Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Bush Approves Bonuses for Appointees, Not Civil Service Employees; Clinton Calls Democrats to Arms

Aired December 04, 2002 - 19:00   ET

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

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


ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: a little something extra for the holidays. Your tax money going to his political appointees.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Good work by the federal government's employees, all of whom are paid by the taxpayers, should be rewarded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The former commander-in-chief issues marching orders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have to have a clear and strong national security stand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNER: Will his famous Democrats heed Clinton's call to arms?

And, among the Capitol Hill freshmen is a new senator who knows the ropes. What's on his agenda?

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, "W" plays Santa Claus with your tax dollars. But he's not asking if you've been naughty or nice, just if you're a Republican. Plus, will my fellow Democrats heed some pretty darn good advice from the best president of my lifetime? But first, we advice you to sit tight. Here comes the best little political briefing on television: the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

President Bush today disputed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's positive assessment of Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors. Mr. Bush noted the Iraqis have fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone. Not exactly peaceful cooperation. The president went on to blame al Qaeda for the terrorist attack in Kenya last week and vowed to hunt the terrorists down. He did not explain why the hunt for al Qaeda, which is strongest in Pakistan, Yemen and Syria, requires a war in Iraq.

Kind of like the story of the man who found his friend crawling under a lamppost one night. "I'm looking for my keys," he said. "I dropped them at that restaurant there across the street." Well his friend asked him, "Why are you looking under a lamppost if you dropped them across the street?" "Because," the man said, "the light is better over here."

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Look, my advice to you and other Democrats (UNINTELLIGIBLE) business of giving advice is, if you disagree with the president's position on Iraq, say so and address it directly.

BEGALA: I just did.

CARLSON: No, you didn't.

BEGALA: He says we're going to attack Iraq to get al Qaeda.

CARLSON: No, no, no. That's absolutely not what he's saying and you know it. They are absolutely two separate efforts united in some ways but distinctly fundamentally, and you know that.

BEGALA: That would be an honest debate. He actually doesn't say that. He conflates these two very different things and he says we can walk and chew gum at the same time. He can't eat a pretzel and watch TV at the same time. I don't have confidence that he can fight two wars at once.

CARLSON: I'll be interested to see how you address it.

If you want to find just about any prominent Republican these days, head to Louisiana. You'll find them there helping Suzanne Terrell campaign for Saturday's runoff election for the U.S. Senate. President Bush has come, as has his father, the former president. Not to mention, Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole, incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, outgoing Congressman J.C. Watts and Georgia Republican Chairman Ralph Reed.

By contrast, Terrell's opponent, incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu, has had, let's see, no one you've ever heard of come speak on her behalf. National Democrats like Tom Daschle and Bill and Hillary Clinton have been told to stay away. Sort of sad, if you think about it. But it's also perfectly understandable. Landrieu fears that if she's seen with other members of her party voters will conclude she may be a Democrat.

BEGALA: Now this is why you're one of the most...

CARLSON: Don't let them know, Paul. BEGALA: ... you are one of the most perspicacious, perceptive analysts on the political scene. I think that this is a very interesting political strategy for the Democrat to say I vote with Bush 75 percent of the time. I happen to think it's a losing strategy, but we will know on Saturday.

CARLSON: But people don't like the Democrat Party that much, Paul. Maybe you should wake up to that fact. And, if they did, she'd be running as a Democrat.

BEGALA: The most popular politician in Louisiana, John Breaux, a Democrat.

CARLSON: A very conservative Democrat, who votes for the president more than Mary Landrieu, which is why he's popular and she's not.

BEGALA: That's not why he's popular. He's popular because he's a good senator and he puts Louisiana first. If she thinks that the way to win is to be with Bush -- you know, Will Rogers said if two people agree on everything, one of them's not necessary.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Yes, and that's the Democratic Party these days, stands for nothing.

BEGALA: Well, George W. Bush, speaking of the man who stands for something, he stands for this: giving away your money, lots of it, to his political cronies. The Bush administration is quietly handing out checks of up to $25,000 of your money to well-connected political employees. The practice had been badly abused by Bush's father and was halted by President Clinton.

The bonuses to political cronies come at a time when President Bush has denied scheduled pay raises to front line federal workers. The men and women who risk their lives to protects us from terrorism, for example. And what about the 800,000 Americans who have lost their jobs in the Bush recession and whose unemployment benefits are about to run out just at Christmastime? Nothing for them from Ebenezer Bush.

Our president defended his actions saying, rewarding the unworthy but well connected is the story of my life. Think I got into Yale, Harvard or the White House on merit?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I wouldn't find that irritating if I didn't know so many of them. And to call them his political cronies, most of them don't know him have never met them and are working 19-hour days to protect the country. To call them political cronies...

BEGALA: Hacks better?

CARLSON: And this as some sort of payback for their political support is ludicrous. Most of them aren't political supporters; they're people who work in the White House. You were one of them, and I know that they're not all hacks.

BEGALA: Do you think I would have worked in the White House if I would have worked for Clinton's opponent? I was hired because I was a political supporter...

CARLSON: But you weren't in a political position.

BEGALA: Yes.

CARLSON: These are people working on national security, long hours. They deserve the money.

BEGALA: No, Tucker. These are political appointees. Schedule C political appointees. That's what they are.

CARLSON: And not all of them are political, as you well know.

BEGALA: They are by definition.

CARLSON: They're not, Paul.

Say what you will about New Jersey Governor McGreevey, but he does travel well. In his first 10 months in office the Woodbridge (ph) Democrat took 272 trips in the state-owned helicopters. Almost one a day at a rate of about $1,200 an hour. He also found time to fly himself and a group of his supporters to Ireland at the state's expense for what he called a trade mission.

The only problem, McGreevey's trade mission didn't produce any trade, at least not for New Jersey. And those helicopter rides, a lot of them were for less than official business, like trips to friend's weddings. McGreevey would probably be still taking first-class vacations on the taxpayers' dime maybe to Club Med, maybe to Cabo San Lucas. But, unfortunately for him, he got caught by a newspaper.

So now he has to pay back the money, close to $100,000. McGreevey does not seem upset, though. He will make it back in room service.

BEGALA: I was one of the few Democrats who did not criticize Bush for traveling around at taxpayer expense on Air Force One to campaign. He's the president, he should travel on Air Force One. If the governor of New Jersey uses the aircraft to travel around New Jersey or to go try to build trade...

CARLSON: To a friend's wedding?

BEGALA: Or to try to increase trade.

CARLSON: This is the governor of the Mafia-controlled state of New Jersey flying to a friend's wedding in a state helicopter. It's an outrage. There's no defending that, as you know.

BEGALA: And so Bush goes to weddings. He takes Air Force One, as he should.

CARLSON: He's the president. There's no way around it. I'm actually not that comfortable with it, personally.

BEGALA: I'm totally for it.

Well Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts is one step closer to running in 2004. He officially filed papers with the Federal Election Commission today to establish an exploratory committee. Yesterday, Senator Kerry outlined his plan to revive the economy. It features a payroll tax cut. A move which would generate jobs, help small business and cut taxes for every American who works for a living. Three things the Bush tax cut for the rich does not do.

Now, according to the "Wall Street Journal," Mr. Bush is leaning toward a sharp reduction in the taxation on dividends. Proceeds from stock investments. As if the economy were driven by a few wealthy investors rather than millions of working consumers. The contrast couldn't be more clear.

Republicans want to punish work and reward wealth; hence the high payroll tax and the low dividend tax. Said one Bush economic adviser, if we can't help wealthy investors and screw working people, what's the point in being a Republican?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: That's sort of Stalinist class warfare rhetoric circa 1932, but it doesn't work in 2002, because those millions of working people you mentioned are investors. Most people are investors in the stock market, and cutting their taxes is not a bad idea, Paul.

BEGALA: Why not cut the payroll tax...

CARLSON: That may be a good idea, too.

BEGALA: It's a great idea. The one tax that Bush is not for. He trashed it today -- his spokesman did, Ari Fleischer.

CARLSON: Actually, it's hard to find any tax cuts Democrats are for.

BEGALA: Payroll tax. Cut the payroll tax. It's a great tax cut for the working people.

CARLSON: There are a lot of people suffering in the world today, perhaps none more than the two or three very rich women who yearn to join a men's club in Georgia. That's the position of "The New York Times," which in the past three months has run more than 30 heartrending stories about the tragedy of August National Golf Club. So far, "The Times" has dedicated more coverage to Augusta than it has to entire wars, famines and natural disasters in Africa. It's that important.

So important, that editors of the paper have spiked at least two separate columns that dare to deviate from the party line on Augusta. In one column, Pulitzer Prize-winning Dave Anderson (ph), a columnist, suggested that Tiger Woods is a golfer, not a civil rights leader, and therefore ought to be allowed to play at Augusta. Ideas like that could be dangerous, Anderson's editors decided, so they silenced him, which makes sense. It's not like he was writing about something frivolous, like wars or famine in Africa.

BEGALA: I think making fun of these foppish, frivolous, far right wing goof balls named Hootie, Kootie and Bootie Augusta is the most fun thing you can have.

CARLSON: But I must say...

BEGALA: They have a perfect right, legally, to discriminate against women. We have a perfect right to make fun of them for being...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You cannot deviate from what -- every good person ought to think this and if you don't think it, you're a bad person, it's just so authoritarian.

BEGALA: That's the right-wing view.

CARLSON: I can tell, Paul. Anybody who lives in this world knows that's not true.

Coming up, the president says Merry Christmas, Democrats grumble ba-humbug. Do only union hacks deserve bonuses? That's our question.

Later, he spent 54 minutes giving his fellow Democrats advice, and one part of it may actually be worth taking. Also, more deep thoughts from Hollywood in our quote of the day. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: With a harumph worthy of Ebeneezer Scrooge, "The New York Times" today revealed that the Bush administration has reversed a Clinton era policy and is now restoring bonuses for about 2,000 federal workers. Democrats claim this is more naughty than nice, because the employees in question are political appointees, rather than unionized bureaucrats slipping their way through mediocre careers and pointless departments you've never heard of.

