Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Bush Says Schools Should Not Discriminate For or Against The Basis of Race; Sex, Not Gambling Approved for Sale During Super Bowl
Aired January 15, 2003 - 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: the president, the university and the race factor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Diversity can be achieved without using quotas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: The Bush administration is just about to take sides. Will it be the winning side?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The talk is there in terms of civil rights, but the walk is not there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: They'll let you watch this during the pro football playoffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great test.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: So what's wrong with a commercial for one of the world's most popular tourist destinations? We'll ask the mayor why the NFL sacked Las Vegas.
Plus, we've seen cameras in the courtroom, but how about in the jury room?
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
Live from the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
(APPLAUSE) PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, President Bush takes a stand on one of the most divisive issues in the country. But is his position driven more by good politics or good policy? Also, pro football makes a play for the high moral ground. And should TV cameras be allowed in a place many consider hallowed ground? But before we start deliberating, here comes our opening statements: the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
President Bush weighed in today on affirmative action. After making politically correct noises about equality, Mr. Bush said he opposes the University of Michigan's affirmative action admission system. He called it a quota system.
Now many people of good conscience believe that racial diversity in education is essential to both the quality of education and the opportunity that society should offer to us all. Others with just as much principles see racial discrimination when they look at affirmative action. President Bush, however, seems not to be operating on principle, at least if his aides are to be believed.
According to today's "Washington Post," "Both administration officials and conservative opponents of affirmative action depicted Bush's planned (ph) position as a political compromise forged amid intense negotiation." So there it is. On a matter of principle Mr. Bush has decided to be political. Mr. Bush plans on telling us the rest of his deeply held beliefs as soon as his political consultants tell him what they are.
(APPLAUSE)
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Well, I think there was actually a lot of wrangling going on at the White House. And I think it was mostly political. But the bottom line is that the president did the right thing today and articulated a principled stand. Now there have been many people throughout the history of American politics, Lyndon Johnson to name one, whose legislation and political ideas don't match their personal beliefs. But it doesn't matter in the end, and you should be the first to know that.
BEGALA: What Bush did we can debate the merits of. But it is stunning when his aids say it's just a political (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: Well it is a political issue and they took a political look at it. But they did the right thing in the end.
Next week, for the first time ever, the top six Democratic contenders for president will appear together under one roof. What issue could bring so many competitors to a single place? Well, there is only one in the Democratic Party: abortion. On Tuesday the candidates will gather to celebrate the millions of abortions that have been committed since Roe v. Wade was decided 30 years ago.
The dinner will be sponsored by NARAL, an organization that fights tirelessly for your right to abort your child literally up until the minute she is born. It of course promises to be a festive evening. There will be passionate testimonials to the positive good of late-term abortion. Perhaps a toast to partial birth.
Watch it yourself on C-Span. If you're looking for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, you'll find it right there at the NARAL Dinner.
BEGALA: You know in the main the Democratic Party is the pro- choice party and they make no bones about it. In the main, the Republican Party claims to be the pro-life party. But with the singular exception of Terry Jeffrey, from Human Events, who's going to be out here in a minute, I heard no pro-lifer raise questions about the fact that Dr. Frist, the new Senate Republican leader, owns $25 million of stock in a company that performs abortion.
CARLSON: And Paul...
BEGALA: Now I mean if you're a pro-life party, why do you have a leader who profits from abortion?
CARLSON: That's only -- first of all, we can debate the specifics of your charge. But that is just one of many examples of the Republican Party selling out on abortion. But it doesn't compare to having your top six contenders meet at a NARAL function.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) abortion rights, and they're public about it.
CARLSON: No, it's not just abortion rights. Late-term abortion up to the moment of birth. That's inhuman, it's amoral, it's amazing it even happens in America. And it's unbelievable that all six are meeting at NARAL. I don't normally talk about it, because it's too unreal.
BEGALA: It is just as unreal that the party that claims to be pro-life says not a peep, and elects as its leader a man who profited off of what pro-lifers claim is murder. If it's murder, why profit off of it?
CARLSON: So is every shareholder in that. And I'm not defending the Republican Party's weaselly positions on abortion, and they are weaselly sometimes. But it doesn't compare to your top six -- the only six announced candidates meeting at a NARAL function.
BEGALA: They support abortion rights. So does NARAL. What is wrong with that?
CARLSON: No. They support abortion up until the moment of birth. And that is -- it's inhuman. It's grizzly.
BEGALA: I know for a fact Dick Gephardt voted for the partial birth abortion.
CARLSON: And now he's apologizing for it today in "The Washington Post," as you know.
BEGALA: We will debate this, believe me, more during the coming months.
When the national review board of leading Catholics appointed by the bishops to study the crisis of sexual abuse in the church came here to Washington they were welcomed by our cardinal, Theodore McCarrick. He personally celebrated mass for the panel. Not so in New York, where Cardinal Edward Egan has been downright hostile to the reformers.
Cardinal Egan has declined to celebrate mass for the board, refused to allow them to attend a dinner for the Knights of Malta, which is a Catholic fraternal organization. He even interfered with the speaking event for the executive director of the panel, former FBI Agent Kathleen Machesney (ph), preventing her from accepting an invitation to address concerned Catholics at St. Ignatius of Loyola Parish in New York.
The conduct of Cardinal Egan, who, according to court documents once encouraged a priest who admitted sexually abusing a teenager to remain a priest, calls to mind the shortest passage in the bible: the gospel according to St. John, Chapter 11, verse 35: "Jesus wept."
CARLSON: Paul, I want to thank you, again, as a life-long Episcopalian, for making me feel better about my church, about which I have despaired so many times in the past 10 or 15 years.
BEGALA: I love the Catholic Church with all my heart, and it breaks my heart to see this going on.
CARLSON: Yes, but it does make me feel better. So thanks.
The law enforcement community is quivering tonight with disappointment, after it was announced that the state of Utah is eliminating its obscenity and pornography complaints (UNINTELLIGIBLE), otherwise known as the porn czar. Studies show that pornography is unusually popular in Utah and for the last two years porn czar Paula Houston (ph) has tried to do something about it.
Quote: "She's worked very hard," the states attorney general told reporters today, apparently without giggling. "Alas it wasn't hard enough." Or something. In any case, the position, if it can be called that, again, without giggling, is being (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as they say in Utah for budget reasons. That's the official reason, anyway. Privately, state officials concede they just couldn't look at the porn czar with a straight face.
BEGALA: Now to save money in the tight budget times -- I guess you didn't see the latest wire story. An American has stepped forward and volunteered to do it for free. Justice Clarence Thomas, the new porn czar in Utah.
CARLSON: But really, Paul, I mean what is a state without a porn czar? You know what I mean?
BEGALA: That's a good point. That's a very good...
CARLSON: Someone's got to watch that stuff. BEGALA: Well President Bush likes to tell us -- apparently with us a straight face -- he doesn't focus on politics. Right. And the girls on "Joe Millionaire" don't focus on money either.
The Associated Press reports that far from ignoring politics, the Bush White House is spending an extraordinary amount of time and effort on it. In fact, the president is planning to travel to Pennsylvania tomorrow to call for protecting big insurance companies from having to compensate people who are killed or injured by incompetent or even drug-addicted doctors. White House aides have dubbed the event "Bash John Edwards Day" in the hopes that they can tar Senator Edwards, who as a lawyer successfully sued corporations that killed or maimed children.
The election is 22 months away. Perhaps some think we should be spared from too much politics so early. I don't. All I want to be spared from is Mr. Bush's sanctimonious and mendacious denials of his political attentions.
