Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Are Southerners Really Hillbillies?; Vice President Rides the Warpath

Aired August 29, 2002 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANNOUNCER: On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: It sounds like Dick Cheney's on the warpath.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful guidance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: But if the war hawks go after Iraq, will anyone follow?

Everything old is reality TV again.

TV THEME SONG: Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed.

ANNOUNCER: Hollywood thinks there's gold in them thar hillbillies, or is it just picking on one of America's last safe stereotypes?

And, as millions of children head back to school, maybe something should be missing?

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

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

JAMES CARVILLE, HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, why is it okay to make fun of hillbillies when you can't make fun of hardly anyone else? Actually, everybody makes fun of me, but...

Also, some education reform your kids would love.

But first, it's time to us to hand in our homework. Stand by for the best political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE political alert.

In a tone of voice that said, "our minds are already made up," Vice President Dick Cheney today said the Bush Administration welcomes the debate on whether the U.S. should hit Iraq before Saddam Hussein hits us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: Some have argued that to oppose Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: Speaking of opposites, at the same time the vice president was talking about Iraq, President Bush was busy raising money for Republican candidates in Oklahoma and Arkansas. His speeches never even mentioned the Iraq debate. Mr. President, believe it or not, there are more important things in the world than political fund raising.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Is this a Clinton man looking straight in the camera, with a straight face, and saying there are more important things than political fund raising.

CARVILLE: There are more important things. He spends more time on political fund raising than President Clinton did.

CARLSON: It's not true.

CARVILLE: Of course it is.

CARLSON: Today we've got a preview of a fight that will consume Washington as soon as Labor Day ends. The war with Iraq? No. It's who controls the Department of Homeland Security. President Bush has threatened to veto Democratic attempts to hamstring his ability to set the department's hiring and security policies. Today Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge signaled there is no room for compromise. He told the Homeland Security Advisory Council that if they do it the Democratic way, "We may have bolted a couple of pieces together, but we will not have maximized this country's efforts to protect our country and way of life." Democrats want it, union guys are the main concern.

CARVILLE: You know those firemen that went up the World Trade Center? The union stopped -- the union really those guys from being brave, didn't it?

Now that President Bush has evaporated all of the Clinton budget surplus, the White House intends to start pushing the new package of tax cuts. But all you rich Republicans better not get too excited or start counting any extra money. According to "The Washington Post," the White House knows its proposals will never become law. It's just the president's political group, who think it'd be a nice campaign tactic. With all their incompetence in handling foreign policy, we thought it couldn't get worse, but they are just as great at promising something they'll never deliver, just to fool people to get a few votes. They're used to that, from all the things he's promised them.

CARLSON: Actually, James, I think they like the tax cut because it might help the economy. CARVILLE: The thing is that they promised them education ...

CARLSON: The reactionaries in the other party won't allow it.

CARVILLE: If they'd only deliver one thing.

CARLSON: Edwin Edwards is headed to jail, but before he goes, the former Louisiana governor wants to go to Las Vegas. Edwards, who has been convicted of corruption and is almost certain to die in prison, wants to spend a single weekend gambling and watching super welter-weight champion Oscar De La Hoya box, but he won't be able to. Federal prosecutors filed a motion today, claiming that Edwards, who just turned 75 years old is a, quote, flight risk. It's true that Edwin Edwards is one of the crookedest politicians in the country, but he was also one of the most entertaining. It was Edwards who once bragged that like Klansman David Duke, he, too, was a wizard under the sheets and so much more. Edwin Edwards took payoffs, but he gave selflessly to journalists on deadline. Free Edwin Edwards.

CARVILLE: Actually, I am going to the La Hoya-Vargas fight in Las Vegas, and I'll tell him that I will take -- I will take responsibility for the governor and we might roll a few bones or whatever you like.

CARLSON: He would have a great time.

CARVILLE: The man's getting ready to go to jail for the rest of his life. He ought to have one last fling.

CARLSON: With you and Oscar De La Hoya.

CARVILLE: Absolutely. Vargas might win that fight. It's going to be a hell of a fight.

Louisiana Governor Mike Foster is not happy with the big league Republicans up in Washington. Foster, a Republican himself, is still recovering from having his arm twisted to get in the Senate race against Democrat Mary Landrieu. He said no. Then the National Republican Senatorial Committee butted in. But it didn't endorse Republican Foster's write-in; it endorsed someone else. Foster then called White House political adviser Karl Rove and told him to butt out of Louisiana politics. And according to the "Washington Times," there's not a four-letter word the governor didn't use in that conversation.

CARLSON: I mean, Mike Foster, a great guy, but he doesn't get to pick -- he doesn't get to pick every candidate.

CARVILLE: Well, you know, one thing, he gets to govern the state. And the next thing is, this White House is as inept in Louisiana politics as it is about handling this Middle East situation.