First in the CROSSFIRE to debate this tonight, former White House communications director and former counselor to President Clinton, Ann Lewis. With her is Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Nice to see you again. Kellyanne, how are you? Good to see you. Thank you both for joining us.

Kellyanne, Tucker a moment ago, in just about three seconds, slammed hundreds of thousands of really terrific hard working people who work for you and I, the taxpayers. Let me tell you about a few of them. A CDEC, Centers for Disease Control health tech makes $30,597 a year. He or she may save your life and mine if there's a biochemical terrorist attack.

A border patrol makes $30,466 a year. Why should they get stiffed on their pay raise when political hacks who is make $140,000 a year could get a bonus of up to $25,000 more?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Let's talk about who exactly would be covered under the restoration of this policy, that was a bipartisan policy that existed through every administration in recent times except the Clinton administration. Let's talk about who this includes.

You're adding 2,000 appointees to the 1.8 million civil servants who already qualify for these bonuses, Paul. And many of them are in the Department of Justice. Many of them are really the 21st century equivalent of combat trips, because we're fighting this new war.

They are the attorneys, they are the counterterrorism experts, they are the people who, post September 11, have been defending these borders and making this a safer place. If you're going to deny them a couple extra dollars and a recommendation which, for your salary, would be like the equivalent of a gold star, then I would say shame on those who would deny them that. I want them to have the extra money.

BEGALA: Is it shame on those who then deny the front line workers, not the political hacks, the pay raise they were promised by the Congress of the United States? Come on, you're one of the best pollsters in the business. You don't even have to take a poll to know that telling front line workers making $30,000 or $40,000 and risking their life, that they have to get stiffed on their pay raise, which Bush told them even though Congress promised it, and then telling political hacks, who are making $120,000 or $140,000 they should get a huge bonus. That just doesn't work, does it?

CONWAY: Sure. But it actually mixes up the two things. Because the thing has been restored as of today. Something that had existed except for the eight years in the Clinton administration. I think the burden really lies on that administration to say why the people who were appointees in that time -- maybe the two of you can speak up on that -- why the appointees in that time were being denied the incentive to really stay and be a public servant.

Look, you can say that the president stiffed them. He didn't. I mean, these are individuals who are compensated and will continue to have just compensation. And we all know that -- we all know it's easier to run our mouths...

BEGALA: He did stop them from getting the pay raise Congress promised them, right?

CONWAY: No, he did not.

BEGALA: Of course he did.

CARLSON: He dropped about one percentage point, Paul, as you know. OK. But hold on -- one percentage point.

Now Ann, you talk about front line workers. You and I both know who the front line workers are. They're the ones in the White House, in the situation room. Many of them are political appointees, but they are the ones running the war on terror. They're not unionized, they're not a Democratic special interest group. So they shouldn't get raises?

ANN LEWIS, FMR. WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS: Wait a minute. The front line workers to me are people like the police and fire departments that were told this week by the White House that they're not going to get the money that Congress had voted for them that's being held back. Look at what we've learned in the last week, because, you know what, this is about values and this is about priorities.

This is about a million American families that aren't going to have any money coming into the house three days after Christmas because this White House wouldn't keep unemployment benefits going. This is about, again, police and fire departments, local police and fire departments that aren't going to get those grants that they thought they were going to get. This is about those civil servants, those people who work every day, the people Paul was just talking about, who are getting cutbacks in their cost of living increase.

This isn't even a raise. This is a cost of living. But where do we find the money? We find money for political appointees. That is values upside-down.

CARLSON: You are one of these people -- and, you know, no one is going to stand up for these people because they're political appointees. But these are people who work a lot harder than you and I do. You were one of them, you know. These people work 20-hours a day defending the country. And I want to read you this quote from a Justice Department official who just puts it all into perspective.

To "The New York Times" he says, "I was giving out bonuses for career people and not giving bonuses to political staff, who often worked a lot harder than the career people did. It was frustrating and it's an outrage and it's been corrected." What's wrong with it?

LEWIS: You know what's wrong with that? And you're right, Paul and I were political appointees. We wanted those jobs, we worked for the president, we were proud to have those jobs, and when the term was over, we were moving back into the private sector.

Compare that to government workers who are going to be there, who have made the decision they're going to work for you and me all the time. They don't get the chance to make a lot more money, as we might, who can go in and out. So if you've only got one pot of money -- and we can't mix it up, because there's only one pot of money.

Remember that we're talking about, when you make bonuses up to $25,000 available for political appointees, by definition there is less money available for those people who show up, who go to work every day, who really are on the front line. And that's where the money ought to go.

CONWAY: The Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, made very clear today that this is going to apply to very few people. And the $25,000 number is just out there because it's based on merit.

BEGALA: Very few political cronies are going to be getting $25,000 bonuses.

CONWAY: Because it's based on merit. They're not cronies. It's based on merit.

BEGALA: No, it's based on politics. They're political appointees.

CONWAY: It's not based on politics.

BEGALA: Let me explain to you why -- you asked a moment ago why it was stopped by President Clinton. It was stopped by President Clinton because President Bush the first, in a remarkably sleazy way, abused it. In the last five minutes, literally -- I'm not speaking figuratively now -- literally, in the last five minutes of Bush's presidency, he was handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars of bonuses to political hacks and cronies.

CONWAY: Wait, political hacks -- right. I mean, my god, I really don't think that you want to compare the last-minute deals of either Bush administration or the Clinton administration.

BEGALA: Yes, I do. Yes, I do, Kellyanne. Because Bush so abused this and now junior, who seems to be devoting his life to not making his father's mistakes, is going right back to making one of the most tawdry mistakes of his father's presidency.

CONWAY: No. I disagree with that completely, because you make it sound like Dick Cheney has his hand in the Salvation Army's cookie jar or something.

BEGALA: The taxpayers' cookie jar.

CONWAY: These are people who are serving the taxpayers, people who are, like the two of you did, giving up untold amounts of money and power that you can be making in the private sector, and that I hope you both are now. But, just like the private sector incentivizes to attract and retain qualified employees, the federal government must do that, or we're going to keep having...

BEGALA: So why cut the pay raise for the front line workers, Kellyanne?

CARLSON: We're almost out of time. Let me just ask a question of Ann Lewis here. I have a quote from Marion Berry. Not the disgraced former mayor of Washington, D.C., but another Democrat. This one from Arkansas. He's a member of Congress.

I think this gets right to the point about political federal workers. "You would have to be crazy to take this job," he says, "for the pay scale. Many members of Congress have our wives work, just like everyone else has our wives work to pay the bills."

The point of this is that people don't go in to service in the government, in a political capacity, for the money ever. In fact, they suffer for lack of money, and they get paid a lot less than they weren't working for the government. Why not reward them for hard work?

LEWIS: You've got it exactly right. You know what, we political appointees, we go in because we want to serve our president, because we believe in our president. We want to make a difference. And that's why the bonuses, since there's always a finite pot, the limited amount of money should go to the civil servants, to the government workers, because they're going to be there. They were there before we get there, they're there after we get there, and they don't have the chance to move out and wind up being a host on CROSSFIRE.

They don't have that same opportunity. That's where the money ought to go.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: We have a few seconds left, Kellyanne.

LEWIS: Nobody's keeping those political appointees in the job, and they don't stay.

BEGALA: I want to play a four-second sound bite from President George W. Bush, which summarizes the values here. You're going to argue with Bush. I think you're going to have to.

CONWAY: No way.

BEGALA: Here's what President Bush said expressing his values about workers versus big shot bosses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What's fair for the workers is fair for the bosses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: What's fair for the workers is fair for the bosses. Why doesn't Bush practice what he preaches? He's the hypocrite of the year.

CONWAY: Everybody doesn't even know what the issue was that the president was addressing. We just have dot, dot, dot before and after.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm so confused I don't know what to say.

CONWAY: Let's not play name that tune. Let's not play name that tune by taking a snippet of the president's speech that was about corporate responsibility and trying to apply that to this issue.

BEGALA: To himself, that's right. Don't apply his own rhetoric to his own actions.

CONWAY: White House Chief of Staff Andy Card ran a major business in this country before he...

BEGALA: But he didn't run a lobby organization.

CONWAY: I know it's easier to run your mouth than run a business, but I defer to his judgment here.

CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are completely out of time, as much as I feel like our side was winning.

BEGALA: Kellyanne Conway, thank you very much. Ann Lewis, from the Democratic Party, my fellow former political appointee in the Clinton White House. Thank you both very much.

Still ahead, the greatest president of our lifetime reminds his fellow Democrats what it takes to win elections: strength abroad, strength at home and strength in defense of your ideas. In a little bit, we'll ask if my fellow Democrats can toughen up, the way Bill Clinton suggests.

Also, the incoming U.S. senator whose orientation day is kind of a refresher course. But next, an Oscar winner earns an even more prestigious honor, the CROSSFIRE quote of the day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. After months of foot dragging the Bush administration finally agreed to allow an independent commission to investigate and bring to light any government lapses ahead of the 9/11 attacks. As if to undermine the commission, though, even before it begins, Mr. Bush named Henry Kissinger to lead it.

Now even Kissinger's defenders would have to admit he's probably better known for keeping secrets than revealing them. So from coast to coast, people have been groping for comparisons to put this appointment into perspective. We found one and we're giving it our quote of date. Actress Susan Sarandon, told the New York "Daily News," "It's like something that `Mad TV' thought up. How about ex Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic? Let's put all the war criminals on it." It's pretty strong stuff there for Susan.

CARLSON: Well, I must say, that's your brain trust. I mean The Republican Party, you know, Milton Friedman, Irving Crystal (ph), Jean Kirkpatrick. Democratic Party, Susan Sarandon.

BEGALA: Republican Party, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh.

CARLSON: I'm just amazed by how totally intellectually bankrupt the Democrats...

BEGALA: Republicans are. You can add Limbaugh and Bush's IQs together and it couldn't boil water.