CARLSON: Actually, John Edwards, as you know, made millions suing people. But I guess the real threat -- and I think you know this -- to American health is the fact that in some places, Wheeling, West Virginia, for instance, there are no neurosurgeons. In Las Vegas last summer the trauma center for the entire city shut down. Why? Because doctors couldn't afford to work there. Why? Because trial lawyers sued them out of business. This is a major problem, Paul.
BEGALA: It is a major problem. The last why is wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Why? Because insurance companies jacked up the rates. Insurance companies that lost money in the stock market are screwing doctors right now and their patients.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Paul, let me just ask you a question. You've met people who work in insurance. Do you really believe the insurance companies invest in the tech stocks in the stock market? They're invested in bonds. In fact, the St. Paul companies, which is the single biggest underwriter of medical liability, lost almost $900 million last year on its medical policies. Why? Because they kept losing in court, that's why.
BEGALA: No -- well, if they lose in court, then juries found incompetence or malpractice on the part of a doctor. I tell you what, if some doctor who is stoned on drugs or incompetent cuts up somebody I love and does a bad job, you bet your ass I'm going to sue them.. And I want the best lawyer I can get. And I don't want George Bush to protect them from the consequences of their incompetence.
CARLSON: Paul, I totally agree. And you know it. And so does every person in America, including the president, that bad and neglect doctors ought to be punished and they ought to pay money for their negligence. However, when trial lawyers for their own enrichment, who fly around in their own planes, who are worth hundreds of millions of dollars wreck the health system to make money, that's -- come on, Paul.
BEGALA: No, it's the insurance companies.
CARLSON: From our "Where are they now?" files tonight, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Glenn Braswell is back in court. The 59-year-old convicted swindler is being held without bail in Miami on charges he cheated the federal government out of millions of dollars using an offshore accounting system.
If Braswell's name sounds familiar, it should. He was one of more than one 100 drug dealers and corporate criminals former President Bill Clinton pardoned on his final embarrassing day in office. One of the string of embarrassing days.
Braswell, who had served prison time for peddling phony hair growth products, bought his pardons, bribing President Clinton's family with a check for $200,000. Braswell offered no comment today from his jail cell, though sources close to him say he is desperately trying to remember Hugh Rodham's phone number.
BEGALA: Now let's have a little test. I will agree with you, and I'll grant you, that pardon and many others were terribly wrong. Let me finish my sentence. This is important. That was terribly wrong.
CARLSON: Yes.
BEGALA: Wasn't it just as wrong for President Bush Sr. to pardon Elliott Abrams, a man who was convicted of two crimes, lying to Congress, during Iran-Contra. Bush pardoned him on Christmas Eve, Bush Sr., then Bush Jr. became president and named Elliott Abrams one of the top aides in the White House. A convicted criminal, pardoned by his old man. Now that's an outrage, isn't it?
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Actually, there's no comparison, as you know. And without getting into the details...
BEGALA: I can admit that the Clinton pardon is wrong. You can't admit that the Bush pardon...
CARLSON: But they're not. Here's the key distinction, and there are many distinctions.
BEGALA: Bush is going to hire some more criminals?
CARLSON: Here's the key distinction, Paul. Bush's family did not get a check for $200,000 to get him off.
BEGALA: No. Bush's family got guys not to testify against him because they didn't go to trial. That's why those pardons -- Casper Weinberger was ready to call Bush Sr. as a witness in his trial. Then Bush Sr... CARLSON: I know. I know they all do it, Paul. All presidents take bribes to get people off the hook.
BEGALA: No, no. I said Clinton's pardons were wrong. You won't say Bush's were wrong. And Bush hires them for the White House.
CARLSON: I know they do. Next: the White House weighs in on racial preferences in education. Later, something you've never seen on television before. We'll debate whether you should ever be allowed to see it again. It's pretty shocking.
Speaking of things you won't see, what's so bad about a commercial for Las Vegas during the Super Bowl? We'll debate that, too. We'll be right back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. After Trent Lott stepped aside as Senate Majority Leader last month, there were fears the Bush administration would back away from a controversial affirmative action case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. This afternoon, however, the president said he plans to oppose racial discrimination regardless of the potential political costs.
Tomorrow the White House will file a friend of the court brief arguing against the University of Michigan's system of racial preferences. President Bush calls the program "fundamentally flawed, a quota scheme that's divisive unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution."
Stepping into the CROSSFIRE tonight, Maria Echaveste, who was deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, and Human Events Editor Terry Jeffrey.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Good to see you again.
Thank you, both. Terry, let me begin by playing a brief sound bite from our president today. And then I want to read you a different -- from a different source. Bear with me for two things. First, here is the president today at the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: In these states, race (UNINTELLIGIBLE) admissions policies have resulted and levels of minority attendance for incoming students that are close to and in some instances slightly surpassed those under the old race-based approach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Now he was talking about California, Florida, and Texas. Three states which he said have done a better job with a non-race- based approach. But this is what the U.S. Civil Rights Commission says about those same three states from the federal government's Web site of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
"The three states, California, Texas, and Florida, that have implemented percentage plans automatically admit to state schools students who rank within an established percentage of their high school graduating class. Analysis of admissions in these states reveals that no significant improvement has been made in the rates of minority enrollment at the undergraduate or graduate professional levels. And in many cases, rates have declined."
Now why is the president misleading us, Terry?
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, HUMAN EVENTS: Well I don't know, Paul. I haven't studied those statistics. To tell you the truth, I think even the president's approach on that problem might have a problem with the 14th amendment. Because if you're going to have a single equal standard and treat everybody in the state equally under the law, then they should have the same admissions standard for the state universities.
But what the president has done is he said we're not going to consider race, we're not going to discriminate for or against people on the basis of race under any federally funded program, including admissions to universities. So I think that's a morally correct position that the president has taken.
BEGALA: But we also take into account -- Michigan does -- takes into account geography, if you are from a county that doesn't have a lot of people in it. Or from another state, it takes into account socioeconomic status. It takes into account whether your mom and daddy went to the University of Michigan. So we take into account all kinds of things. We can't take into account one of the most central issues in American life, race?
JEFFREY: Paul, this has been one of the longest-running debates in our country, whether or not we're going to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin or whether we won't. We have the 14th amendment, which says that statements get equal protection to everyone. Then we have the civil rights act of 1964, which says that federally funded institutions cannot discriminate by race.
Now liberals have to decide do they really believe in this principle, the one that Martin Luther King articulated, we're going to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, or do they want the University of Michigan and other public institutions to say we're going to discriminate against this person because of their skin color and we're going to discriminate in favor of this person because of their skin color?
CARLSON: Now Maria, let's get right to the case that's going to be debated before the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan, its admission standards. I want you to take a look at its admission standards, two of them. If you apply to the University of Michigan and you have a perfect SAT score, you're awarded 12 points. If you have the correct school-sanctioned skin color, you get 20 points. You get almost twice as many points.
In other words, the color of your skin matters more than how hard you work in school. That's immoral, isn't it?
MARIA ECHAVESTE, FMR. WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: Actually, no, because you get 80 points based on your GPA. What that reflects is what a lot of us know and people have come to understand, that SATs are not the sole predictor, or even a good predictor of how people are going to excel in school.
And when you say correct skin color, you know you can you also get 20 points for being an athlete. Twenty points for being socioeconomic characteristics. Twenty points because the president decides that he needs more art majors or history students.
So 20 points because your mom and dad went to the school. So to say you get 20 points just and only just because you're a minority, is just simply inaccurate.
CARLSON: Well actually, as you know, I'm not saying that. I guess with the exception of legacies, all of the other factors you cited are things over which individual students have control.
ECHAVESTE: Socioeconomic?
CARLSON: And that's the key difference. Whether you're in the band or not. And I want to put up a quote from Ebony Sandusky who went to the University of Michigan. This is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) affirmative action has on the students.