CARLSON: Speaking of advice, earlier this month, noted intellectual and teen heart-throb, Leonardo DiCaprio took the stage in an environmental rally to demand that President Bush attend the World Development Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. Nothing is more important, DiCaprio said, then ending global warming and saving the great apes. The development summit is now under way. President Bush is not there. On the other hand, neither is Leonardo DiCaprio. The actor's excuse: contractual obligations. In other words, he's staying home to make more money, as if he needs it. Apparently some things are more important than global warming. There's a good Democrat for you. He's barking at Bush to go; he doesn't go himself.

CARVILLE: He's not the Supreme Court or the president, he's just an actor.

When it comes to Iraq, the Bush Administration seems to see itself as Winston Churchill and the rest of the world as Neville Chamberlain. Even though Vice President Dick Cheney says that he welcomes the debate over attacking Iraq, is there any doubt his mind is made up? Present on CROSSFIRE tonight is retired general and former NATO commander and CNN military analyst Wesley Clark, and former CIA director James Woolsey.

CARLSON: General, thanks very much for joining us. Unlike most Americans, I want to know what the United States ought to do about Iraq. I want to know how deadly is the risk posed to this country by Saddam Hussein. So, like many Americans, I went to the "Times" of London this morning to find out. And here's what I read. It was compelling. "Saddam Hussein agreed to give up his weapons of mass destruction and submit to U.N. inspections, but he has prevented inspections for over four years. He maintains a reserve of SCUD missiles and the chemical and probably biological warheads to arm them. He has nuclear know-how and is seeking nuclear materials." Now, I read that and I came to the only logical conclusion: we've got to take this guy out of power. And you wrote that, by the way. Did I draw -- drew the right conclusion?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO COMMANDER: I think you did. I think that what we've got to do is we've got to recognize what the long-term risk is from Saddam Hussein, and not only do we have to recognize it, we have to persuade the rest of the world to understand what that risk is. We've got to bring others along with us. Now the interesting thing about this is, Saddam Hussein's been a risk for a long time. He's had chemical weapons since the 1980s. He's had biological weapons since the 1980s, and he was trying to build nuclear weapons in the 1980s. He's a very stubborn and persistent guy. So, we've had sanctions on him. We're slowing him down. The inspections retarded his progress a little bit. Now, there have been no inspections. We've got to get more pressure put on Saddam Hussein. And he's got a charm offensive going on. He's trying to persuade his neighbors what a great guy is he.

CARLSON: But the inspection -- He kicked out the last inspectors, I think, in December of 1998. At that time we knew, the U.S. knew, that he possessed weapons of mass destruction or chemical, biological. Why didn't the Clinton Administration do anything?

CLARK: Well, we did. Actually, we had a very intensive series of airstrikes, called Operation Desert Fox. It was December of 1998, General Tony Zinni, the Marine Commandant of the Central Command at that time, ran those strikes, four days, 350 targets. And it was everything we knew that we could take out. We did it with the Brits. But we didn't do it with the full support of the U.N. We didn't follow it with ground troops. And even as we were doing this, people were saying, well, how does this lead to getting the inspectors back in? And that's, then, the real problem, is we've been out front. We've taken the lead. We've got to get some other people up there with us, because this is a long-term, region-wide problem.

CARVILLE: Let me try to reframe by general partisan inclinations here. And let's assume that we have to -- the president and the National Security Council is in possession of such information that says this man is an imminent threat to the safety of the United States or the region. How do we get from here to there? Should -- do we go to Congress, do we go to the Security Council? Do we go to our allies. How do we get -- because right now, it is just a fractious debate within the administration that's being played out all over the newspapers. It's just looks horrible, as an American citizen. How do we get there?

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well, I think that we do have to persuade at least some of our allies to work with us. And I do think the president would be well advised to go to Congress. I think he could go the way his father did and say, legally, I don't actually have to do this, but I want to. Because I think that even though I see this as essentially resuming the Gulf War, because Saddam is in violation of the cease-fire agreement which ended it, and because he's working on weapons of mass destruction or has them and armed ballistic missiles and is trying to build a nuke. I think that we can legally regard it as a resumption of the Gulf War, but in terms of dealing with our own Congress and our own people, I think should realize it's a major step. He really wants Congress with him on the take-off and not just on the landing. And I think he ought to go to Congress and talk to them and try to -- and get a vote.

CARVILLE: You agree with the former Secretary of State Baker you said that we should go to the Security Council and just make the case?

WOOLSEY: No, I don't. I think we need to make the case to friends and allies. We do need some support in the region. We probably don't need many other countries' forces with us, but we do need some over-flight rights. We need to work with the Turks, we need to work with the British. We need to work with two or three of the other countries in the region. But I don't think we need to keep going and getting Security Council resolutions. We've already had several Security Council resolutions that said he's in violation. And each time we go, we say, essentially, the previous resolution must not have meant anything.

