person who is Caucasian, I think, should speak out if I see minorities, African-Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos or Latinas excluded simply because of their race or their ethnic origin or their gender.

We all have that duty, and he is in unique position as a privileged person, as a person who has power, fame, money and the bully pulpit to say that look, this is wrong. I'm going to agree with the PGA, which says that any club that hosts a tournament should have a nondiscrimnatorry policy towards women and minorities.

CARVILLE: Do you agree with the PGA policy that it's a good idea if they are going to host a golf tournament, then they ought to let women and men, everybody anybody in them?

MALZBERG: Well, look, Gloria's whole premise is so flawed. It's almost comical. The fact of the matter is, they are not denying women a chance to play golf. I mean, where is their constitutional right to play golf at that club?

Here is -- this is an example of what they call -- they're claiming discrimination against women. And it cheapens the word, just as many times Al Sharpton and these racism events that he claims cheapens the word racism, and when it really happens, it's unfortunate and it cheapens the whole event at the time when it's real.

Here you don't have somebody, you don't have women or minorities or Jews being turned down and deprived education, a place to live, credit. All you have is a private club of men saying they want to remain a private club of men. There is no hatred for women here, the way there was and is in some clubs where they don't allow Jews or Blacks.

There is no evil intent here, and furthermore, once a woman gets into one of these clubs, Gloria will be the first one calling that woman up to represent her to say anything at that club offends you, because we will sue! And that's what it's all about.

CARVILLE: Gloria, this guy came at you pretty hard. You can defend yourself, go ahead. He tried to hit you from every side.

ALLRED: First of all, you know, I have many more people calling me to represent them, and I don't call people to represent them. Having said that, I have sued golf clubs where women have been members, where women have not been given equal access to the golf course. They have not been given equal rights in terms of tee time. They've been given less advantageous tee times. They haven't been given enough time or equal time with men on the golf course. Yes, I think it's important that women have equal rights. I will continue to stand up for equal rights.

CARLSON: Well, amen, Gloria.

ALLRED: And let me tell you why it's important.

CARLSON: No, I know why it's important.

ALLRED: Because these places are palaces of power, where business networking takes place.

CARLSON: Amen, Gloria.

MALZBERG: Oh, God.

CARLSON: I agree with you. Now, Gloria, let me just ask you a quick question. You said a minute ago that Tiger Woods has power, fame, money and a bully pulpit, and for those reasons he ought to stand up against discrimination where he sees it.

And this is a place where careers are made, clubs like this. So is Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. And that's why I want to challenge you, Gloria Allred, to break down the barriers of sex discrimination at Smith College, which would not allow me, a man or any other man to attend simply because of their gender.

It's outrageous. And I want to know if tomorrow morning, and I'll pay for your plane ticket, Gloria Allred, you'll fly to Massachusetts and chain yourself to the front gates of that university until they let men in. Will you do it? And why not, if you wont?

ALLRED: You know, I'm not going to that other state. I have plenty of work here.

CARVILLE: You all quit ganging up on her and let her answer!

ALLRED: I do not believe that there should not be gender exclusion in education, and if a college receives federal funds...

CARLSON: It does.

ALLRED: I think it should be open to both genders...

MALZBERG: There's the point.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You're ganging up on the woman. Let the woman answer.

You guys are ganging up on this woman. Let her answer.

Go ahead, Gloria, finish and then I'm going to go to Steve.

ALLRED: Yes, as far as I know, many colleges do take both women and men, and those who receive federal funds do take both, and don't discriminate.

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: Where are the federal funds at Augusta? There's no federal funds at Augusta.

CARVILLE: They get the fire department, they get police department, they get the water supply...

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: Oh, come on, so does the college. So does the college, even if they don't take federal funds.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Hold on just a second Steve, then answer (ph).

Basically all that belongs to these things are a bunch of old farts sitting around. But they're probably these women want to get in to learn about insider trading and accounting tricks and everything else.

Why shouldn't they get in these clubs and have a chance to learn about these things?

MALZBERG: Because, you know what, people like Gloria, what they want to do is infiltrate the Boy Scouts, have girls in the Boy Scouts, have boys in the Girl Scouts.