"It makes me angry," she said, "that students were rejected even though they were qualified. If I had known my grades had been raised half a point just because I'm black, one of my application essays would have been why I didn't want my grade point to be raised. It implies that minorities are not as smart."
That's painful to read.
ECHAVESTE: It is. It is very painful. And it's actually one of the pernicious effects of the backlash against affirmative action. No, seriously. Because people who succeed know that they walk into a room -- I can walk into a room and there will be people in the room who will decide that I got to where I was solely and only because I was Hispanic, a minority woman, and totally disregard that I went to a good undergrad, got a law degree, worked my tail off as a corporate lawyer.
There are people who will have those assumptions. The fact is, this is about opportunity. And right now, in 2003, this country still has not met its promise of equal opportunity under the law. And what Michigan tried to do was put race as one of the many factors that people look at in trying to have a diverse student body, which, as we know, the world is incredibly diverse. If you want more athletes, you want more artists, you want more musicians, you want all kinds of people in your freshman class, and you also want them in graduate school. BEGALA: Terry?
JEFFREY: But Paul, you mentioned earlier, you were talking about the Catholic Church and the problems in the Catholic Church. I think that there's a value to the Catholic Church and other Christian churches represented here that ought to be reflected in U.S. law. In fact, I think that's what Dr. Martin Luther King said in the civil rights movement, man's law must reflect god's law.
In my parish in northern Virginia, Queen of Apostles, I think it's the most multi ethnic institution I've ever seen. When I go to mass there, there are people of every national origin, every ethnicity. And I know that god is going to treat them each on their merits. And that's what I think we have to do in American society.
We don't want to Balkanize our society among different racial and ethnic groups, where your grandparents came from. We want everybody to be treated equally under the law when they apply for any benefit or privilege by government, be treated according to their merits, not according to their skin color. That's a profound, moral principle.
BEGALA: Let's take it beyond that. Because President Bush, of course, is one of the great beneficiaries of affirmative action. He went to Yale, one of the great schools in America. He went to the Harvard Business School after being rejected by the University of Texas, my alma mater, because he didn't have good enough grades.
I was looking at the "World Almanac's" biography of Bush today. Here's what they say. The "World Almanac" not a liberal source. It's pretty straight.
They say, "At Andover, Bush's grades were mediocre." Terry, how did he get into Yale?
JEFFREY: Well, that's a good question. Let me say this.
BEGALA: With affirmative action. No, it was affirmative action for the ne'er-do-well children of the wealthy eastern elite, wasn't it?
(APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY: Right. Look, I'll say this. I think that...
BEGALA: But he was. He was an affirmative action baby.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFREY: If you look at the case of the University of Michigan, the University of Michigan and their point program does, in fact, give points to people for being related to alumni of the school. I believe that's wrong. And I think it ought to be illegal for a public school.
Now Yale and Harvard and these ivy league schools are private institutions. And some private institutions I think will reach out to people for good reasons. Some will reach out for bad reasons. BEGALA: But isn't he being a hypocrite? Shouldn't he be ashamed?
JEFFREY: The question is where the government should come in and try and interfere with private action to avoid discrimination. I think we settled that in the 1964 civil rights act. And the University of Michigan is directly verbatim violating that act.
CARLSON: Maria, let me ask you about the University of Michigan. You said that its effort are an attempt to enhance diversity. Certain minority groups get extra points, but not all.
ECHAVESTE: Right.
CARLSON: Black students, Hispanic students, American Indian students. Asian students do not, Jewish students do not. But of course Jews have been discriminated against in this country in a systematic way for hundreds of years. Don't you think Jewish students should benefit from affirmative action?
ECHAVESTE: Well, I think when you look at both -- the long history of discriminations, why quotas is such a -- everyone is opposed to them. And I really resent when even President Bush tries to equate affirmative action with quotas. There is no person on the left...
CARLSON: But answer my question. Why shouldn't Jewish students be included?
ECHAVESTE: Because, in fact, there is no need to make a special effort to diverse. There's a sufficient...
CARLSON: There's too many already? Is that what you're saying?
ECHAVESTE: No, never. And I'm Jewish, so I resent that.
CARLSON: Then what's your point? I'm wondering what your point is.
ECHAVESTE: What I'm saying is that there isn't a need to make an extra effort to make sure that you have got a good mixture of people. The same way -- look, Asians...
CARLSON: Well why isn't there a need? I'm totally missing this.
ECHAVESTE: Because you're going to have Asian...
(CROSSTALK)
ECHAVESTE: No, no, no. You look at California. In California Asian-American students for all kinds of reasons that are wonderful to try to explore and emulate and try to see why can't we get other groups to excel in studying, are -- have huge success rates in applying to the university. And to go back to your point about why equal protection is such an important goal, I totally agree. But what you're negating and what you're ignoring is that this country, right now, as we sit here, does not provide that equal opportunity. Because if you are a space alien...
BEGALA: That's certainly true. We don't provide all of our children equal opportunity. Do we Terry?
JEFFREY: We don't. And it's because of what the University of Michigan does. Let's look at a specific case. One of these women, Jennifer Gratz (ph), who applied to the University of Michigan, had a 3.8 GPA in high school. She had a 25 on the ACT.
According to the facts presented to the Supreme Court, a minority in one of the preferred groups, there's only three preferred groups, blacks, Hispanic, and Native Americans. If you are an Arab American, you don't count. If you're an Asian-American, you don't count.
A person in one of those preferred groups would have automatically gotten into the University of Michigan. She didn't. She did not get equal protection. That's the point.
ECHAVESTE: And I wonder how many white students had 3.8 and still beat her out for that spot.
JEFFREY: Why do you care about the color of her skin? Why are you so obsessed and concerned of the color of her skin?
ECHAVESTE: No, actually, the fact is that our society is obsessed with it. And...
JEFFREY: No. I say let's forget it. Let's be colorblind.
ECHAVESTE: You're trying to pretend that the last 400 years didn't happen. That suddenly all of a sudden everybody -- there's equal opportunity. And when you look -- look, someone could come from outer space right now and they would see that actually there is a much greater chance you're going to be poor, you're going to be black. You're not going to graduate from high school, you're going to be Hispanic. You're going to be in all kinds -- drug infested (ph), you name it. There's a racial component to it.
BEGALA: I'm sorry to do this. This is a great debate. But we're going to have to go to break. I'm really sorry. Terry Jeffrey from Human Events, Maria Echaveste, my pal from the Clinton White House, thank you both. Sorry, but we've got to go to a break.
We will tell you in a minute why security is extra tight at tomorrow's scheduled launch of the space shuttle. Aaron Brown will have details next in a CNN NEWS ALERT.
And then a Texas judge is letting TV cameras not only into his courtroom, but into the jury room as well. Later, the NFL acts to protect its integrity. Not by telling the beer ladies to stop fighting and get out of the pool and put their clothes back on, but by stiffing Las Vegas. We will put that it in the CROSSFIRE, and you make the call. (APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
CARLSON: Next, lights, camera and the verdict, but should it be against the law to put a jury's deliberations on television? And then we'll ask the mayor of Las Vegas if the NFL is out of bounds for declaring commercials for his city off limits.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from beautiful downtown Washington, the George Washington University to be specific.
The PBS program "Frontline" recently asked a Texas judge to permit cameras in the jury room to videotape deliberations in a capital murder trial. To everyone's surprise, the judge said yes. The district attorney went ballistic predictably. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals heard arguments on the decision today and Texas lawmakers are working on a bill to outlaw cameras in the jury rooms from here forward.
And to deliberate this weighty topic with former judge and Court TV host, Catherine Crier, she joins from New York. Her latest book, by the way is called "The Case Against Lawyers."