CARVILLE: I want to show you something that I do know a little bit about, and that's polling, and I've seen a few. And I want to show you polls about how Americans feel about this. In November, we favored the invasion 74 to 20, but by June it dropped 61 to 31, and it's now 53 to 41. The trend is not out front. If I you -- if I were to ask you, Mr. Director, I'll ask you and then you, General, if you were advising the president on how to get the American people enthusiastic behind this, what steps do you think he should take? WOOLSEY: The president's going to need to start making some of the kinds of speeches that the vice president and the secretary of defense have been making. I think he ought to go to the leadership of the Congress and get some of them supporting him. He has some important Democrats in his corner on this issue: Lieberman, Gephardt, others. I think he needs to make it a bipartisan, full-board approach to persuade the American people, and at the same time, as Wes has suggested, I think we need to go to at least some of our allies. Interestingly enough, the French, as their government has shifted, have become a bit more friendly on this issue. Italy has been. Poland has been. It's not -- it's not that all Europeans are opposed. We need to work with the ones who are at least willing to tacitly go along with us and do what we can. And the Turks are especially important.

CARLSON: Now, General, the vice president gave a speech today to Korean War veterans, as you know, in San Antonio. I think we should listen to part of it; I think he makes a very interesting point that's not often made. Dick Cheney.

CHENEY: As far the reaction of the Arab street, the Middle East expert, Professor Faoud Ajami (ph), predicts that after liberation in Basra and Baghdad, the streets are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.

CARLSON: I think the assumption among many people is that the Muslim world would go berserk if we go into Iraq, but why wouldn't the Arab street, so-called, react with joy?

CLARK: I don't think they will. I think you'll have those in Iraq that are happy to be rid of the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. But I think the majority of the Arab world will see two things out of this. They will see, first, it's another demonstration of American power, and the ruling elites will say, oh, we really respect American power. The Americans are going to use their power. Let's superficially be nice to them once more, or they're going to get us.

CARLSON: Isn't that good?

CLARK: I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone.

Military power can't win that war. Now, we're just starting to see in Germany where they're bringing up a case of some of the people who were plotting the 9/11. That's the tip of the iceberg. We've turned over to the Europeans so many names that they haven't been able to deal with. They bring these people in, they interrogate them, it doesn't -- there's information that's not admissible in their court. It's not exactly a violation of their laws. They're not sure whether they trust it or not. They release them again. We've got to get a better harmonization of the law and the police.

CARVILLE: I don't want to interrupt. I want to give you a few minutes and a chance to respond or agree or disagree with his points.

WOOLSEY: This may be one of the few aspects of all this that Wes and I have a somewhat different slant on. I essentially agree with the vice president. I believe that the Arab street will -- would be very angry if we get bogged down, but if we win relatively quickly, I think we'll see a similar phenomenon to what we saw -- remember how the Arab street was supposed to be so angry that we were going into Afghanistan? Remember how quiet it got, how quickly it got quiet? So I think we would see a phenomenon like that, and we would see great joy in Baghdad and Basra. And I believe I that we would, by an effective military victory, in bringing decent government to Iraq, I -- I think we would do a great deal to begin to bring some of the governments and people in the region along with actually cooperating with us. But, nobody can be certain of this. This is a...

CARVILLE: We've to got to -- take a quick commercial break.

CARLSON: We'd like some closure.

CARVILLE: We can come back and resume this conversation.

CARLSON: In a minute, the French don't really think America should invade Iraq, but since when has the U.S. taken orders from the French? We'll ask the guests if now is the time to start.

Later, hicks in Hollywood. We'll chase the latest trend in reality television with Cooter from "The Dukes of Hazzard." That's our own resident hillbilly, crazy James Carville.

Also, our quote of the day is from a man who would like to follow in his father's footsteps. And no, we're not talking about the president. We'll tell you who it is. We'll be right back.

CARVILLE: Well, he has the administration almost at war in terms of what policy he should take. What does the president have to do to set a consistent policy so Americans can know that this administration is speaking?

WOOLSEY: I think he needs to start doing some of the things the vice president has been doing. It's seems very odd to me to have the vice president giving these, from my point of view, first-rate speeches oriented toward leadership and moving in the direction we ought to be moving, and I mean, the president not there. I -- somehow they must have decided that they want to keep him away from the issue for a time, but it doesn't make him look strong and decisive, and it doesn't really do what only the president can do, which is lead the country.

CARVILLE: That's an excellent staff that the vice president has.

CARLSON: General, many people, many Democrats, many non- Democrats think the United States should put this question before the United Nations. France is against the -- an invasion of Iraq by the United States. Why should America put its foreign policy in the hands of the French, who are going to veto this?

CLARK: Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth.

Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years. So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French.

CARLSON: But why? I mean, I agree with you up until the last part...