They don't like gender -- they don't like the masculine "he" and "him." They'd have unisex bathrooms, unisex, non-gender-specific words. That's what it's all about. That's their agenda.

CARVILLE: I want women in any club.

CARLSON: Unfortunately we're going to have to leave it there, right where we're getting to sex.

I appreciate it. Thank you for joining us.

ALLRED: Thank you.

CARLSON: We'll have you back.

CARLSON: At last, one of you has noticed something other than our appearance.

Coming up in "Fireback," a viewer question about James Carville's selection of eyeglasses.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Our "Fireback" segment begins right now.

Our first e-mail from Meghan Dupree of Lodi, California. "Don't get me wrong," she writes, "I get a kick out of the Traficant hearings, but how does someone like that actually get elected into office?"

Well Meghan, ask Democratic voters like the ones who elected a dead guy for senator for Missouri in 2000.

CARVILLE: Actually, Traficant is a guy that always votes Republican, and that's why you guys like him...

CARLSON: He is a Democrat. He is a Democrat.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: All right.

"Why does Carville wear those silly sunglasses? I admit he needs all the help he can get, being such a close-minded Democrat."

Well, I didn't have any tonight, but James (ph) the cameraman gave me these. And these are some cool shades here.

Actually, if it's a sunny day when I come to work, I have the sunglasses on...

CARLSON: You look so evil it's almost unbelievable.

CARLSON: OK. We have one here: "Tucker's repeated and juvenile insults towards Mr. Nader accusing him of throwing the election speaks more to Tucker's ignorance rather than the facts at hand. I voted for Nader," she admits, "and would love to do so again. A vote for Nader was just that: A vote for Nader, not Bush" writes Holly Chmil from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Keep voting for Nader, I say. You did us a huge favor; thanks.

CARVILLE: Voting for Nader is a prima facia case of ignorance, because a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

CARLSON: Oh, it's so amusing, though.

CARVILLE: "Hey Mr. Ashcroft, I saw two undraped statues and three Picasso nudes in the last house I serviced. Very, very suspicious," The Cable Guy, Vincent Di Pietro, Los Angeles, California.

There's a lot of stupid ideas that come out of this country. The idea that Ashcroft has of having postal people and cable people spying on people could be one of the...

CARLSON: I don't like it, but I don't think it's that stupid, actually.

CARVILLE: Yes, it is pretty stupid.

CARLSON: Yes, a question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a question for the two of you. Why is it the question: "Should a woman stay at home?" Why isn't it: "Should a parent stay at home," because men can take care of children, too?

CARVILLE: Easy answer: because these right-wingers like this hate women.

CARLSON: That's actually a total and facile and almost unbelievable foul lie. Actually the study found that women -- mothers are, in fact, better at taking care of small children than fathers are. That's what the study found.

CARVILLE: Well, maybe the fathers need to learn.

CARVILLE: Yes, ma'am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, I'm Adrian (ph) from Washington, D.C. I'd like both of your takes on this question.

Tiger Woods is an athlete and not a social commentator. Why should he be a poster boy for any issues on minorities?

CARLSON: That's a great, great question.

CARVILLE: It is a great question.

But the truth of the matter is, is that he is -- because he is so good and because he also happens to be black, he's going to get asked these questions.

The same thing happened to Michael Jordan.

And also, people don't care what David Duval's opinion is. They do care what Tiger Woods' opinion is on anything.

CARLSON: But can you imagine...

CARVILLE: But there is an element of unfairness to it. You bring up a very good point.

CARLSON: It's deeply unfair. Can you imagine the pressure on the poor guy? Not only has he got to win every possible -- oh, I know, you don't feel sorry for Tiger Woods -- but he's not a social commentator. He's not...

CARVILLE: Can you imagine the pressure on Jackie Robinson. I mean, let's really talk about pressure here if we want to talk about somebody great.

CARLSON: I agree with that.

CARVILLE: And the same people that say they shouldn't have these women in these golf clubs are the same people that said Jackie Robinson shouldn't play baseball.

From the left, I'm James Carville, good night for CROSSFIRE.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm going to drown out your ending because I'm so offended.

From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson.

Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE -- this one with fewer lies.

"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN news alert.

We'll see you tomorrow.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com