CARLSON: You know what, both of them, agree with them or not, have ideas.

BEGALA: No they don't.

CARLSON: There is nobody in the Democratic Party who has any idea about anything. It's just constantly criticizing the other side and that's it. That's where it ends.

BEGALA: You know what, that's just not true. Actually, as I mentioned before, John Kerry gave a speech on the economy, full of new ideas. President Clinton today gave a big speech -- yesterday I guess it was.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm glad that you point that out. We're going to do a segment on that in just a moment.

Next, southerners dreaming of a white Christmas got something else today, very icy roads. Connie Chung has the latest in a CNN "News Alert." And then the most experienced freshman in the U.S. Senate steps back into the CROSSFIRE. Kind of like the demented uncle who won't stop making suggestions, has Bill Clinton finally given the Democrats a piece of advice worth listening to? We'll debate that. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Well, President Clinton says the Democratic Party needs to stand strong for national security. In a little bit we'll debate my former boss's advice.

Next, a freshman senator with a wealth of Senate experience. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C.

Well, this is orientation week here in Washington for the 10 new members of the United States Senate. The class of 2002 has some very impressive freshman. A pair of former cabinet secretaries, four House members who are moving up, two men who served as their states attorneys general and our next guest, a former three term United States senator who is now back for more after two years off.

Please welcome New Jersey's senator and my former boss, who I worked for in 1988 as his press secretary, Senator Frank Lautenberg.

(APPLAUSE)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: Hi, nice to be with you.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Thanks for joining us, Senator.

LAUTENBERG: Well, it's funny to be working for you at the moment.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Well, it feels good to me. I'm glad to have you, Senator.

CARLSON: There were some questions during the campaign, the rather short campaign that you waged for this seat, about why you would want to return to the Senate. When you left you gave a very well publicized speech explaining why you were leaving and why you were dissatisfied with the Senate.

And in it you said, I think I'm quoting, "The fact of the matter is the years spent in the Senate have been a large personal inconvenience and effort." You made it sound like a drag. Why did you want to come back?

LAUTENBERG: That's taken out of context because if one goes into the Army and you're shipped overseas, but you want to do your job. It was a personal inconvenience because I didn't see new grandchildren coming along. I didn't see my children.

But I loved every day I worked in the Senate. And there was no problem in terms of inconvenience in my life in terms of doing my duty. And I think people in New Jersey felt that I did it well.

CARLSON: OK, when you were in the Senate you supported then President Clinton's plan, or idea, to invest about 25 percent of Social Security funds in the stock market, essentially privatizing Social Security.

LAUTENBERG: No...

CARLSON: Are you still in favor of that?

LAUTENBERG: Oh, no, no, no. And I wasn't in favor of it then, Paul. There's some kind of misread here because I felt that the risk is something that having a failure on our hands would automatically bring the federal government to make up the losses. Because the risk I knew was there. You know, I was the head of a very large public corporation before I went to the Senate.

So I hadn't favored it, and I don't favor it now and especially when one looks back and sees what happened.

Well, you know, since the Bush administration began, if one had $100,000 in a 401(k), you've lost $31,000 in those two years. So I don't see that happening at all that would encourage the citizens of the country to feel good about it.

BEGALA: Well, Senator Lautenberg, to set the record straight, it was Tucker Carlson asking you those impudent questions...

LAUTENBERG: Oh...

BEGALA: ... but I thought very fair, very fair questions.

LAUTENBERG: ... oh, I didn't think Paul would do that.

BEGALA: Well, let me ask you though and I don't want to get too personal with you, but because I used to work for you, I know you are one of the wealthiest men in the Senate, and one of the wealthiest men in America.

You were the founder of ADP -- of Automated Data Processing, a huge corporation, and yet you're opposed to the Bush tax cuts which would benefit very rich people like yourself. Why?

LAUTENBERG: Well, because I'm not -- my style of living has not been impaired by paying taxes. I feel that if we're going to build strength in this country, we have to make sure that all parts of our society have some vision as to what can happen if they apply themselves.

But if we leave a lot of our folks uneducated, we lose assets and I think strength has to be built from within as well as from outside our boundaries. And to me that's a basic principle.

CARLSON: Now Senator Lautenberg, one of the issues you're almost certain to confront when you get to the Senate will be the war on Iraq,pending.

In 1991 you voted against the first...

LAUTENBERG: Right.

CARLSON: ... Gulf War. And you said at the time that a quickened to the Gulf War, quote, "May not realistic." You predicted, quote, tens of thousands of American casualties and said, "It would likely necessitate a draft."

One, why do you think you miscalculated the first Gulf War? And two, have your views on war in Iraq changed?

LAUTENBERG: Well, my views have changed. But the miscalculation may have been in the numbers of casualties. But unfortunately, Paul, I was right about the fact that the end was...

BEGALA: That's Tucker again, though, Senator.

LAUTENBERG: Tucker, please identify yourself. I'm looking into a blank screen, I'm sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I'm trying to fool you, Senator. It's working.

LAUTENBERG: I thought Paul's voice was good. But what happened is at that time we had no end game in sight. And I want to remind you that I voted with Danny Inouye and voted with Sam Nunn who was head of the -- distinguished head -- of the Arms Services Committee, because we didn't know when -- we knew how quickly we could get in, but we didn't know how long it would take us to get out.

And by golly, here we are today talking about getting out too soon if we look back at the experience in 1990, 1991. Had we completed the job at that time, as by the way, Colin Powell questioned, had we done at that time, we wouldn't be facing the risks that we are today. And the menace is far greater now than it was at that time.

BEGALA: Let me ask you, Senator. It's Paul Begala again, again a former campaign aide to you. I watched that campaign closely. It was an amazing ride. It was a short roller coaster ride, but you had a different strategy from many of the Democrats candidates who lost. You were running in New Jersey, one of the most tax averse states in the union, a state that bounced Jim Florio and all of the Democrats out of the legislature because they raised taxes.

And yet you campaigned against the Bush tax cut. It's a state that probably has more investors than any other state in the stock market. Yet you campaigned as you just mentioned, against putting Social Security in the stock market.

Isn't it -- don't you think it was pretty true that standing up to Bush on these economic issues is a heck of a lot better strategy than some of your colleagues who are now ex-senators who got beat running around their states saying that they supported Bush on his economic policy.

LAUTENBERG: Absolutely. Listen, I favored tax relief for the middle class. That's where the pressure is. They're the one who are worried about educating their kids and putting a roof over their houses. But it's guys like me -- you said I was successful in business -- it's people like me who don't need that. We don't need any more encouragement.

If your average wage is $1.1 million a year which is the upper 1 percent of our society, you need any help to get along. But we have to build again, our strength from within. We have to make sure the kids go to classrooms that are decently constructed. We have to make sure that we protect Social Security and try to get a prescription drug program in place.

Those are the things that require attention, and it sure shouldn't come by giving the wealthiest among us a more of a tax break than they already have.

CARLSON: Senator Lautenberg, finally, Paul mentioned the -- this is Tucker Carlson, and Paul mentioned the campaign that you just ran. And there were some people who remarked about your age. I believe you're going to be 79 soon. LAUTENBERG: Right.

CARLSON: It reminded me of the campaign you ran, I think, 20 years ago, against Republican Millicent Fenwick. She was 58 years old then. You implied that she...

LAUTENBERG: No, she was 62. I was 58. She was 72.

CARLSON: Seventy two. Well, that's a still bit younger than you are now. You implied that she was too old, maybe that she was senile. I think your quote was, "I'm questioning her ability to do the job."

Do you regret, as someone who is older than she was then, implying those things.

LAUTENBERG: No, the implication was not about age. It was about ability. Here she was going to come in a freshman Senator never having had any business experience. The cry at that time, 1982 was jobs, jobs, jobs for New Jersey. We were really in tough shape. And I was talking about her experience more than her age.

And the fact of the matter is that by the time she reached 72 she had been a congresswoman for a few years, and I thought that my experience was more relevant at the time. And that's what I talked about. And anybody who knows me will not question my fitness if they've seen me ski, run, jog -- all of the things that one likes to do. I do them well, by the way. And...

BEGALA: And you work your staff like dogs, I can testify to that, Senator.,

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Well, Senator Lautenberg, thanks. Welcome back to Washington. Nice to see you. We'll see you again, I hope.

LAUTENBERG: Great to see you. Thank you very much.

BEGALA: Good to see you.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Coming up, your chance to "Fireback" at us. One of our viewers is so desperate, she may buy a copy of Al Gore's book, but not read.

But first, has the neediest man in the Democratic Party finally come up with a suggestion worth listening too? We'll bat it around and be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

You know there's no question the Democratic Party kind of took it on the chin in last month's elections.

But the Democrats first two term president since FDR knows something about winning and how to get his party back on the winning track. In a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council on Tuesday, the greatest president in my lifetime said his party needs to be relevant in a progressive way. It needs to be tough and disciplined and have a clear stand on national security.

In President Clinton's words, quote, "If we look weak at a time when people are scared, we lose."

In the CROSSFIRE now, retired Air Force Colonel and former special assistant for national security affairs, P.J. Crowley along with former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman, Bob Walker.

(APPLAUSE)

Colonel, good to see you, sir.

COL. P.J. CROWLEY, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (RET.): Pleasure, how are doing.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Mr. Crowley, thanks for joining us.

CROWLEY: Tucker.

CARLSON: We'll talk -- Bill Clinton says that his party needs to take a distinct stand on matters related to foreign policy. Easy for him to say -- he's not running for anything.

I want you to listen to someone who is running for something, Congressman Martin Frost of Texas, Democrat, one of the smartest people in the Caucus, I think. And this is his assessment of what Democrats ought to do about foreign policy. Martin Frost.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

REP. MARTIN FROST (D), TEXAS: If we try and make defense, foreign policy the overriding issue, we will lose because the country is with the president on that issue. There are clearly members in our party who feel strongly on that issue. And they should be free to take that position. But if that's the position of the Democratic Party, Democratic Party will not win the next election."