CLARK: Why -- Why do we want to do this? Because when you go into an operation like this, it's part of the war on terror, and the way we're going to win the war on terror is by bringing everybody together, the publics, the police, the law enforcement. We've got to make the international environment as seamless in our strikes against the terrorists as they find it seamless in traveling from country to country, and that means you've got to have the whole-hearted support of your allies. You don't want to go into Iraq and have a huge issue that disrupts the war on terror with allies.

CARVILLE: Let me give you a chance to jump in and answer this if you want to. Go ahead.

WOOLSEY: First of all, I think the sense of urgency is that Saddam has got to be now relatively close to having a nuclear weapon. It's simply a question of the fission-able material. He's using highly enriched uranium, which means he can do it in centrifuges, he can do it -- Tedhir Hamsa (ph), his bomb-maker, who defected in 1994, says at that time there were 300 different facilities in -- 400, I believe, in Iraq that in one way or another were working on different aspects of nuclear weapons. He doesn't need a big reactor like Assyric (ph) reactor that the Israelis bombed in '81. He can do this piecemeal, as long as he's using highly enriched uranium. And furthermore, he doesn't necessarily have to make it himself; he may steal it. We had an operation about a week ago in Yugoslavia, former Yugoslavia, by the Serbs and the Americans and the Russians that grabbed about 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium from a poorly guarded facility. Those facilities exist in eastern Europe, they exist in Russia -- in fact, Russia has organized crime they have access to. A hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium would make several bombs. If that had been the Makavarat (ph) instead of the Americans and Russians, that could be in Saddam's hands now.

I think the sense of urgency is whether it's German intelligence, American intelligence, United Nations inspectors, all have said within the last year or two, that he's probably two or three years away from having a nuclear weapon. But that's if he put -- enriches the uranium himself. He already has a design, he already has the people. He can make it as soon as he has the fission-able material, he's months away from having one.

CARLTON: Unfortunately, we are completely out of time. But thanks, Dr. Woolsey, thanks General Clark.

Still to come: turning "The Beverly Hillbillies" into reality TV. Is it just a laugh? Or is it really an outrage?

Later, is homework an insidious threat to family time, or just part of growing up? There's a vote. Have a three-page essay ready to hand in after the next break. You're also assigned to guess our quote of the day. It comes from a son who's trying to follow in his father's footsteps in New York State. We'll be right back.

CARLSON: Welcome back. In New York governor's race, State Controller H. Carl McCall and former Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo are fighting for the chance to be thoroughly trounced this fall by Republican Governor George Pataki. Yesterday's McCall-Cuomo debate did little to dispel criticism that their campaigns for Democratic nomination have been predictable and boring. Cuomo, of course, the son of New York's former governor, in making his case for nomination, he gets our quote of the day for this back-handed self compliment: "It could be worse than to have a repeat of Mario Cuomo." Sort of like pining for the Brezhnev days, isn't it?

CARVILLE: He's one of the great governors of our lifetime, and one of the great men, and a great friend of mine. As is Mr. McCall, Mr. Cuomo, both of the candidates, outstanding candidates.

CARLSON: He was one of the great speakers ever to be governor.

CARVILLE: But governing's involved.

CARLSON: He was hated by New York. He drove them right into the ground. What are you talking about?

CARVILLE: He got elected by a landslide. He got elected governor of New York three times. He's a great man.

CARLSON: Coming up on the CNN News Hour, will there be a baseball strike. Connie Chung has the latest.

Also, making fun of dumb, white Southerners. It worked in the Sixties and Seventies, so why not now with the real hillbillies? We'll ask James Carville and another expert.

Later, you hated it. Your kids hated it. So why do we let schools keep assigning it? Questions about homework, as CROSSFIRE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

("NEWS ALERT")

CARVILLE: Well, Miss Connie, what have -- what have we got to look forward to tonight?

CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: We will have more on today's sentencing of Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel for the murder of Martha Moxley. We'll be talking to some of her friends about the judge's sentence. James, Tucker.

CARLSON: I hope he actually did it. Connie Chung in New York. Thanks so much. We'll be watching.

CARVILLE: Thank you.

CARLSON: If they haven't already, millions of students will be coming to classrooms in the next few weeks. The school year keeps getting longer and longer, education standards higher and higher. As part of education reforms, shouldn't we perhaps lighten up on the homework or, better yet, get rid of it completely? With us to debate it, from Boston is Janine Bempechat. She is author of a book called "Getting Our Kids Back on Track: Educating Children for the Future." And in our New York bureau is Ron Bolandi; he's the superintendent of public schools in Tewksbury, New Jersey, which have done away with as much homework as possible. Amen. Children of America thank you, Ron. Welcome, both.

CARVILLE: Mr. Bolandi, you're the former superintendent, it that -- am I correct about that?