With us here in Washington, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Jeffrey Toobin, there are not cameras in the men's room and there are not cameras in jury rooms. And with a few exceptions, there never have been. Why do you suppose that is?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Because the tradition in our legal system has been one of great secrecy and keeping the public out. And in virtually every case, when cameras and scrutiny and journalists and outsiders have been able to look at how our system works and expose it, it gets better. Because as Justice Brandeis said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," and it is -- it will be here too.
BEGALA: Catherine Crier, a former state district judge in our beloved Texas. The judge in this case, Ted Poe, said this. "I believe we have the best system there ever has been. We shouldn't be ashamed of how it works."
Now grammar aside...
(LAUGHTER) CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV ANCHOR: Now don't you dare. That's just fine in Texas, now, Paul.
BEGALA: Absolutely. You and me both. Now why -- I know you were a judge, but why should you run Judge Poe's courtroom for him? If he wants to let cameras in the jury room, why not?
CRIER: Well, I think that we're comparing apples and oranges. To go into a system that is supposed to operate in a certain fashion with rules of evidence and certain behavior by attorneys and judges, and we want to make sure that that is comporting, that's fine.
But do we want to do into say a grand jury proceeding that is supposed to be secret...
BEGALA: Yes.
CRIER: ... just because they agree to let us in?
Do we want to go into the jury room if they agree when in fact I'm not so worried about their behavior being altered as I am an opportunity then to raise all sorts of what will often times be frivolous issues on appeal because we're beginning to dissect people's mental processes.
I think that's wrong. We don't have rules governing how people think, and yet we'll come up with some if we start televising these deliberations.
CARLSON: Now Jeff Toobin, I want to put on the screen, the least true sentence uttered this year so far.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: The year's early.
And that's the sentence. Here it is. This is from a trial lawyer -- surprise, surprise -- quoted in the Houston Chronicle arguing for cameras. He says, "When you put a spotlight on people, they become more noble, just, fair, compassionate."
And I know that's a lie because I work in television.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: And so do you. And in fact when you put a camera on somebody he's apt to become less fair, less compassionate. I mean I could give you the examples. You know them.
TOOBIN: Yes. I am...
CARLSON: Well, there may be others at this table. But the point is you don't want that to happen to jurors, do you?
TOOBIN: The argument that is reflected that you're making that cameras change behavior is exactly the argument that's been used to try to keep cameras out of courtrooms.
And as Catherine knows at Court TV, they have shown that these cases are generally better, if not the same, with cameras. And it just shows that scrutiny makes people behave better, use better arguments, act more fairly. And I think it's just a false argument that you suddenly are diminished by having a camera on you.
CRIER: Jeffrey though, Jeffrey just imagine though, if you've got a very tense situation, political environment, Houston case death penalty known for those verdicts, and the jury will feel the pressure of the community if their faces are going out there, if their deliberations are going to be telecast. And you may actually get altered verdicts.
You bet you change the way they behave. When it's supposed to be private, their deliberations private, it should stay private.
TOOBIN: But Catherine, that's why the context of this case is so interesting. Harris County, Houston, if Harris County were a separate...
CRIER: Oh, Judge Poe is an interesting judge.
TOOBIN: If this were a separate state, it would have the third most executions in the country after Texas and Florida.
Tremendous number of executions there.
Why? Because of what goes on in those jury rooms. I don't know what it is.
CRIER: You know darn well it's the selection of those case...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from there. They're rednecks. They want to kill them all.
CRIER: ... by the prosecutor.
BEGALA: Let God sort them out, Catherine. What's wrong with letting cameras in there and taking a look at what those rednecks are saying in the deliberating room.
CRIER: Paul, wait a minute, you're barking up the wrong tree, baby, because if you read my book, I oppose the death penalty. So that's not my problem here.
It's must more once you go into this, and start opening up the deliberations, I can see the clogged appellate courts as somebody says, "Well you could tell he was biased because of his behavior, or because of some word that he used." Or, "This wasn't fair for some legal reason that we will now manufacture," when what we're talking about a common sense pragmatic approach which is the whole purpose of using a jury.
BEGALA: But Catherine...
CRIER: You can't regulate that. And that's what's going to happen.
TOOBIN: When I was an assistant U.S. attorney we had a rule. As in if you got a conviction you were never supposed to talk to the jurors afterwards because you could find out something terrible. That they convicted the guy because he was black or they flipped a coin.
That was a good way to preserve our convictions. Isn't that a little disturbing? isn't it disturbing that we don't want to know what goes on in the most important place?
CRIER: No, no, if we want to get rid of the jury system, a jury of our peers where 12 citizens are asked to get together, listen to evidence and make their own -- their private deliberations, then let's get rid of it and have a judge do it on the record. They write the brief, we can analyze it until kingdom come.
That's not the jury system. If, in fact, there is one aberration here or one aberration there and a problem, we try to ferret them out. But let's not reason to destroy the entire jury system. Cameras in the courtroom will change what we have had for centuries and what the people of this country seem to think is a valuable service in the criminal justice system.
CARLSON: Jeff, don't you think you would have the reality TV problem here, where the shows themselves...
TOOBIN: Is there a problem with reality TV?
CARLSON: There is. Where the shows themselves self select, they draw a certain sort of person who would, say, want to date someone on television. This would draw a certain kind of juror. And I suspect that's not the kind of jury you want making weighty decisions.
TOOBIN: That is a potential problem. But I think the benefits outweigh it. I don't think...
CRIER: What are the benefits, Jeffrey?
TOOBIN: The benefits are public scrutiny. The benefits are...
CRIER: That's so broad I could drive a truck through that. What are the specific benefits?
TOOBIN: It's a broad benefit. That's even better.
BEGALA: Shouldn't be there some place in government for private deliberations? Shouldn't Supreme Court chambers, Congressmen meet with their aids, judges in their chambers?
Used to be the president could meet with their aids in private until Ken Starr came along. Shouldn't be the jury room be another place where people can meet in private? TOOBIN: You know I don't think so. When there is consent of both sides -- and here is where I disagree with what the judge did in Texas because the prosecution objected. I think this should be only done when both sides agree. I don't think the judge should be able to impose it. But it is a good idea.
CARLSON: Unfortunately we are out of time. Jeffrey Toobin here in Washington, Catherine Crier, thank you both very much.
One of our viewers has fired back a suggestion that would be certain to make the 2004 presidential debates more entertaining. We'll get that in a bit.
But next, the NFL is running an ad for Miller beer with women wrestling in their underwear. Thank heaven. But they're rejecting an ad for Las Vegas tourism. What's going on? We'll show you both ads and tackle the apparent hypocrisy. Stay with us.
By the way, we'll show you the Miller beer ad, and we'll have the ad. More ads. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. If you are a football fan you have no doubt noticed the NFL has nothing against interrupting games to show commercials featuring nearly naked women mud wrestling in order to sell beer. Nonetheless, pro football's higher-ups want you to know that they do have standards. So when you watch the Super Bowl you'll be spared from having to see a commercial that asks you simply to visit Las Vegas. We're going to review that call. Joining us from the replay booth in Las Vegas is the mayor, Oscar Goodman. And at CNN Center in Atlanta is radio -talk-show host Steak Shapiro.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Steak, let me start with you. First, I'll show our audience a brief clip of the offending ad. No, not the mostly naked chick, we'll play them later. This is the Las Vegas Travel Tourism ad. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Airport?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, my name is Jim.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just love the smell of your limo, Jim.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yeah? Well it's a new car.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love the new car smell.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wish it was mine.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Smells so good, Jim, this leather.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here we are.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'll be at Poland after 2:00, OK? Yes. I know, I know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Now, how great is that? First off...
STEAK SHAPIRO, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Very entertaining.