(END AUDIO TAPE)

CARLSON: In other words, don't take a stand on the essential issues of the day because your stand will be rejected by voters. Good advice, isn't it.

CROWLEY: Well, I think -- let's be certain here. I mean, usually we're in a very unusual unique time in our history. This is the first time in 60 yards -- years that we've had an election during a wartime. So we have an extraordinary period of time.

Nonetheless, it is no secret that four of the last five presidents were governors who came to office not having a distinctive world view, if you will. And in fact the two presidents, one Democrat, one Republican, who came to office with the strongest national security background both were one term presidents.

So ultimately two years from now, clearly if we're in the same situation we are today, national security will be an election issue. But by the same token two years from now, I think we'll have the ability to both measure the Bush record, measure his opponent and what he sees about both security policy, homeland security, international affairs as well as domestic policy. And the American people, as always, will make an intelligent judgment.

CARLSON: Let me say there were elections in '64, '68 and '72 of course, during Vietnam.

CROWLEY: Fair enough.

BEGALA: Congressman Walker, President Kennedy said, "To govern is to chose." Presidents have to set priorities, maybe the most difficult thing that they do.

This is what President Clinton said yesterday about priorities in national security.

Take a look and ask if you agree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FRM. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Al Qaeda should be our top priority. Iraq is important, but the terrorist network is more urgent in terms of its threat to our security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: Do you agree?

BOB WALKER, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Well, I just don't think that that's the realistic assessment. The war on terror involves both Iraq and al Qaeda and we have to go after both of them. The fact is that the ability of Iraq to build weapons of mass destruction and possibly put them in the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda are reasons why we need to be very much going after Iraq.

We also need to keep up the pressure on al Qaeda. And I think that that's exactly what the policy is.

But I think to try to separate the two and suggest that you ought to have one policy for one and ignore the other while you're pursing one just doesn't make any sense in today's world. Today's world, you need to have a policy that recognizes that terrorism is a very, very broad based battle and one that we have to win world wide.

BEGALA: You know, not only does President Clinton disagree with that assessment, General Brent Scowcroft disagrees as well, former President Bush's National Security Adviser and a highly decorated military officer himself.

General Scowcroft wrote this, "Our preeminent security priority, underscored repeatedly by the president, is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy the global counter terrorist campaign we have undertaken."

Now when generals and national security advisers and former presidents all say that while Iraq is a problem, going willy nilly in there can undermine the war against al Qaeda. Don't you think maybe they have a point.

WALKER: I think you can find national security advisers and generals and lots of people who would disagree with Brent Scowcroft on this. The fact is that...

BEGALA: But he clearly knows more about it than you and I. I mean, you know...

WALKER: Well, I would certainly think that he has expertise in the field. But the fact is that we have a very unusual situation in the world today.

And I think to try to ignore those countries that are sponsors of terrorism and suggest that you can carve out one little area and that's where you're going to put your attention is exactly the mistake the Clinton administration made and one that we are paying a price for today.

CARLSON: And Democrats particular, P.J., I want to show a poll. This is -- these are the fruits of the Clinton years right here. This is a poll that asks "Which party does a better job -- world affairs?" Democrats, 33; Republicans 37. Iraq -- 32/50. Terrorism -- 23 percent Democrats, 52 percent Republicans.

Getting creamed on the essential issues of the day, historic issues. This is terrible for Democrats, isn't it?

CROWLEY: I think that I agree with Paul, and I agree with President Clinton, that you have to look at national security policy in many different dimensions. Terrorism obviously is one.

Disarming and preventing states from getting new -- weapons of mass destruction as in the case of Iraq is another. But you also have to have effective policies to deal with global poverty. You have to have effective policies to deal with AIDS. You have to have -- and health policy. You know, all of these dimensions -- economy, environment -- have elements that affect us in terms of our overall security. This was what President Clinton brought to office in 1992. We had 8 years of global expansion. The gap between our capabilities and the world's capabilities expanded under President Clinton.

Clearly, this is an issue that Democrats need to focus on, need to have a clear message. They didn't in the mid-term election, but this...

CARLSON: Really...

CROWLEY: ... this mid-term elections should not be about national security issues.

CARLSON: But they've had a pretty clear -- I think Democrats have had a pretty clear message for the last 15 years. I mean, Democrats -- not all -- but as a body voted for Defense cuts, to cut intelligence budgets as you know, to cut the budget of the FBI. And when Americans see people being killed in their big cities, they look at Democrats and say, "Well, if you're for lowering the defense budget, you're not against terrorism."

Isn't that what they see?

CROWLEY: Well, Tucker, the war on terrorism will not be won exclusively by raising defense spending. It's going to won by engaging with the world, leading the world, not lecturing the world, and being able to rout out both these terrorism cells and the underlying causes that drive these people into terrorist activity.

(APPLAUSE)

CROWLEY: And that's going to take more than increasing defense spending.

BEGALA: Well, Congressman, we're running out of time, but I want -- you mentioned President Clinton's priorities on national security.

Three star general Don Karik (ph) spoke about this in the Washington Post. This is what he said. He served both Clinton and Bush. And he said this. "He noticed a difference on terrorism," writes the Post. "Clinton's cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden and the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000, had met nearly weekly to direct the fight," Karik said. "Among Bush's front line advisers, candidly speaking, I didn't detect that kind of focus," says General Karik (ph), who served in both.

Do you want to reformulate your criticism on President...

WALKER: No, I don't...

BEGALA: ... Clinton's focus?

WALKER: No, I don't think I would reformulate it at all. The fact is that the reason why we had some of those problems occur (ph) is because we had cut the intelligence budgets. We didn't know what was going on...

BEGALA: This is a three-star general who served Clinton and Bush...

CARLSON: Let him answer.

WALKER: ... we had cut the military research budget which was taking away from our ability to develop the technologies both to look at what was happening in the world and also to utilize against terrorist. And this administration came into a situation where one of the first orders of business that they had to do was to upgrade the amount of intelligence that we were getting, that increased the research budget so that we would have the technology...

BEGALA: Which party controlled Congress and wrote those budgets?

CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are...

BEGALA: That would be the Republican Party.

WALKER: No and...

BEGALA: Yes, that was the Republican Party...

WALKER: ... but the Clinton administration priorities.

CARLSON: Our screen is going to go blank. I'm sorry, I wish we had more time.

Former Congressman Bob Walker, P.J. Crowley, thank you both, very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: We appreciate it.

Next in "Fireback," proof as if you needed it that CROSSFIRE in fact promotes togetherness.

We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Welcome back. We call this segment "Fireback." I think you know why.

David K. Uhe (ph) of Livonia, Michigan writes, and this is all because this Democrats.com put me on their Web site as if I were running for president. Mr. Uhe (ph) likes the idea. "Paul is the dream presidential candidate. He's Clinton without the vice, Bush without the stupidity, Sharpton without the ego and Carlson without the bow tie. As soon as he declares his candidacy, I will donate my $300.00 refund from the Bush tax cut to his campaign."

Well, David, if I were to run my first act as president would be to resign.

CARLSON: I'd like to see you run, Paul.

BEGALA: Sure, make Carville the vice president.

CARLSON: You're actually the most qualified person they've put up so far.

BEGALA: No, stop it.

CARLSON: Moore Kravitz (ph) of Houston writes, "Sorry, Tucker, if BS were music, you'd be a symphony."

BEGALA: Oh, Moore.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Moore, More.

CARLSON: Thanks, Moore. I'm not going to even reply to that.

BEGALA: Really, that's harsh from Houston. I love Houston.

Tim Avit (ph) it Atlanta, Georgia writes, "I was flipping back and forth between watching the Simpsons and CROSSFIRE when I realized that Simpson is far -- the Simpsons is far more intellectually stimulating that listening you talk, Paul." To which all I can say, d'oh!

CARLSON: D'oh!

And up next, Eleanor Ferguson from Akron writes, "Personally, I hate this show, but I'm forced by my significant other to watch it every night."

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: You know, across America, Paul, there are families huddled in front of the TV just hating CROSSFIRE together.

BEGALA: Well, she's an obedient little wife, though isn't she?

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: She's watching what her husband tells here. Eleanor, get a remote of your own.

CARLSON: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Scott Segrin (Ph) and I'm from Cleveland, Ohio. And I think many would agree that most federal employees are all the same, whether elected, appointed or hired. They're all the same. Shouldn't they all get bonuses and not just certain groups? CARLSON: No, ones that aren't unionized and therefore don't vote Democratic reliably aren't entitled to more money. That's the argument that Paul's making.

BEGALA: Believe me I was a Democrat working for Bill Clinton and I wasn't eligible for those because I should be. There are political hacks who are there for a short period of time. And there are the career people who make our government work. Those career people are getting the shaft by Bush. The political hacks are getting...

CARLSON: One's a Democratic interest group and the other is not.

BEGALA: ... a gold mine. It's totally unfair.

CARLSON: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, Casey (ph) from Houston, Texas. Paul, this question is for you . As fellow Texas Democrat, I was in tears on election day. And now with Bush stumping in Louisiana, it seems like we might lose another good southern Democrat. So what do the Democrats have to do to win back the South, especially in 2004?

BEGALA: Well, I think they ought to read Bill Clinton's speech from yesterday. Be strong, be strong, be strong, fight these guys. "You know if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

CARLSON: It turns out...

BEGALA: And I would rather fight, look like Frank Lautenberg did in New Jersey, who won -- he took on the Bush agenda -- and won. These accomodationist Democrats across the country who caved into Bush, they all lost.

CARLSON: Paul, people -- voters don't want what you're selling. And that's the problem. I actually like the sound of what you said, and I think Democrats ought to do it, but they're going to lose.

Southern Democrats -- the quickest way to win is to switch parties, truly.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Bush, by the way, got fewer votes than Al Gore. They do like what we're selling.

And I'm from the left, Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson.

Join us again tomorrow night, Thursday, for yet more CROSSFIRE.

"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. Have a great night.