RON BOLANDI, SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT, TEWKSBURY, N.J.: That's correct. We did most of our homework work in Piscataway, New Jersey.

CARVILLE: Let me show you a quote by Harris Cooper, professor at the University of Missouri. And he has this to say: "One of the reasons for giving them homework in elementary school is not because it's a boon to achievement, but because we shape behavior gradually. My feeling is that all children should be doing homework, but the amount and type should vary based on their age, development level and home circumstances."

To me -- that sounds to me like this man is infected with common sense. What's wrong with that? As a parent, as a citizen, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

BOLANDI: There's thing wrong with that statement, Jim, but I think one of the things is we have to look at the timing of homework. Are we giving too much homework? There -- There's no excuse for giving homework, three, four hours a night for students, especially in the lower elementary schools, even at the high school level. There's a lot more things to life more important than homework. And if we can't teach those seven hours a day and have students prepared for the next day, then we're doing something radically wrong in education.

CARVILLE: But -- But you don't have -- you would -- you don't have anything -- any problem with, like, in the eighth grade of having homework to do, do you? Is it -- is it the idea of homework, or is it just the quantity of it that concerns you?

BOLANDI: We use -- we use the quantity and the quality, Jim. I mean, in the eighth grade level, we told teachers in Piscataway that they couldn't assign more than 75 minutes of homework a day, because we didn't want students doing three -- three hours of homework a night. And at the high school level, we cut it down to no more than two hours a night. But one of the most important things we did is, we looked at the quality of the homework. Why is homework given? Homework isn't given to go home and have parents teach it. It's going home to reinforce skills, to see if actually that lesson that the students were taught the day before was actually achieved so we can move on. It's not really -- it's really the quality, Jim, not the quantity. And the timing of it. Again, I go back to what I said originally. There's no excuse for three and four hours of homework a night.

CARLTON: Okay. Janine, as a parent of school-aged children, I can report that homework has the potential, and in some cases it does, to really foul up a family's life at home together. But don't just take my word for it. I want to read you a quote from the dean of admissions at Harvard, a man that spends a lot of time thinking about education, Wayne Fitzsimmons. He says, "The fabric of daily life has just been destroyed. The possibility of taking a week or even a few days or, in a few cases, even an evening away from the soccer schedule or the academic enrichment schedule is just gone."

There are things that are more important than homework and yet homework crowds them out, true?

JANINE BEMPECHAT, AUTHOR: Yes. But isn't it interesting that the first thing that he should mention would be the soccer tournaments? That -- I mean, that, to me, is --

CARLSON: That's not all he mentioned.

BEMPECHAT: That seems to me is the problem.

CARLSON: I agree with you, but if you're doing three hours of homework a night, that's hurting your family life, isn't it?

BEMPECHAT: Three hours of homework a night, when you're in high school, I do not believe is hurting your family life. I believe it's preparing you for the future. And I think that what Dr. Bolandi misses in his argument is that there are actually two important benefits to the homework. There's the academic benefit of homework, which he spoke of, but there is also the motivational benefits of homework, which is what I study and speak about. In other words, homework should be given as soon as children begin elementary school. In kindergarten. Now, I'm not suggesting that we send kindergartners home with an hour of homework. We send them home with a paper bag with a letter A on it, and ask them to draw some things that start with an A and put it in the bag. What this does from an early age, building from one grade to another, is teach children all those qualities that both parents and teachers value so much: discipline, persistence, the ability to delay gratification.

CARLSON: Wait a minute.

BEMPECHAT: The ability to endure boredom at school. This is both for students that are required to take courses they may not want to take.

CARLSON: Wait a second. You say that homework prepares students for real life, later life. I don't know what life you're talking about. Most adults come home from work, have a drink and watch sitcoms. That's later life.

BEMPECHAT: That may be for some adults, later life after they come home from work. But -- I mean, the bandwagon, to make schooling such a wonderful experience is to have children happy all of the time, belies what it's really like to live in the real word, which is how often can you say that you've had one whole year where every day was the most incredible day you ever had in your life and you were happy doing everything your job requires you to do. I don't think you can.

CARLSON: Well, I work on CROSSFIRE, so I come pretty close. But are -- you're right.

CARVILLE: When -- When you were the superintendent, were the kids happier at school after you cut back on the amount of homework? Did you notice anything? Is there anything that you can tell us or report to us about that?

BOLANDI: Well, absolutely. I think it goes back again to what your other host said. There's a lot more to homework. To say that homework prepares students for later life, I think is a false argument. Our job in schools is to prepare students academically. Homework is not going to prepare them to do things in life. Standing at a table and arguing with your parents on what the assignment is for three hours doesn't prepare anything for anybody. I think students, you know, are much better because again, we go back to what I said to you before. It's the quality of homework, not the quantity. We're not preparing them for life with homework. When we're in school, we're preparing them for an academic world and what they're going to do in the future.