BEGALA: ... there's nothing more exciting than a trip to Las Vegas and nothing more boring than an NFL game. The only people that watch NFL are gamblers and wife beaters. Why are they chasing away half of their audience? They'll just be left with the wife beaters.
SHAPIRO: I think I've heard that, considering the NFL's the most popular sport in the entire world and most people aren't sitting at home on Sunday's watching them.
Everybody knows who follows professional sports there's nothing more taboo, ask Pete Rose, than having professional sports attached with gambling. Is it a hypocrisy on some level? Yes.
But it's very clear in the rules, the NFL does not want to be directly correlated -- Las Vegas is the only town in America that -- the only town in the world that takes professional sports gambling. And all the NFL is saying is, We don't want to hit you over the head with it. We don't want the Super Bowl next to an ad for the town that takes sports gambling. It's real simple.
Oscar should not bite the hand that feeds him. The NFL brings so much action to Vegas, the Lions bring a ton of money to Vegas. Just take it easy. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. And relax. It's only one ad.
CARLSON: Oscar Goodman...
(CROSSTALK)
MAYOR OSCAR GOODMAN, LAS VEGAS: Don't talk about the hands that feed me right now. Without Vegas, the NFL would be broke because probably every game would be fixed. We're the only regulators that make sure that the sport is kept honest. Let's be serious about this now.
CARLSON: Wait. Mayor Goodman, if that's true, then how can you account for the following statement faxed to CNN this afternoon from the NFL. This is part of it. It's quite a disapproving statement, by the way.
"The public perception of the integrity of our game is critical and this type of advertising," meaning your type of advertising, "on our game telecast has the potential to negatively impact that perception." In other words, a sport in which men in tight clothing grapple with each other is looking down on Las Vegas. This is like O.J. Simpson not wanting to be seen with you in public. It's insulting.
GOODMAN: As far as I'm concerned, as a member of the convention authority board, I directed our attorneys to research whether or not that kind of action is defamatory. And I think it is. And I'll throw a lawsuit against the NFL. Hopefully when we own them, we'll have some honest refereeing.
BEGALA: Let's talk about the NFL's reputation. Twenty-one percent, one in five, more than that, 21 percent of NFL players have been charged with a serious crime. They include Rae Carruth, who was, of course, convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Nate Newton of the Dallas Cowboys, convicted of drug trafficking. Dwayne Goodrich has been charged, not yet convicted, or two counts of vehicular manslaughter -- that was today. Cosey Coleman was charged with battery.
I could go on and on and on. Why, when they have nothing but a game full of thugs, are they worried about a few people rolling the bones in Las Vegas?
SHAPIRO: Well, first of all, I mean it sounds like a circus. This is -- first of all, the mayor, good luck with your suit against the National Football League.
The one thing that affects the integrity of professional sports is even the thought of gambling. That's why it's outlined in every locker room, the first thing you see, is about the dangers of gambling as it relates to the integrity of the sports. A bunch of half-naked women does not affect the integrity on the field.
And by the way, you are kidding about football being a bunch of Neanderthals. It's the most popular sport, the most highly marketed, and it is the American past time.
BEGALA: Losers and couch potatoes and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and wife beaters.
(CROSSTALK)
SHAPIRO: What are you doing on Sunday at 4:00 this week that's so -- you going to the opera, you going to ballet? What are you doing...
BEGALA: No, I'm deer hunting, Steak. I'm shooting deer like a real man. I'm not sitting there beating my wife and watching the NFL, the most boring thing on television.
SHAPIRO: Guys who watch the NFL -- you make it sound like the most pompous commentator in the history of television. Watching the NFL is one of the great joys American men have. You might want to try stop watching "Ally McBeal", for crying out load...
(CROSSTALK) BEGALA: This Sunday, Steak, I'm going to be out deer hunting in South Texas, which is what real men do. Not watching a bunch of murderers on the screen.
SHAPIRO: I think the deers are going to have an easy time of it.
CARLSON: Let me suggest, what sort of ad, Oscar, as mayor of Las Vegas you should have run. I'm going to put up on the screen.
Purely for clinical reasons, an ad the NFL does accepts and does run. Here it is. This is for Miller Beer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doesn't Miller Light taste great?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, but I drink it because it's less filling.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, man, now that would make a great commercial.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who wouldn't want to watch that?
ANNOUNCER: Life is best told over a great tasting Miller Light. At a place called "Miller time."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now what can you -- what can you learn from that?
GOODMAN: Well, for guys who don't like to watch football, they'll certainly be watching that ad, that's for sure. To me, our ad is, it's sensuous, it's edgy, it's thought provoking.
That borders on the obscene.
CARLSON: It's basically too much vulgar for Las Vegas is what you're saying.
GOODMAN: No, what I'm saying is this. What I'm saying is let's be honest about this whole thing. Why does every newspaper in the United States have a Las Vegas line on? Because people want to find out what the score is? No. Because they want to bet.
So how can the NFL be so two-faced about this? They want to have it that way to get everybody in the world interested in betting on their games all over the country. There will be more bets taken in San Diego at QualComm, probably, in the books here, because people aren't going to watch a football game without betting on it. That's why it's absurd.
BEGALA: In fact, Steak, shouldn't the NFL be worried? Because those girls tackle a lot better than the ninnies in 40 pounds of pads in the NFL.
SHAPIRO: Well, I just wish Warren Sapp could get 30 seconds with you in the open field. But let me this.
BEGALA: Bring it on, baby! Bring it on, Warren!
SHAPIRO: Let me this: the reason that ad, the ad -- this is not about tastefulness and commercials. Walk into a locker room some time and look at the first thing it talks about: gambling. Now, is the NFL being hypocritical? Somewhat. But when you're the most powerful league in the world, you can say, We don't want gambling next to our product. That's what they're saying.
It's not about tastefulness. It's not about -- by the way, half- naked women is legal in the NFL for players, but gambling is not for players.
GOODMAN: But Steak, there's nothing in that ad that even suggests there's gambling. It's from Las Vegas. It shows hat when people come here, they have freedom, they don't have to worry about some jerk next door neighbor looking at them and being critical of them. They can come out here, they can have their fantasies and desires. It has nothing at all to do with gambling.
SHAPIRO: But it's also the only town...
BEGALA: Mayor Oscar Goodman -- I'm sorry to cut you guys off. May Oscar Goodman in Las Vegas, my favorite mayor in America, thank you for joining us.
Steak Shapiro from Atlanta, thank you as well. Terrific fun. Good debate. Thank you, guys.
In just a minute, some of CROSSFIRE's fans are going to get a chance to fire back at the NFL. We'll see what they have to say, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time now for "Fireback," when you get to "Fireback" at us. And no, I'm not worried about NFL fans taking me on. They're too stupid to work a computer. Let's go to the e-mail box. Mary Walker of San Francisco, California says, "Between bad calls and players getting arrested, you would think the NFL would have bigger things to worry about than banning Las Vegas ads. Get a life."
I'm with you, Mary.
CARLSON: All right.
BEGALA: Get a life.
CARLSON: A number of our viewers have noticed the Miller Light ad we've been forced by journalistic ethics to keep putting on the air.
Donan Freitag writes, "The day that Miller Light beer commercial aired the disturbing fight between two sexpot girls wrestling in the pool and mud in their bikinis, I ordered the kids not to watch and my husband now drinks Corona beer, since I also control the shopping."
BEGALA: What ad is that?
CARLSON: I don't know.
BEGALA: What ad is that?
CARLSON: We should put it on again, to remind the viewers.
BEGALA: Howie (ph) our director, what's this ad she's writing about? I'm not familiar with it. We got any video of that ad because I'm not -- oh, they're not going to play it.