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





Employees; Clinton Calls Democrats to Arms>


Aired December 4, 2002 - 19:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: a little something extra for the holidays. Your tax money going to his political appointees.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Good work by the federal government's employees, all of whom are paid by the taxpayers, should be rewarded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The former commander-in-chief issues marching orders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have to have a clear and strong national security stand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNER: Will his famous Democrats heed Clinton's call to arms?

And, among the Capitol Hill freshmen is a new senator who knows the ropes. What's on his agenda?

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, "W" plays Santa Claus with your tax dollars. But he's not asking if you've been naughty or nice, just if you're a Republican. Plus, will my fellow Democrats heed some pretty darn good advice from the best president of my lifetime? But first, we advice you to sit tight. Here comes the best little political briefing on television: the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

President Bush today disputed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's positive assessment of Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors. Mr. Bush noted the Iraqis have fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone. Not exactly peaceful cooperation. The president went on to blame al Qaeda for the terrorist attack in Kenya last week and vowed to hunt the terrorists down. He did not explain why the hunt for al Qaeda, which is strongest in Pakistan, Yemen and Syria, requires a war in Iraq.

Kind of like the story of the man who found his friend crawling under a lamppost one night. "I'm looking for my keys," he said. "I dropped them at that restaurant there across the street." Well his friend asked him, "Why are you looking under a lamppost if you dropped them across the street?" "Because," the man said, "the light is better over here."

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Look, my advice to you and other Democrats (UNINTELLIGIBLE) business of giving advice is, if you disagree with the president's position on Iraq, say so and address it directly.

BEGALA: I just did.

CARLSON: No, you didn't.

BEGALA: He says we're going to attack Iraq to get al Qaeda.

CARLSON: No, no, no. That's absolutely not what he's saying and you know it. They are absolutely two separate efforts united in some ways but distinctly fundamentally, and you know that.

BEGALA: That would be an honest debate. He actually doesn't say that. He conflates these two very different things and he says we can walk and chew gum at the same time. He can't eat a pretzel and watch TV at the same time. I don't have confidence that he can fight two wars at once.

CARLSON: I'll be interested to see how you address it.

If you want to find just about any prominent Republican these days, head to Louisiana. You'll find them there helping Suzanne Terrell campaign for Saturday's runoff election for the U.S. Senate. President Bush has come, as has his father, the former president. Not to mention, Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole, incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, outgoing Congressman J.C. Watts and Georgia Republican Chairman Ralph Reed.

By contrast, Terrell's opponent, incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu, has had, let's see, no one you've ever heard of come speak on her behalf. National Democrats like Tom Daschle and Bill and Hillary Clinton have been told to stay away. Sort of sad, if you think about it. But it's also perfectly understandable. Landrieu fears that if she's seen with other members of her party voters will conclude she may be a Democrat.

BEGALA: Now this is why you're one of the most...

CARLSON: Don't let them know, Paul. BEGALA: ... you are one of the most perspicacious, perceptive analysts on the political scene. I think that this is a very interesting political strategy for the Democrat to say I vote with Bush 75 percent of the time. I happen to think it's a losing strategy, but we will know on Saturday.

CARLSON: But people don't like the Democrat Party that much, Paul. Maybe you should wake up to that fact. And, if they did, she'd be running as a Democrat.

BEGALA: The most popular politician in Louisiana, John Breaux, a Democrat.

CARLSON: A very conservative Democrat, who votes for the president more than Mary Landrieu, which is why he's popular and she's not.

BEGALA: That's not why he's popular. He's popular because he's a good senator and he puts Louisiana first. If she thinks that the way to win is to be with Bush -- you know, Will Rogers said if two people agree on everything, one of them's not necessary.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Yes, and that's the Democratic Party these days, stands for nothing.

BEGALA: Well, George W. Bush, speaking of the man who stands for something, he stands for this: giving away your money, lots of it, to his political cronies. The Bush administration is quietly handing out checks of up to $25,000 of your money to well-connected political employees. The practice had been badly abused by Bush's father and was halted by President Clinton.

The bonuses to political cronies come at a time when President Bush has denied scheduled pay raises to front line federal workers. The men and women who risk their lives to protects us from terrorism, for example. And what about the 800,000 Americans who have lost their jobs in the Bush recession and whose unemployment benefits are about to run out just at Christmastime? Nothing for them from Ebenezer Bush.

Our president defended his actions saying, rewarding the unworthy but well connected is the story of my life. Think I got into Yale, Harvard or the White House on merit?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I wouldn't find that irritating if I didn't know so many of them. And to call them his political cronies, most of them don't know him have never met them and are working 19-hour days to protect the country. To call them political cronies...

BEGALA: Hacks better?

CARLSON: And this as some sort of payback for their political support is ludicrous. Most of them aren't political supporters; they're people who work in the White House. You were one of them, and I know that they're not all hacks.

BEGALA: Do you think I would have worked in the White House if I would have worked for Clinton's opponent? I was hired because I was a political supporter...

CARLSON: But you weren't in a political position.

BEGALA: Yes.

CARLSON: These are people working on national security, long hours. They deserve the money.

BEGALA: No, Tucker. These are political appointees. Schedule C political appointees. That's what they are.

CARLSON: And not all of them are political, as you well know.

BEGALA: They are by definition.

CARLSON: They're not, Paul.

Say what you will about New Jersey Governor McGreevey, but he does travel well. In his first 10 months in office the Woodbridge (ph) Democrat took 272 trips in the state-owned helicopters. Almost one a day at a rate of about $1,200 an hour. He also found time to fly himself and a group of his supporters to Ireland at the state's expense for what he called a trade mission.

The only problem, McGreevey's trade mission didn't produce any trade, at least not for New Jersey. And those helicopter rides, a lot of them were for less than official business, like trips to friend's weddings. McGreevey would probably be still taking first-class vacations on the taxpayers' dime maybe to Club Med, maybe to Cabo San Lucas. But, unfortunately for him, he got caught by a newspaper.

So now he has to pay back the money, close to $100,000. McGreevey does not seem upset, though. He will make it back in room service.

BEGALA: I was one of the few Democrats who did not criticize Bush for traveling around at taxpayer expense on Air Force One to campaign. He's the president, he should travel on Air Force One. If the governor of New Jersey uses the aircraft to travel around New Jersey or to go try to build trade...

CARLSON: To a friend's wedding?

BEGALA: Or to try to increase trade.

CARLSON: This is the governor of the Mafia-controlled state of New Jersey flying to a friend's wedding in a state helicopter. It's an outrage. There's no defending that, as you know.

BEGALA: And so Bush goes to weddings. He takes Air Force One, as he should.

CARLSON: He's the president. There's no way around it. I'm actually not that comfortable with it, personally.

BEGALA: I'm totally for it.

Well Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts is one step closer to running in 2004. He officially filed papers with the Federal Election Commission today to establish an exploratory committee. Yesterday, Senator Kerry outlined his plan to revive the economy. It features a payroll tax cut. A move which would generate jobs, help small business and cut taxes for every American who works for a living. Three things the Bush tax cut for the rich does not do.

Now, according to the "Wall Street Journal," Mr. Bush is leaning toward a sharp reduction in the taxation on dividends. Proceeds from stock investments. As if the economy were driven by a few wealthy investors rather than millions of working consumers. The contrast couldn't be more clear.

Republicans want to punish work and reward wealth; hence the high payroll tax and the low dividend tax. Said one Bush economic adviser, if we can't help wealthy investors and screw working people, what's the point in being a Republican?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: That's sort of Stalinist class warfare rhetoric circa 1932, but it doesn't work in 2002, because those millions of working people you mentioned are investors. Most people are investors in the stock market, and cutting their taxes is not a bad idea, Paul.

BEGALA: Why not cut the payroll tax...

CARLSON: That may be a good idea, too.

BEGALA: It's a great idea. The one tax that Bush is not for. He trashed it today -- his spokesman did, Ari Fleischer.

CARLSON: Actually, it's hard to find any tax cuts Democrats are for.

BEGALA: Payroll tax. Cut the payroll tax. It's a great tax cut for the working people.

CARLSON: There are a lot of people suffering in the world today, perhaps none more than the two or three very rich women who yearn to join a men's club in Georgia. That's the position of "The New York Times," which in the past three months has run more than 30 heartrending stories about the tragedy of August National Golf Club. So far, "The Times" has dedicated more coverage to Augusta than it has to entire wars, famines and natural disasters in Africa. It's that important.

So important, that editors of the paper have spiked at least two separate columns that dare to deviate from the party line on Augusta. In one column, Pulitzer Prize-winning Dave Anderson (ph), a columnist, suggested that Tiger Woods is a golfer, not a civil rights leader, and therefore ought to be allowed to play at Augusta. Ideas like that could be dangerous, Anderson's editors decided, so they silenced him, which makes sense. It's not like he was writing about something frivolous, like wars or famine in Africa.

BEGALA: I think making fun of these foppish, frivolous, far right wing goof balls named Hootie, Kootie and Bootie Augusta is the most fun thing you can have.

CARLSON: But I must say...

BEGALA: They have a perfect right, legally, to discriminate against women. We have a perfect right to make fun of them for being...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You cannot deviate from what -- every good person ought to think this and if you don't think it, you're a bad person, it's just so authoritarian.

BEGALA: That's the right-wing view.

CARLSON: I can tell, Paul. Anybody who lives in this world knows that's not true.

Coming up, the president says Merry Christmas, Democrats grumble ba-humbug. Do only union hacks deserve bonuses? That's our question.

Later, he spent 54 minutes giving his fellow Democrats advice, and one part of it may actually be worth taking. Also, more deep thoughts from Hollywood in our quote of the day. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: With a harumph worthy of Ebeneezer Scrooge, "The New York Times" today revealed that the Bush administration has reversed a Clinton era policy and is now restoring bonuses for about 2,000 federal workers. Democrats claim this is more naughty than nice, because the employees in question are political appointees, rather than unionized bureaucrats slipping their way through mediocre careers and pointless departments you've never heard of.