CARVILLE: I think a lot of parents, and maybe I'm just -- I think a lot of parents think it's good, sometimes it's quality time, they sit down with their kid, they help them, they know what they're doing in school. They are involved in what's happening. They keep abreast of it. I don't see anything wrong with it, and I agree, it shouldn't be three hours a night, but I think that some of that is good.

BOLANDI: I can't disagree with you more. There are many parents that don't sit at the dinner table, that don't have the ability to go over homework. Homework is much different than it was 20 years ago. They're not able to sit down and help their students. It creates parents that go out and find tutors. Many parents aren't even home to do that. So, you know, you go back into environments where parents are working 12, 15 hours a day, trying to support their families. They don't have time to sit down with the children and have an environmental -- Homework is not, in my opinion, something to give students to enjoy with their parents to do. That's what plays are for, sporting events, religious events. Just sitting down and talking to your children about how their day was. That's important.

CARLTON: Janine, we're almost out of time, but just could you, very quickly, isn't giving three hours of homework by a teacher an admission that the teacher hasn't done his or her job?

BEMPECHAT: Absolutely not. Certainly, as children get older, the kinds of tasks we require from them in middle and high school are that much more complex and they need the time. They need the time to be able to practice, to be able to master what it is that the teacher is trying to teach them. It is absolutely not an indication that the teacher isn't doing his or her job.

CARLSON: Okay. Janine Bempechat, thank you so much.

CARVILLE: Thank you. I appreciate it.

CARLSON: Ron Bolandi, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.

And next in our Fire Back segment: parents' feelings about homework, they are negative.

But next, putting hillbillies in mansions just for laughs. Was it what you expected in the Clinton years. No, fortunately, it's the latest in reality TV. Y'all come back here, now. Or something to that effect. We'll be right back.

TV THEME SONG: Come and listen to my story about a man named Jed. A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed; and then one day he was shooting at some food and up through the ground came a-bubbling crude. Oil, that is. Black gold. Texas tea. Well, the first thing you know, old Jed's a millionaire.

CARVILLE: "The Beverly Hillbillies" was a great gift to CBS in the 1960's. Now, in this era of reality TV, some genius has decided it might be fun to find some real hillbillies, install them in a Beverly Hills mansion, give them a bunch of money and watch as they hire maids and go shopping in Rodeo Drive. Political correctness has made it impossible to pick on virtually any ethnic group, so why is it still okay to make fun of the poor white Southerners? Joining us, from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, who lost to LSU in the FSC (phonetic) championship game last year, to defend his Appalachian brethren is Ben "Cooter" Jones. You know him best from the old "Dukes of Hazard" TV series. He's running for a congressional seat in Virginia and used to be a congressman from Georgia.

CARLSON: Congressman, thanks for joining us. One of the reasons I wholeheartedly support the stereotype of hillbillies, rednecks, Appalachians, southerners, et cetera, is that it's wholly true. And how do I know this, you ask, I'm from southern California, not from the south. Well, I work with one of your region's finest fruits. I want to put a picture up here. You probably can't see it. But I worked with -- there he is. James Carville. Overall, it's the pitchfork, the corncob pipe. But truly -- Isn't it true, Congressman, that basically all the stereotypes are true.

BEN "COOTER" JONES (D), VIRGINIA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: You know, Tucker, I -- I've spent a lot of time in Appalachia and lived all my life in the South, but I have spent a lot of time in Beverly Hills and southern California. And you want to talk about stereotypes, there are a lot more rubes in L.A. and in Beverly Hills than there are in all of the South. And one of those rubes has come up with this ridiculous idea.

CARLSON: No, but wait a second there. If you took the average southerner and set him down in a hot tub with a glass of chardonnay and two Playboy bunnies, he'll have no idea what to do, whereas the average person from southern California is perfectly at home.

JONES: I want to point out something to you, Tucker. Tucker, now "Beverly Hillbillies" was a wonderful show. I loved it. But it was a satire with caricatures -- characters, you know, sort of 19th century kind of people out there. And it was great fun, but you're talking about reality. And the reality is, up in every one of these hollers, all these kids are on the Internet, and they all got satellite dishes out there, and they're all watching cable. And they're a lot more sophisticated than the people that are putting on this show. And we've great schools like L.S.U.

CARVILLE: Right. And I want to set the record straight, Mr. Carlson. I am not a redneck, I am a coon-ass. And damn proud to be a coon-ass.

JONES: It's good to be a coon-ass. That's right.

CARVILLE: Some of you don't know the difference.

JONES: That's right. I'm -- Now, here's the difference: He's a coon-ass, but I'm a redneck. And that's a good old boy with a little bit of attitude.

CARLSON: How about -- Congressman.

JONES: We're proud of it. I tell you what, hey, wait a minute. Why don't we do a show where Tucker -- Tucker comes and lives up -- you know, down in one of them bayous back in there.