John Adams, the second president of the United States, writes in from Quincy, Illinois, fitting enough, "I nominate the intelligent and humorous Begala and Carlson to do the '04 presidential debates. I like the dueling powerpoints on the screen behind the debaters. It's hard to spin when faced with sourced and dated quotations."
BEGALA: This is why they won't let us host the debates, I suspect, Tucker.
CARLSON: Yes. Even when those sources are made up.
Next up -- oh a Canadian viewer. Joey Adams of Banff, Alberta, Canada, writes, "I love your show guys, but I wish Tucker would stop his anti-Canada crusade. The only difference between Canadians and Americans is that we play hockey better."
And build better igloos.
BEGALA: That's a real sport, by the way.
CARLSON: This is a concern in Canada. Our friends from the Canadian embassy came by today and dropped off this Canadian gift bag. I'm waving the Canadian flag to show that we have no animos toward Canada. I would sing "Oh Canada" but I don't know the words and that's another difference between us and Canadians.
BEGALA: You know what? Their national anthem has better words than ours. Sorry.
CARLSON: If we only knew them.
BEGALA: Yes.
CARLSON: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm Michael Clifford (ph) from Arlington, Virginia. I'm wondering how can a jury be impartial when they're going to be judged by their neighbors on television and by Tucker Carlson.
CARLSON: Well, that's exactly right. No, but it is true. I mean, people are different when they're on television. I mean, I wish you could come back and see Paul before the show.
BEGALA: No, it is a -- I do think, you know, we had a good debate on that. But I would leave the jury room alone.
Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. Kevin Campbell (ph) from Lincoln, Nebraska. My question is, why would the NFL be so concerned with Las Vegas advertising during the Super Bowl, when many of the teams a part of the NFL, are in states that sponsor lottery or other forms of gambling?
BEGALA: Good point. In fact, Mayor Goodman pointed out, in Las Vegas they bet $80 million on the Super Bowl. Eighty million. Legally. And the rest of the country, illegally, people bet $4 billion illegally. I mean, who is the NFL fooling?
CARLSON: And Las Vegas would like a piece of that.
Yes, sir?
Yes?
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, my name's Todd Marlett (ph) let from Arlington, Virginia. And my question is, if the University of Michigan system is held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, should the University of Michigan be required to pay reparations to all the students denied admission?
CARLSON: I guess I'm against reparations in each and every case.
No, it doesn't seem like a tall order to stop discriminating on race. I mean, that was something that was supposed to be settled 49 years ago but apparently hasn't been.
BEGALA: It's a difficult question, but the truth is, having gone to the University of Texas, where they stopped affirmative action, we went to almost zero minority law students at what was once one of the great educators of minority law students in America and that's not fair.
CARLSON: A principle still worth defending.
BEGALA: From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I am Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night 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
The Basis of Race; Sex, Not Gambling Approved for Sale During Super Bowl>
Aired January 15, 2003 - 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: the president, the university and the race factor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Diversity can be achieved without using quotas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: The Bush administration is just about to take sides. Will it be the winning side?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The talk is there in terms of civil rights, but the walk is not there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: They'll let you watch this during the pro football playoffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great test.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: So what's wrong with a commercial for one of the world's most popular tourist destinations? We'll ask the mayor why the NFL sacked Las Vegas.
Plus, we've seen cameras in the courtroom, but how about in the jury room?
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
Live from the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
(APPLAUSE) PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, President Bush takes a stand on one of the most divisive issues in the country. But is his position driven more by good politics or good policy? Also, pro football makes a play for the high moral ground. And should TV cameras be allowed in a place many consider hallowed ground? But before we start deliberating, here comes our opening statements: the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
President Bush weighed in today on affirmative action. After making politically correct noises about equality, Mr. Bush said he opposes the University of Michigan's affirmative action admission system. He called it a quota system.
Now many people of good conscience believe that racial diversity in education is essential to both the quality of education and the opportunity that society should offer to us all. Others with just as much principles see racial discrimination when they look at affirmative action. President Bush, however, seems not to be operating on principle, at least if his aides are to be believed.
According to today's "Washington Post," "Both administration officials and conservative opponents of affirmative action depicted Bush's planned (ph) position as a political compromise forged amid intense negotiation." So there it is. On a matter of principle Mr. Bush has decided to be political. Mr. Bush plans on telling us the rest of his deeply held beliefs as soon as his political consultants tell him what they are.
(APPLAUSE)
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Well, I think there was actually a lot of wrangling going on at the White House. And I think it was mostly political. But the bottom line is that the president did the right thing today and articulated a principled stand. Now there have been many people throughout the history of American politics, Lyndon Johnson to name one, whose legislation and political ideas don't match their personal beliefs. But it doesn't matter in the end, and you should be the first to know that.
BEGALA: What Bush did we can debate the merits of. But it is stunning when his aids say it's just a political (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: Well it is a political issue and they took a political look at it. But they did the right thing in the end.
Next week, for the first time ever, the top six Democratic contenders for president will appear together under one roof. What issue could bring so many competitors to a single place? Well, there is only one in the Democratic Party: abortion. On Tuesday the candidates will gather to celebrate the millions of abortions that have been committed since Roe v. Wade was decided 30 years ago.
The dinner will be sponsored by NARAL, an organization that fights tirelessly for your right to abort your child literally up until the minute she is born. It of course promises to be a festive evening. There will be passionate testimonials to the positive good of late-term abortion. Perhaps a toast to partial birth.
Watch it yourself on C-Span. If you're looking for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, you'll find it right there at the NARAL Dinner.
BEGALA: You know in the main the Democratic Party is the pro- choice party and they make no bones about it. In the main, the Republican Party claims to be the pro-life party. But with the singular exception of Terry Jeffrey, from Human Events, who's going to be out here in a minute, I heard no pro-lifer raise questions about the fact that Dr. Frist, the new Senate Republican leader, owns $25 million of stock in a company that performs abortion.
CARLSON: And Paul...
BEGALA: Now I mean if you're a pro-life party, why do you have a leader who profits from abortion?
CARLSON: That's only -- first of all, we can debate the specifics of your charge. But that is just one of many examples of the Republican Party selling out on abortion. But it doesn't compare to having your top six contenders meet at a NARAL function.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) abortion rights, and they're public about it.
CARLSON: No, it's not just abortion rights. Late-term abortion up to the moment of birth. That's inhuman, it's amoral, it's amazing it even happens in America. And it's unbelievable that all six are meeting at NARAL. I don't normally talk about it, because it's too unreal.
BEGALA: It is just as unreal that the party that claims to be pro-life says not a peep, and elects as its leader a man who profited off of what pro-lifers claim is murder. If it's murder, why profit off of it?
CARLSON: So is every shareholder in that. And I'm not defending the Republican Party's weaselly positions on abortion, and they are weaselly sometimes. But it doesn't compare to your top six -- the only six announced candidates meeting at a NARAL function.
BEGALA: They support abortion rights. So does NARAL. What is wrong with that?
CARLSON: No. They support abortion up until the moment of birth. And that is -- it's inhuman. It's grizzly.
BEGALA: I know for a fact Dick Gephardt voted for the partial birth abortion.
CARLSON: And now he's apologizing for it today in "The Washington Post," as you know.
BEGALA: We will debate this, believe me, more during the coming months.
When the national review board of leading Catholics appointed by the bishops to study the crisis of sexual abuse in the church came here to Washington they were welcomed by our cardinal, Theodore McCarrick. He personally celebrated mass for the panel. Not so in New York, where Cardinal Edward Egan has been downright hostile to the reformers.
Cardinal Egan has declined to celebrate mass for the board, refused to allow them to attend a dinner for the Knights of Malta, which is a Catholic fraternal organization. He even interfered with the speaking event for the executive director of the panel, former FBI Agent Kathleen Machesney (ph), preventing her from accepting an invitation to address concerned Catholics at St. Ignatius of Loyola Parish in New York.