First in the CROSSFIRE to debate this tonight, former White House communications director and former counselor to President Clinton, Ann Lewis. With her is Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Nice to see you again. Kellyanne, how are you? Good to see you. Thank you both for joining us.

Kellyanne, Tucker a moment ago, in just about three seconds, slammed hundreds of thousands of really terrific hard working people who work for you and I, the taxpayers. Let me tell you about a few of them. A CDEC, Centers for Disease Control health tech makes $30,597 a year. He or she may save your life and mine if there's a biochemical terrorist attack.

A border patrol makes $30,466 a year. Why should they get stiffed on their pay raise when political hacks who is make $140,000 a year could get a bonus of up to $25,000 more?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Let's talk about who exactly would be covered under the restoration of this policy, that was a bipartisan policy that existed through every administration in recent times except the Clinton administration. Let's talk about who this includes.

You're adding 2,000 appointees to the 1.8 million civil servants who already qualify for these bonuses, Paul. And many of them are in the Department of Justice. Many of them are really the 21st century equivalent of combat trips, because we're fighting this new war.

They are the attorneys, they are the counterterrorism experts, they are the people who, post September 11, have been defending these borders and making this a safer place. If you're going to deny them a couple extra dollars and a recommendation which, for your salary, would be like the equivalent of a gold star, then I would say shame on those who would deny them that. I want them to have the extra money.

BEGALA: Is it shame on those who then deny the front line workers, not the political hacks, the pay raise they were promised by the Congress of the United States? Come on, you're one of the best pollsters in the business. You don't even have to take a poll to know that telling front line workers making $30,000 or $40,000 and risking their life, that they have to get stiffed on their pay raise, which Bush told them even though Congress promised it, and then telling political hacks, who are making $120,000 or $140,000 they should get a huge bonus. That just doesn't work, does it?

CONWAY: Sure. But it actually mixes up the two things. Because the thing has been restored as of today. Something that had existed except for the eight years in the Clinton administration. I think the burden really lies on that administration to say why the people who were appointees in that time -- maybe the two of you can speak up on that -- why the appointees in that time were being denied the incentive to really stay and be a public servant.

Look, you can say that the president stiffed them. He didn't. I mean, these are individuals who are compensated and will continue to have just compensation. And we all know that -- we all know it's easier to run our mouths...

BEGALA: He did stop them from getting the pay raise Congress promised them, right?

CONWAY: No, he did not.

BEGALA: Of course he did.

CARLSON: He dropped about one percentage point, Paul, as you know. OK. But hold on -- one percentage point.

Now Ann, you talk about front line workers. You and I both know who the front line workers are. They're the ones in the White House, in the situation room. Many of them are political appointees, but they are the ones running the war on terror. They're not unionized, they're not a Democratic special interest group. So they shouldn't get raises?

ANN LEWIS, FMR. WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS: Wait a minute. The front line workers to me are people like the police and fire departments that were told this week by the White House that they're not going to get the money that Congress had voted for them that's being held back. Look at what we've learned in the last week, because, you know what, this is about values and this is about priorities.

This is about a million American families that aren't going to have any money coming into the house three days after Christmas because this White House wouldn't keep unemployment benefits going. This is about, again, police and fire departments, local police and fire departments that aren't going to get those grants that they thought they were going to get. This is about those civil servants, those people who work every day, the people Paul was just talking about, who are getting cutbacks in their cost of living increase.

This isn't even a raise. This is a cost of living. But where do we find the money? We find money for political appointees. That is values upside-down.

CARLSON: You are one of these people -- and, you know, no one is going to stand up for these people because they're political appointees. But these are people who work a lot harder than you and I do. You were one of them, you know. These people work 20-hours a day defending the country. And I want to read you this quote from a Justice Department official who just puts it all into perspective.

To "The New York Times" he says, "I was giving out bonuses for career people and not giving bonuses to political staff, who often worked a lot harder than the career people did. It was frustrating and it's an outrage and it's been corrected." What's wrong with it?

LEWIS: You know what's wrong with that? And you're right, Paul and I were political appointees. We wanted those jobs, we worked for the president, we were proud to have those jobs, and when the term was over, we were moving back into the private sector.

Compare that to government workers who are going to be there, who have made the decision they're going to work for you and me all the time. They don't get the chance to make a lot more money, as we might, who can go in and out. So if you've only got one pot of money -- and we can't mix it up, because there's only one pot of money.

Remember that we're talking about, when you make bonuses up to $25,000 available for political appointees, by definition there is less money available for those people who show up, who go to work every day, who really are on the front line. And that's where the money ought to go.

CONWAY: The Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, made very clear today that this is going to apply to very few people. And the $25,000 number is just out there because it's based on merit.

BEGALA: Very few political cronies are going to be getting $25,000 bonuses.

CONWAY: Because it's based on merit. They're not cronies. It's based on merit.

BEGALA: No, it's based on politics. They're political appointees.

CONWAY: It's not based on politics.

BEGALA: Let me explain to you why -- you asked a moment ago why it was stopped by President Clinton. It was stopped by President Clinton because President Bush the first, in a remarkably sleazy way, abused it. In the last five minutes, literally -- I'm not speaking figuratively now -- literally, in the last five minutes of Bush's presidency, he was handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars of bonuses to political hacks and cronies.

CONWAY: Wait, political hacks -- right. I mean, my god, I really don't think that you want to compare the last-minute deals of either Bush administration or the Clinton administration.

BEGALA: Yes, I do. Yes, I do, Kellyanne. Because Bush so abused this and now junior, who seems to be devoting his life to not making his father's mistakes, is going right back to making one of the most tawdry mistakes of his father's presidency.

CONWAY: No. I disagree with that completely, because you make it sound like Dick Cheney has his hand in the Salvation Army's cookie jar or something.

BEGALA: The taxpayers' cookie jar.

CONWAY: These are people who are serving the taxpayers, people who are, like the two of you did, giving up untold amounts of money and power that you can be making in the private sector, and that I hope you both are now. But, just like the private sector incentivizes to attract and retain qualified employees, the federal government must do that, or we're going to keep having...

BEGALA: So why cut the pay raise for the front line workers, Kellyanne?

CARLSON: We're almost out of time. Let me just ask a question of Ann Lewis here. I have a quote from Marion Berry. Not the disgraced former mayor of Washington, D.C., but another Democrat. This one from Arkansas. He's a member of Congress.

I think this gets right to the point about political federal workers. "You would have to be crazy to take this job," he says, "for the pay scale. Many members of Congress have our wives work, just like everyone else has our wives work to pay the bills."

The point of this is that people don't go in to service in the government, in a political capacity, for the money ever. In fact, they suffer for lack of money, and they get paid a lot less than they weren't working for the government. Why not reward them for hard work?

LEWIS: You've got it exactly right. You know what, we political appointees, we go in because we want to serve our president, because we believe in our president. We want to make a difference. And that's why the bonuses, since there's always a finite pot, the limited amount of money should go to the civil servants, to the government workers, because they're going to be there. They were there before we get there, they're there after we get there, and they don't have the chance to move out and wind up being a host on CROSSFIRE.

They don't have that same opportunity. That's where the money ought to go.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: We have a few seconds left, Kellyanne.

LEWIS: Nobody's keeping those political appointees in the job, and they don't stay.

BEGALA: I want to play a four-second sound bite from President George W. Bush, which summarizes the values here. You're going to argue with Bush. I think you're going to have to.

CONWAY: No way.

BEGALA: Here's what President Bush said expressing his values about workers versus big shot bosses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What's fair for the workers is fair for the bosses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: What's fair for the workers is fair for the bosses. Why doesn't Bush practice what he preaches? He's the hypocrite of the year.

CONWAY: Everybody doesn't even know what the issue was that the president was addressing. We just have dot, dot, dot before and after.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm so confused I don't know what to say.

CONWAY: Let's not play name that tune. Let's not play name that tune by taking a snippet of the president's speech that was about corporate responsibility and trying to apply that to this issue.

BEGALA: To himself, that's right. Don't apply his own rhetoric to his own actions.

CONWAY: White House Chief of Staff Andy Card ran a major business in this country before he...

BEGALA: But he didn't run a lobby organization.

CONWAY: I know it's easier to run your mouth than run a business, but I defer to his judgment here.

CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are completely out of time, as much as I feel like our side was winning.

BEGALA: Kellyanne Conway, thank you very much. Ann Lewis, from the Democratic Party, my fellow former political appointee in the Clinton White House. Thank you both very much.

Still ahead, the greatest president of our lifetime reminds his fellow Democrats what it takes to win elections: strength abroad, strength at home and strength in defense of your ideas. In a little bit, we'll ask if my fellow Democrats can toughen up, the way Bill Clinton suggests.

Also, the incoming U.S. senator whose orientation day is kind of a refresher course. But next, an Oscar winner earns an even more prestigious honor, the CROSSFIRE quote of the day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. After months of foot dragging the Bush administration finally agreed to allow an independent commission to investigate and bring to light any government lapses ahead of the 9/11 attacks. As if to undermine the commission, though, even before it begins, Mr. Bush named Henry Kissinger to lead it.

Now even Kissinger's defenders would have to admit he's probably better known for keeping secrets than revealing them. So from coast to coast, people have been groping for comparisons to put this appointment into perspective. We found one and we're giving it our quote of date. Actress Susan Sarandon, told the New York "Daily News," "It's like something that `Mad TV' thought up. How about ex Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic? Let's put all the war criminals on it." It's pretty strong stuff there for Susan.

CARLSON: Well, I must say, that's your brain trust. I mean The Republican Party, you know, Milton Friedman, Irving Crystal (ph), Jean Kirkpatrick. Democratic Party, Susan Sarandon.

BEGALA: Republican Party, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh.

CARLSON: I'm just amazed by how totally intellectually bankrupt the Democrats...

BEGALA: Republicans are. You can add Limbaugh and Bush's IQs together and it couldn't boil water.