CARVILLE: Let's you and I put a show together. I want you to say that you and I will produce a show where we get one of these producers from Beverly Hills and stick his ass in a coal mine and make him earn an honest living and see how he does after you give him a house full of sagging porch and outdoor appliances. How about like that?

JONES: I'm with you. Yes, yes. One of these hotshot, you know, geniuses at CBS and maybe -- maybe put him down there plowing a mule somewhere, you know, where they really have to make a living.

CARLSON: But Congressman, you're missing the point. Nobody wants to plow mules, apart from Al Gore. I mean, the whole reason that the rest of the country no longer walks behind mules for a living is because it's unpleasant. So what do you think of the region where people do it?

JONES: We'll put him on a John Deere tractor. It doesn't matter. He's going to be lost. Because listen, country boys know how to survive. The -- the rednecks of this country are the people who have plowed the fields, who worked the factories who built the roads and the railroads, who fought the wars, who built this country and built the middle class. And y'all want to make fun of us, so (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CARLSON: That's fine.

CARVILLE: Wait a second. Wait a second. If that network is so smart, why is the head of it a man called Moonves.

JONES: That's right. And his first name is Leslie!

CARLSON: Wait a second. You're using classic redneck humor.

JONES: Why don't the man have a real name like Billy Bob?

CARLSON: Exactly. Or James Carville. Or Cooter?

JONES: Tucker, Cooter is a good name. Raging Cajun's a good name, you know? We've got good names down south: Skeeter, Bubba, Cooter.

CARVILLE: All right, Tucker.

CARLSON: Yes.

JONES: But you know what? We also have -- You know, I'm sitting here at the University of Tennessee, one of the great universities. What about the University of Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech?

CARLSON: That's exactly it.

JONES: There's no schools that compare to that. Like Trinity College or -- UCLA.

CARLSON: I agree with you. I agree with you that Duke and UVA are excellent schools, but they're mostly populated by northerners.

JONES: No, no, no, no.

CARLSON: How many English professors do you think grew up in Alabama?

CARVILLE: I know Ken Warren, English professor in Louisiana State and he was raised in Kentucky. Now how do you like that.

JONES: Now Duke, you might be right about Duke. You might be right about Duke. I went to Carolina. You might be right about Duke. All of the great writers came from the south. William Faulkner, Flannery O'Connor. I mean, Mark Twain.

CARLSON: But Congressman, can you understand a single word William Faulkner ever wrote? No. Come on, nobody can.

JONES: Absolutely. No, no, you can't. You're the one with the problem.

CARLSON: Hold on a minute. Congressman, pronounce the name Peskataquafarqua County or whatever. Nobody can pronounce the name of the county.

JONES: Watch your language. Son, there are ladies watching.

CARVILLE: Now here you go, they should be. Now, I want to come back to something that I think is important, this reality TV. And this is all a lot of fun. What is it, do you think, and you've been around entertainment a long time, seriously. What is it about making people -- here on the Internet, you've got people that you can watch them for 24 hours a day. Are we becoming sort of voyeuristic as a nation, or something, Cooter?

JONES: I'm almost -- well, yes, that's part of it, I think. But another part of it is, is that the real programming, the dramatic programming and the comedy programming, is so weak, so dreadful, that this reality program, just showing real people doing sort of ordinary things is -- gets better ratings. So that's...

CARLSON: But wait a second.

JONES: If one of them succeeds, they'll do ten more.

CARLSON: You made a lot of money and did a great job playing a character named Cooter who stayed drunk on Billy Beer all day.

JONES: No, no, no, no. Cooter didn't...

CARLSON: You add to the stereotype.

JONES: Pardon me, no. Wait a minute; you're the one that's stereotyping. If you'll notice, Cooter -- Cooter, in fact, like me, was a recovering alcoholic. You missed a lot. You were watching Daisy and not...

CARLSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Then you were just dumb. I thought he was drunk. But I'm just saying, he was the stereotypical, you know, plumber's crack, chest-scratching tooth-missing southerner, wasn't he?

JONES: No. You were watching another show, Tucker. You were watching "Crossfire" with Bob Novak.

CARLSON: Pretty good.

CARVILLE: That ain't bad. There's a reason for that. But one of the things that I think that the "Beverly Hillbillies" did is that they wrote it very sensibly. And if you watch it, the hillbillies had a very pure, kind of almost innocent thing themselves. And Beverly Hills always came out as looking bad. And the Beverly Hillbillies always came out kind of looking good in the thing. JONES: That was the great fun of it. I think if you take real people and, if you can find totally unsophisticated people who are less -- who are less sophisticated than the people in Beverly Hills, and that's really hard to find somebody like that. But you've got to find somebody who doesn't have the integrity and character, who would be willing to give up their beautiful home in the mountains to live in the dreadful place of Beverly Hills, where all of that funny business is going on.