The conduct of Cardinal Egan, who, according to court documents once encouraged a priest who admitted sexually abusing a teenager to remain a priest, calls to mind the shortest passage in the bible: the gospel according to St. John, Chapter 11, verse 35: "Jesus wept."
CARLSON: Paul, I want to thank you, again, as a life-long Episcopalian, for making me feel better about my church, about which I have despaired so many times in the past 10 or 15 years.
BEGALA: I love the Catholic Church with all my heart, and it breaks my heart to see this going on.
CARLSON: Yes, but it does make me feel better. So thanks.
The law enforcement community is quivering tonight with disappointment, after it was announced that the state of Utah is eliminating its obscenity and pornography complaints (UNINTELLIGIBLE), otherwise known as the porn czar. Studies show that pornography is unusually popular in Utah and for the last two years porn czar Paula Houston (ph) has tried to do something about it.
Quote: "She's worked very hard," the states attorney general told reporters today, apparently without giggling. "Alas it wasn't hard enough." Or something. In any case, the position, if it can be called that, again, without giggling, is being (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as they say in Utah for budget reasons. That's the official reason, anyway. Privately, state officials concede they just couldn't look at the porn czar with a straight face.
BEGALA: Now to save money in the tight budget times -- I guess you didn't see the latest wire story. An American has stepped forward and volunteered to do it for free. Justice Clarence Thomas, the new porn czar in Utah.
CARLSON: But really, Paul, I mean what is a state without a porn czar? You know what I mean?
BEGALA: That's a good point. That's a very good...
CARLSON: Someone's got to watch that stuff. BEGALA: Well President Bush likes to tell us -- apparently with us a straight face -- he doesn't focus on politics. Right. And the girls on "Joe Millionaire" don't focus on money either.
The Associated Press reports that far from ignoring politics, the Bush White House is spending an extraordinary amount of time and effort on it. In fact, the president is planning to travel to Pennsylvania tomorrow to call for protecting big insurance companies from having to compensate people who are killed or injured by incompetent or even drug-addicted doctors. White House aides have dubbed the event "Bash John Edwards Day" in the hopes that they can tar Senator Edwards, who as a lawyer successfully sued corporations that killed or maimed children.
The election is 22 months away. Perhaps some think we should be spared from too much politics so early. I don't. All I want to be spared from is Mr. Bush's sanctimonious and mendacious denials of his political attentions.
CARLSON: Actually, John Edwards, as you know, made millions suing people. But I guess the real threat -- and I think you know this -- to American health is the fact that in some places, Wheeling, West Virginia, for instance, there are no neurosurgeons. In Las Vegas last summer the trauma center for the entire city shut down. Why? Because doctors couldn't afford to work there. Why? Because trial lawyers sued them out of business. This is a major problem, Paul.
BEGALA: It is a major problem. The last why is wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Why? Because insurance companies jacked up the rates. Insurance companies that lost money in the stock market are screwing doctors right now and their patients.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Paul, let me just ask you a question. You've met people who work in insurance. Do you really believe the insurance companies invest in the tech stocks in the stock market? They're invested in bonds. In fact, the St. Paul companies, which is the single biggest underwriter of medical liability, lost almost $900 million last year on its medical policies. Why? Because they kept losing in court, that's why.
BEGALA: No -- well, if they lose in court, then juries found incompetence or malpractice on the part of a doctor. I tell you what, if some doctor who is stoned on drugs or incompetent cuts up somebody I love and does a bad job, you bet your ass I'm going to sue them.. And I want the best lawyer I can get. And I don't want George Bush to protect them from the consequences of their incompetence.
CARLSON: Paul, I totally agree. And you know it. And so does every person in America, including the president, that bad and neglect doctors ought to be punished and they ought to pay money for their negligence. However, when trial lawyers for their own enrichment, who fly around in their own planes, who are worth hundreds of millions of dollars wreck the health system to make money, that's -- come on, Paul.
BEGALA: No, it's the insurance companies.
CARLSON: From our "Where are they now?" files tonight, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Glenn Braswell is back in court. The 59-year-old convicted swindler is being held without bail in Miami on charges he cheated the federal government out of millions of dollars using an offshore accounting system.
If Braswell's name sounds familiar, it should. He was one of more than one 100 drug dealers and corporate criminals former President Bill Clinton pardoned on his final embarrassing day in office. One of the string of embarrassing days.
Braswell, who had served prison time for peddling phony hair growth products, bought his pardons, bribing President Clinton's family with a check for $200,000. Braswell offered no comment today from his jail cell, though sources close to him say he is desperately trying to remember Hugh Rodham's phone number.
BEGALA: Now let's have a little test. I will agree with you, and I'll grant you, that pardon and many others were terribly wrong. Let me finish my sentence. This is important. That was terribly wrong.
CARLSON: Yes.
BEGALA: Wasn't it just as wrong for President Bush Sr. to pardon Elliott Abrams, a man who was convicted of two crimes, lying to Congress, during Iran-Contra. Bush pardoned him on Christmas Eve, Bush Sr., then Bush Jr. became president and named Elliott Abrams one of the top aides in the White House. A convicted criminal, pardoned by his old man. Now that's an outrage, isn't it?
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Actually, there's no comparison, as you know. And without getting into the details...
BEGALA: I can admit that the Clinton pardon is wrong. You can't admit that the Bush pardon...
CARLSON: But they're not. Here's the key distinction, and there are many distinctions.
BEGALA: Bush is going to hire some more criminals?
CARLSON: Here's the key distinction, Paul. Bush's family did not get a check for $200,000 to get him off.
BEGALA: No. Bush's family got guys not to testify against him because they didn't go to trial. That's why those pardons -- Casper Weinberger was ready to call Bush Sr. as a witness in his trial. Then Bush Sr... CARLSON: I know. I know they all do it, Paul. All presidents take bribes to get people off the hook.
BEGALA: No, no. I said Clinton's pardons were wrong. You won't say Bush's were wrong. And Bush hires them for the White House.
CARLSON: I know they do. Next: the White House weighs in on racial preferences in education. Later, something you've never seen on television before. We'll debate whether you should ever be allowed to see it again. It's pretty shocking.
Speaking of things you won't see, what's so bad about a commercial for Las Vegas during the Super Bowl? We'll debate that, too. We'll be right back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. After Trent Lott stepped aside as Senate Majority Leader last month, there were fears the Bush administration would back away from a controversial affirmative action case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. This afternoon, however, the president said he plans to oppose racial discrimination regardless of the potential political costs.
Tomorrow the White House will file a friend of the court brief arguing against the University of Michigan's system of racial preferences. President Bush calls the program "fundamentally flawed, a quota scheme that's divisive unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution."
Stepping into the CROSSFIRE tonight, Maria Echaveste, who was deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, and Human Events Editor Terry Jeffrey.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Good to see you again.
Thank you, both. Terry, let me begin by playing a brief sound bite from our president today. And then I want to read you a different -- from a different source. Bear with me for two things. First, here is the president today at the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: In these states, race (UNINTELLIGIBLE) admissions policies have resulted and levels of minority attendance for incoming students that are close to and in some instances slightly surpassed those under the old race-based approach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Now he was talking about California, Florida, and Texas. Three states which he said have done a better job with a non-race- based approach. But this is what the U.S. Civil Rights Commission says about those same three states from the federal government's Web site of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
"The three states, California, Texas, and Florida, that have implemented percentage plans automatically admit to state schools students who rank within an established percentage of their high school graduating class. Analysis of admissions in these states reveals that no significant improvement has been made in the rates of minority enrollment at the undergraduate or graduate professional levels. And in many cases, rates have declined."