CARLSON: You know what, both of them, agree with them or not, have ideas.

BEGALA: No they don't.

CARLSON: There is nobody in the Democratic Party who has any idea about anything. It's just constantly criticizing the other side and that's it. That's where it ends.

BEGALA: You know what, that's just not true. Actually, as I mentioned before, John Kerry gave a speech on the economy, full of new ideas. President Clinton today gave a big speech -- yesterday I guess it was.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm glad that you point that out. We're going to do a segment on that in just a moment.

Next, southerners dreaming of a white Christmas got something else today, very icy roads. Connie Chung has the latest in a CNN "News Alert." And then the most experienced freshman in the U.S. Senate steps back into the CROSSFIRE. Kind of like the demented uncle who won't stop making suggestions, has Bill Clinton finally given the Democrats a piece of advice worth listening to? We'll debate that. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Well, President Clinton says the Democratic Party needs to stand strong for national security. In a little bit we'll debate my former boss's advice.

Next, a freshman senator with a wealth of Senate experience. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C.

Well, this is orientation week here in Washington for the 10 new members of the United States Senate. The class of 2002 has some very impressive freshman. A pair of former cabinet secretaries, four House members who are moving up, two men who served as their states attorneys general and our next guest, a former three term United States senator who is now back for more after two years off.

Please welcome New Jersey's senator and my former boss, who I worked for in 1988 as his press secretary, Senator Frank Lautenberg.

(APPLAUSE)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: Hi, nice to be with you.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Thanks for joining us, Senator.

LAUTENBERG: Well, it's funny to be working for you at the moment.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Well, it feels good to me. I'm glad to have you, Senator.

CARLSON: There were some questions during the campaign, the rather short campaign that you waged for this seat, about why you would want to return to the Senate. When you left you gave a very well publicized speech explaining why you were leaving and why you were dissatisfied with the Senate.

And in it you said, I think I'm quoting, "The fact of the matter is the years spent in the Senate have been a large personal inconvenience and effort." You made it sound like a drag. Why did you want to come back?

LAUTENBERG: That's taken out of context because if one goes into the Army and you're shipped overseas, but you want to do your job. It was a personal inconvenience because I didn't see new grandchildren coming along. I didn't see my children.

But I loved every day I worked in the Senate. And there was no problem in terms of inconvenience in my life in terms of doing my duty. And I think people in New Jersey felt that I did it well.

CARLSON: OK, when you were in the Senate you supported then President Clinton's plan, or idea, to invest about 25 percent of Social Security funds in the stock market, essentially privatizing Social Security.

LAUTENBERG: No...

CARLSON: Are you still in favor of that?

LAUTENBERG: Oh, no, no, no. And I wasn't in favor of it then, Paul. There's some kind of misread here because I felt that the risk is something that having a failure on our hands would automatically bring the federal government to make up the losses. Because the risk I knew was there. You know, I was the head of a very large public corporation before I went to the Senate.

So I hadn't favored it, and I don't favor it now and especially when one looks back and sees what happened.

Well, you know, since the Bush administration began, if one had $100,000 in a 401(k), you've lost $31,000 in those two years. So I don't see that happening at all that would encourage the citizens of the country to feel good about it.

BEGALA: Well, Senator Lautenberg, to set the record straight, it was Tucker Carlson asking you those impudent questions...

LAUTENBERG: Oh...

BEGALA: ... but I thought very fair, very fair questions.

LAUTENBERG: ... oh, I didn't think Paul would do that.

BEGALA: Well, let me ask you though and I don't want to get too personal with you, but because I used to work for you, I know you are one of the wealthiest men in the Senate, and one of the wealthiest men in America.

You were the founder of ADP -- of Automated Data Processing, a huge corporation, and yet you're opposed to the Bush tax cuts which would benefit very rich people like yourself. Why?

LAUTENBERG: Well, because I'm not -- my style of living has not been impaired by paying taxes. I feel that if we're going to build strength in this country, we have to make sure that all parts of our society have some vision as to what can happen if they apply themselves.

But if we leave a lot of our folks uneducated, we lose assets and I think strength has to be built from within as well as from outside our boundaries. And to me that's a basic principle.

CARLSON: Now Senator Lautenberg, one of the issues you're almost certain to confront when you get to the Senate will be the war on Iraq,pending.

In 1991 you voted against the first...

LAUTENBERG: Right.

CARLSON: ... Gulf War. And you said at the time that a quickened to the Gulf War, quote, "May not realistic." You predicted, quote, tens of thousands of American casualties and said, "It would likely necessitate a draft."

One, why do you think you miscalculated the first Gulf War? And two, have your views on war in Iraq changed?

LAUTENBERG: Well, my views have changed. But the miscalculation may have been in the numbers of casualties. But unfortunately, Paul, I was right about the fact that the end was...

BEGALA: That's Tucker again, though, Senator.

LAUTENBERG: Tucker, please identify yourself. I'm looking into a blank screen, I'm sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I'm trying to fool you, Senator. It's working.

LAUTENBERG: I thought Paul's voice was good. But what happened is at that time we had no end game in sight. And I want to remind you that I voted with Danny Inouye and voted with Sam Nunn who was head of the -- distinguished head -- of the Arms Services Committee, because we didn't know when -- we knew how quickly we could get in, but we didn't know how long it would take us to get out.

And by golly, here we are today talking about getting out too soon if we look back at the experience in 1990, 1991. Had we completed the job at that time, as by the way, Colin Powell questioned, had we done at that time, we wouldn't be facing the risks that we are today. And the menace is far greater now than it was at that time.

BEGALA: Let me ask you, Senator. It's Paul Begala again, again a former campaign aide to you. I watched that campaign closely. It was an amazing ride. It was a short roller coaster ride, but you had a different strategy from many of the Democrats candidates who lost. You were running in New Jersey, one of the most tax averse states in the union, a state that bounced Jim Florio and all of the Democrats out of the legislature because they raised taxes.

And yet you campaigned against the Bush tax cut. It's a state that probably has more investors than any other state in the stock market. Yet you campaigned as you just mentioned, against putting Social Security in the stock market.

Isn't it -- don't you think it was pretty true that standing up to Bush on these economic issues is a heck of a lot better strategy than some of your colleagues who are now ex-senators who got beat running around their states saying that they supported Bush on his economic policy.

LAUTENBERG: Absolutely. Listen, I favored tax relief for the middle class. That's where the pressure is. They're the one who are worried about educating their kids and putting a roof over their houses. But it's guys like me -- you said I was successful in business -- it's people like me who don't need that. We don't need any more encouragement.

If your average wage is $1.1 million a year which is the upper 1 percent of our society, you need any help to get along. But we have to build again, our strength from within. We have to make sure the kids go to classrooms that are decently constructed. We have to make sure that we protect Social Security and try to get a prescription drug program in place.

Those are the things that require attention, and it sure shouldn't come by giving the wealthiest among us a more of a tax break than they already have.

CARLSON: Senator Lautenberg, finally, Paul mentioned the -- this is Tucker Carlson, and Paul mentioned the campaign that you just ran. And there were some people who remarked about your age. I believe you're going to be 79 soon. LAUTENBERG: Right.

CARLSON: It reminded me of the campaign you ran, I think, 20 years ago, against Republican Millicent Fenwick. She was 58 years old then. You implied that she...

LAUTENBERG: No, she was 62. I was 58. She was 72.

CARLSON: Seventy two. Well, that's a still bit younger than you are now. You implied that she was too old, maybe that she was senile. I think your quote was, "I'm questioning her ability to do the job."

Do you regret, as someone who is older than she was then, implying those things.

LAUTENBERG: No, the implication was not about age. It was about ability. Here she was going to come in a freshman Senator never having had any business experience. The cry at that time, 1982 was jobs, jobs, jobs for New Jersey. We were really in tough shape. And I was talking about her experience more than her age.

And the fact of the matter is that by the time she reached 72 she had been a congresswoman for a few years, and I thought that my experience was more relevant at the time. And that's what I talked about. And anybody who knows me will not question my fitness if they've seen me ski, run, jog -- all of the things that one likes to do. I do them well, by the way. And...

BEGALA: And you work your staff like dogs, I can testify to that, Senator.,

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Well, Senator Lautenberg, thanks. Welcome back to Washington. Nice to see you. We'll see you again, I hope.

LAUTENBERG: Great to see you. Thank you very much.

BEGALA: Good to see you.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Coming up, your chance to "Fireback" at us. One of our viewers is so desperate, she may buy a copy of Al Gore's book, but not read.

But first, has the neediest man in the Democratic Party finally come up with a suggestion worth listening too? We'll bat it around and be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

You know there's no question the Democratic Party kind of took it on the chin in last month's elections.

But the Democrats first two term president since FDR knows something about winning and how to get his party back on the winning track. In a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council on Tuesday, the greatest president in my lifetime said his party needs to be relevant in a progressive way. It needs to be tough and disciplined and have a clear stand on national security.

In President Clinton's words, quote, "If we look weak at a time when people are scared, we lose."

In the CROSSFIRE now, retired Air Force Colonel and former special assistant for national security affairs, P.J. Crowley along with former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman, Bob Walker.

(APPLAUSE)

Colonel, good to see you, sir.

COL. P.J. CROWLEY, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (RET.): Pleasure, how are doing.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Mr. Crowley, thanks for joining us.

CROWLEY: Tucker.

CARLSON: We'll talk -- Bill Clinton says that his party needs to take a distinct stand on matters related to foreign policy. Easy for him to say -- he's not running for anything.

I want you to listen to someone who is running for something, Congressman Martin Frost of Texas, Democrat, one of the smartest people in the Caucus, I think. And this is his assessment of what Democrats ought to do about foreign policy. Martin Frost.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

REP. MARTIN FROST (D), TEXAS: If we try and make defense, foreign policy the overriding issue, we will lose because the country is with the president on that issue. There are clearly members in our party who feel strongly on that issue. And they should be free to take that position. But if that's the position of the Democratic Party, Democratic Party will not win the next election."