CARVILLE: Do you know what the difference is between Beverly Hills and where we come from in the south. In Beverly Hills, the jewelry is real and the people is fake. Where we come from, the jewelry is fake and the people are real.

CARLSON: Wait a second. Ben Jones, we're almost out of time, but honestly, aren't you afraid this series is going to reveal what the region is really like?

JONES: No, no. They haven't managed to scratch -- see, Carville was right. You know, you can still -- you can still poke fun at southerners because we don't care. We are hip to ourselves. We know what's going on.

CARVILLE: That's right.

CARLSON: That's right. We have a lot more fun than y'all do.

CARVILLE: Damn right. If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? amen.

CARLSON: I can't wait to laugh at you. Thank you, Congressman.

CARVILLE: Thank you.

CARLSON: We appreciate it. As we go out, we'll put a picture up on the tube of who we think ought to be in the reality hillbilly show.

Next, your chance to fire back at us. Now that we've whipped the hillbilly community into a frenzy, maybe they'll respond. We'll be right back.

ANNOUNCER: If you'd like to fire back at "Crossfire," e-mail us at CROSSFIRE@CNN.com. Make sure to include your name and home town.

CARLSON: Welcome back to "Crossfire." Our redneck -- redneck set is over. We still have a redneck on the set, however. Now on to FireBack. The first e-mail we read is from C. Bartley of South Bend, Indiana, writes, "You know what, homework is a parent's nightmare! Many times we have to stay up late and help until it becomes 'our' homework... it takes away family time and harmony from the home."

I couldn't agree more. I resented it when I was doing it, I resent when my kids have it. I resent the whole thing.

CARVILLE: I'm not totally with you, but it was a good segment we had and they make some good points on both sides. Not long enough, but you are limited. "Since when are James Carville and Mr. LaPierre part of a well-regulated militia???" We had Mr. LaPierre in our home last night, and I will show you what a well-regulated militia looks like, Marilyn Desmond of Waterloo, Iowa. Have you ever seen anything more regulated than that?

CARLSON: Our viewers at home can't see that you were, in fact, in your undershorts, at home, alone in the middle of the day, you start waving a gun around. That is not well-regulated.

CARVILLE: And there was a beer there, too. Why you come fool with me, Hoss. I got something for you.

CARLSON: OK. Bob Labacken of Reynolds, North Dakota writes about our gun show: "The only restriction on 'shooting' should be Carville and Begala, they shoot their mouths off and never say anything. As a law abiding citizen, I have the right to own and use firearms. We can thank the NRA for their work, otherwise the communist left would long ago have taken my guns away."

Amen, Bob! We don't hear that anymore.

CARVILLE: I think that Bob is a open-minded guy.

CARLSON: You know what? I bet he's a great guy. I bet you $20 he's a great guy. OK.

CARVILLE: "James, the next time Tucker tries to rub your head, I dare you to grab his hair and give it a good tug. No way that mop isn't a rug!" Leona Robinson of Chico, California.

CARLSON: They're on to me, James!

CARVILLE: Now, usually they want me to grab that bow tie and not that. One day I am going to reach over there.

CARLSON: It's real.

CARVILLE: Actually, I hate to tell you, but it is real.

CARLSON: Yes, speaking of real, a real audience member. Yes, sir.

ROCKY GUITAMO (ph): Yes. Rocky Guitamo (ph) from New Orleans.

CARVILLE: Hey, Rocky. Where did you go to high school.

GUITAMO (ph): In New York. Tucker, has anyone considered that the only ones in Hollywood likely to be embarrassed in the hillbilly reality show are actually the Californians in Beverly Hills. And I agree, perhaps a Beverly Hills millionaire in Appalachia would be more interesting.

CARLSON: That actually would be a great show. There's a group in southern California, you have not been there enough to know that you cannot embarrass someone from southern California. It's absolutely impossible. So, no, they will not be embarrassed. CARVILLE: Next week I'm out at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills; I'll ask them.

CARLSON: They love it when you ask them. They don't get it, actually. Yes.

GREG KAPPA (ph): Hi. My name's Greg Kappa (ph) and I'm from Seacarver (ph), Washington. I was wondering on the topic of reality based television, what would your reaction be to the following idea, "The James Traficant Show, Live and In Prison."

CARLSON: You know, we tried -- we tired to stage it. I think there would be parts that would not be PG, you know. Just because of the venue, but we tried to have our own James Traficant show here on "Crossfire," but unfortunately, felonies interceded and now he's in the big house. But I think it would be good. I'd watch it.

CARVILLE: Young man, there's a future for you. Unfortunately, it's not in Washington, but it's in Hollywood. A hell of an idea.

From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night from "Crossfire."

CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson, the non-redneck. Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of "Crossfire." "Connie Chung Tonight" begins immediately after CNN News Alert. Have a great night; 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