(END AUDIO TAPE)

CARLSON: In other words, don't take a stand on the essential issues of the day because your stand will be rejected by voters. Good advice, isn't it.

CROWLEY: Well, I think -- let's be certain here. I mean, usually we're in a very unusual unique time in our history. This is the first time in 60 yards -- years that we've had an election during a wartime. So we have an extraordinary period of time.

Nonetheless, it is no secret that four of the last five presidents were governors who came to office not having a distinctive world view, if you will. And in fact the two presidents, one Democrat, one Republican, who came to office with the strongest national security background both were one term presidents.

So ultimately two years from now, clearly if we're in the same situation we are today, national security will be an election issue. But by the same token two years from now, I think we'll have the ability to both measure the Bush record, measure his opponent and what he sees about both security policy, homeland security, international affairs as well as domestic policy. And the American people, as always, will make an intelligent judgment.

CARLSON: Let me say there were elections in '64, '68 and '72 of course, during Vietnam.

CROWLEY: Fair enough.

BEGALA: Congressman Walker, President Kennedy said, "To govern is to chose." Presidents have to set priorities, maybe the most difficult thing that they do.

This is what President Clinton said yesterday about priorities in national security.

Take a look and ask if you agree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FRM. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Al Qaeda should be our top priority. Iraq is important, but the terrorist network is more urgent in terms of its threat to our security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: Do you agree?

BOB WALKER, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Well, I just don't think that that's the realistic assessment. The war on terror involves both Iraq and al Qaeda and we have to go after both of them. The fact is that the ability of Iraq to build weapons of mass destruction and possibly put them in the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda are reasons why we need to be very much going after Iraq.

We also need to keep up the pressure on al Qaeda. And I think that that's exactly what the policy is.

But I think to try to separate the two and suggest that you ought to have one policy for one and ignore the other while you're pursing one just doesn't make any sense in today's world. Today's world, you need to have a policy that recognizes that terrorism is a very, very broad based battle and one that we have to win world wide.

BEGALA: You know, not only does President Clinton disagree with that assessment, General Brent Scowcroft disagrees as well, former President Bush's National Security Adviser and a highly decorated military officer himself.

General Scowcroft wrote this, "Our preeminent security priority, underscored repeatedly by the president, is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy the global counter terrorist campaign we have undertaken."

Now when generals and national security advisers and former presidents all say that while Iraq is a problem, going willy nilly in there can undermine the war against al Qaeda. Don't you think maybe they have a point.

WALKER: I think you can find national security advisers and generals and lots of people who would disagree with Brent Scowcroft on this. The fact is that...

BEGALA: But he clearly knows more about it than you and I. I mean, you know...

WALKER: Well, I would certainly think that he has expertise in the field. But the fact is that we have a very unusual situation in the world today.

And I think to try to ignore those countries that are sponsors of terrorism and suggest that you can carve out one little area and that's where you're going to put your attention is exactly the mistake the Clinton administration made and one that we are paying a price for today.

CARLSON: And Democrats particular, P.J., I want to show a poll. This is -- these are the fruits of the Clinton years right here. This is a poll that asks "Which party does a better job -- world affairs?" Democrats, 33; Republicans 37. Iraq -- 32/50. Terrorism -- 23 percent Democrats, 52 percent Republicans.

Getting creamed on the essential issues of the day, historic issues. This is terrible for Democrats, isn't it?

CROWLEY: I think that I agree with Paul, and I agree with President Clinton, that you have to look at national security policy in many different dimensions. Terrorism obviously is one.

Disarming and preventing states from getting new -- weapons of mass destruction as in the case of Iraq is another. But you also have to have effective policies to deal with global poverty. You have to have effective policies to deal with AIDS. You have to have -- and health policy. You know, all of these dimensions -- economy, environment -- have elements that affect us in terms of our overall security. This was what President Clinton brought to office in 1992. We had 8 years of global expansion. The gap between our capabilities and the world's capabilities expanded under President Clinton.

Clearly, this is an issue that Democrats need to focus on, need to have a clear message. They didn't in the mid-term election, but this...

CARLSON: Really...

CROWLEY: ... this mid-term elections should not be about national security issues.

CARLSON: But they've had a pretty clear -- I think Democrats have had a pretty clear message for the last 15 years. I mean, Democrats -- not all -- but as a body voted for Defense cuts, to cut intelligence budgets as you know, to cut the budget of the FBI. And when Americans see people being killed in their big cities, they look at Democrats and say, "Well, if you're for lowering the defense budget, you're not against terrorism."

Isn't that what they see?

CROWLEY: Well, Tucker, the war on terrorism will not be won exclusively by raising defense spending. It's going to won by engaging with the world, leading the world, not lecturing the world, and being able to rout out both these terrorism cells and the underlying causes that drive these people into terrorist activity.

(APPLAUSE)

CROWLEY: And that's going to take more than increasing defense spending.

BEGALA: Well, Congressman, we're running out of time, but I want -- you mentioned President Clinton's priorities on national security.

Three star general Don Karik (ph) spoke about this in the Washington Post. This is what he said. He served both Clinton and Bush. And he said this. "He noticed a difference on terrorism," writes the Post. "Clinton's cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden and the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000, had met nearly weekly to direct the fight," Karik said. "Among Bush's front line advisers, candidly speaking, I didn't detect that kind of focus," says General Karik (ph), who served in both.

Do you want to reformulate your criticism on President...

WALKER: No, I don't...

BEGALA: ... Clinton's focus?

WALKER: No, I don't think I would reformulate it at all. The fact is that the reason why we had some of those problems occur (ph) is because we had cut the intelligence budgets. We didn't know what was going on...

BEGALA: This is a three-star general who served Clinton and Bush...

CARLSON: Let him answer.

WALKER: ... we had cut the military research budget which was taking away from our ability to develop the technologies both to look at what was happening in the world and also to utilize against terrorist. And this administration came into a situation where one of the first orders of business that they had to do was to upgrade the amount of intelligence that we were getting, that increased the research budget so that we would have the technology...

BEGALA: Which party controlled Congress and wrote those budgets?

CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are...

BEGALA: That would be the Republican Party.

WALKER: No and...

BEGALA: Yes, that was the Republican Party...

WALKER: ... but the Clinton administration priorities.

CARLSON: Our screen is going to go blank. I'm sorry, I wish we had more time.

Former Congressman Bob Walker, P.J. Crowley, thank you both, very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: We appreciate it.

Next in "Fireback," proof as if you needed it that CROSSFIRE in fact promotes togetherness.

We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Welcome back. We call this segment "Fireback." I think you know why.

David K. Uhe (ph) of Livonia, Michigan writes, and this is all because this Democrats.com put me on their Web site as if I were running for president. Mr. Uhe (ph) likes the idea. "Paul is the dream presidential candidate. He's Clinton without the vice, Bush without the stupidity, Sharpton without the ego and Carlson without the bow tie. As soon as he declares his candidacy, I will donate my $300.00 refund from the Bush tax cut to his campaign."

Well, David, if I were to run my first act as president would be to resign.

CARLSON: I'd like to see you run, Paul.

BEGALA: Sure, make Carville the vice president.

CARLSON: You're actually the most qualified person they've put up so far.

BEGALA: No, stop it.

CARLSON: Moore Kravitz (ph) of Houston writes, "Sorry, Tucker, if BS were music, you'd be a symphony."

BEGALA: Oh, Moore.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Moore, More.

CARLSON: Thanks, Moore. I'm not going to even reply to that.

BEGALA: Really, that's harsh from Houston. I love Houston.

Tim Avit (ph) it Atlanta, Georgia writes, "I was flipping back and forth between watching the Simpsons and CROSSFIRE when I realized that Simpson is far -- the Simpsons is far more intellectually stimulating that listening you talk, Paul." To which all I can say, d'oh!

CARLSON: D'oh!

And up next, Eleanor Ferguson from Akron writes, "Personally, I hate this show, but I'm forced by my significant other to watch it every night."

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: You know, across America, Paul, there are families huddled in front of the TV just hating CROSSFIRE together.

BEGALA: Well, she's an obedient little wife, though isn't she?

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: She's watching what her husband tells here. Eleanor, get a remote of your own.

CARLSON: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Scott Segrin (Ph) and I'm from Cleveland, Ohio. And I think many would agree that most federal employees are all the same, whether elected, appointed or hired. They're all the same. Shouldn't they all get bonuses and not just certain groups? CARLSON: No, ones that aren't unionized and therefore don't vote Democratic reliably aren't entitled to more money. That's the argument that Paul's making.

BEGALA: Believe me I was a Democrat working for Bill Clinton and I wasn't eligible for those because I should be. There are political hacks who are there for a short period of time. And there are the career people who make our government work. Those career people are getting the shaft by Bush. The political hacks are getting...

CARLSON: One's a Democratic interest group and the other is not.

BEGALA: ... a gold mine. It's totally unfair.

CARLSON: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, Casey (ph) from Houston, Texas. Paul, this question is for you . As fellow Texas Democrat, I was in tears on election day. And now with Bush stumping in Louisiana, it seems like we might lose another good southern Democrat. So what do the Democrats have to do to win back the South, especially in 2004?

BEGALA: Well, I think they ought to read Bill Clinton's speech from yesterday. Be strong, be strong, be strong, fight these guys. "You know if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

CARLSON: It turns out...

BEGALA: And I would rather fight, look like Frank Lautenberg did in New Jersey, who won -- he took on the Bush agenda -- and won. These accomodationist Democrats across the country who caved into Bush, they all lost.

CARLSON: Paul, people -- voters don't want what you're selling. And that's the problem. I actually like the sound of what you said, and I think Democrats ought to do it, but they're going to lose.

Southern Democrats -- the quickest way to win is to switch parties, truly.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Bush, by the way, got fewer votes than Al Gore. They do like what we're selling.

And I'm from the left, Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson.

Join us again tomorrow night, Thursday, for yet more CROSSFIRE.

"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. Have a great night.

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





Employees; Clinton Calls Democrats to Arms>