Now why is the president misleading us, Terry?
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, HUMAN EVENTS: Well I don't know, Paul. I haven't studied those statistics. To tell you the truth, I think even the president's approach on that problem might have a problem with the 14th amendment. Because if you're going to have a single equal standard and treat everybody in the state equally under the law, then they should have the same admissions standard for the state universities.
But what the president has done is he said we're not going to consider race, we're not going to discriminate for or against people on the basis of race under any federally funded program, including admissions to universities. So I think that's a morally correct position that the president has taken.
BEGALA: But we also take into account -- Michigan does -- takes into account geography, if you are from a county that doesn't have a lot of people in it. Or from another state, it takes into account socioeconomic status. It takes into account whether your mom and daddy went to the University of Michigan. So we take into account all kinds of things. We can't take into account one of the most central issues in American life, race?
JEFFREY: Paul, this has been one of the longest-running debates in our country, whether or not we're going to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin or whether we won't. We have the 14th amendment, which says that statements get equal protection to everyone. Then we have the civil rights act of 1964, which says that federally funded institutions cannot discriminate by race.
Now liberals have to decide do they really believe in this principle, the one that Martin Luther King articulated, we're going to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, or do they want the University of Michigan and other public institutions to say we're going to discriminate against this person because of their skin color and we're going to discriminate in favor of this person because of their skin color?
CARLSON: Now Maria, let's get right to the case that's going to be debated before the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan, its admission standards. I want you to take a look at its admission standards, two of them. If you apply to the University of Michigan and you have a perfect SAT score, you're awarded 12 points. If you have the correct school-sanctioned skin color, you get 20 points. You get almost twice as many points.
In other words, the color of your skin matters more than how hard you work in school. That's immoral, isn't it?
MARIA ECHAVESTE, FMR. WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: Actually, no, because you get 80 points based on your GPA. What that reflects is what a lot of us know and people have come to understand, that SATs are not the sole predictor, or even a good predictor of how people are going to excel in school.
And when you say correct skin color, you know you can you also get 20 points for being an athlete. Twenty points for being socioeconomic characteristics. Twenty points because the president decides that he needs more art majors or history students.
So 20 points because your mom and dad went to the school. So to say you get 20 points just and only just because you're a minority, is just simply inaccurate.
CARLSON: Well actually, as you know, I'm not saying that. I guess with the exception of legacies, all of the other factors you cited are things over which individual students have control.
ECHAVESTE: Socioeconomic?
CARLSON: And that's the key difference. Whether you're in the band or not. And I want to put up a quote from Ebony Sandusky who went to the University of Michigan. This is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) affirmative action has on the students.
"It makes me angry," she said, "that students were rejected even though they were qualified. If I had known my grades had been raised half a point just because I'm black, one of my application essays would have been why I didn't want my grade point to be raised. It implies that minorities are not as smart."
That's painful to read.
ECHAVESTE: It is. It is very painful. And it's actually one of the pernicious effects of the backlash against affirmative action. No, seriously. Because people who succeed know that they walk into a room -- I can walk into a room and there will be people in the room who will decide that I got to where I was solely and only because I was Hispanic, a minority woman, and totally disregard that I went to a good undergrad, got a law degree, worked my tail off as a corporate lawyer.
There are people who will have those assumptions. The fact is, this is about opportunity. And right now, in 2003, this country still has not met its promise of equal opportunity under the law. And what Michigan tried to do was put race as one of the many factors that people look at in trying to have a diverse student body, which, as we know, the world is incredibly diverse. If you want more athletes, you want more artists, you want more musicians, you want all kinds of people in your freshman class, and you also want them in graduate school. BEGALA: Terry?
JEFFREY: But Paul, you mentioned earlier, you were talking about the Catholic Church and the problems in the Catholic Church. I think that there's a value to the Catholic Church and other Christian churches represented here that ought to be reflected in U.S. law. In fact, I think that's what Dr. Martin Luther King said in the civil rights movement, man's law must reflect god's law.
In my parish in northern Virginia, Queen of Apostles, I think it's the most multi ethnic institution I've ever seen. When I go to mass there, there are people of every national origin, every ethnicity. And I know that god is going to treat them each on their merits. And that's what I think we have to do in American society.
We don't want to Balkanize our society among different racial and ethnic groups, where your grandparents came from. We want everybody to be treated equally under the law when they apply for any benefit or privilege by government, be treated according to their merits, not according to their skin color. That's a profound, moral principle.
BEGALA: Let's take it beyond that. Because President Bush, of course, is one of the great beneficiaries of affirmative action. He went to Yale, one of the great schools in America. He went to the Harvard Business School after being rejected by the University of Texas, my alma mater, because he didn't have good enough grades.
I was looking at the "World Almanac's" biography of Bush today. Here's what they say. The "World Almanac" not a liberal source. It's pretty straight.
They say, "At Andover, Bush's grades were mediocre." Terry, how did he get into Yale?
JEFFREY: Well, that's a good question. Let me say this.
BEGALA: With affirmative action. No, it was affirmative action for the ne'er-do-well children of the wealthy eastern elite, wasn't it?
(APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY: Right. Look, I'll say this. I think that...
BEGALA: But he was. He was an affirmative action baby.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFREY: If you look at the case of the University of Michigan, the University of Michigan and their point program does, in fact, give points to people for being related to alumni of the school. I believe that's wrong. And I think it ought to be illegal for a public school.
Now Yale and Harvard and these ivy league schools are private institutions. And some private institutions I think will reach out to people for good reasons. Some will reach out for bad reasons. BEGALA: But isn't he being a hypocrite? Shouldn't he be ashamed?
JEFFREY: The question is where the government should come in and try and interfere with private action to avoid discrimination. I think we settled that in the 1964 civil rights act. And the University of Michigan is directly verbatim violating that act.
CARLSON: Maria, let me ask you about the University of Michigan. You said that its effort are an attempt to enhance diversity. Certain minority groups get extra points, but not all.
ECHAVESTE: Right.
CARLSON: Black students, Hispanic students, American Indian students. Asian students do not, Jewish students do not. But of course Jews have been discriminated against in this country in a systematic way for hundreds of years. Don't you think Jewish students should benefit from affirmative action?
ECHAVESTE: Well, I think when you look at both -- the long history of discriminations, why quotas is such a -- everyone is opposed to them. And I really resent when even President Bush tries to equate affirmative action with quotas. There is no person on the left...
CARLSON: But answer my question. Why shouldn't Jewish students be included?
ECHAVESTE: Because, in fact, there is no need to make a special effort to diverse. There's a sufficient...
CARLSON: There's too many already? Is that what you're saying?
ECHAVESTE: No, never. And I'm Jewish, so I resent that.
CARLSON: Then what's your point? I'm wondering what your point is.
ECHAVESTE: What I'm saying is that there isn't a need to make an extra effort to make sure that you have got a good mixture of people. The same way -- look, Asians...
CARLSON: Well why isn't there a need? I'm totally missing this.
ECHAVESTE: Because you're going to have Asian...
(CROSSTALK)
ECHAVESTE: No, no, no. You look at California. In California Asian-American students for all kinds of reasons that are wonderful to try to explore and emulate and try to see why can't we get other groups to excel in studying, are -- have huge success rates in applying to the university. And to go back to your point about why equal protection is such an important goal, I totally agree. But what you're negating and what you're ignoring is that this country, right now, as we sit here, does not provide that equal opportunity. Because if you are a space alien...
BEGALA: That's certainly true. We don't provide all of our children equal opportunity. Do we Terry?
JEFFREY: We don't. And it's because of what the University of Michigan does. Let's look at a specific case. One of these women, Jennifer Gratz (ph), who applied to the University of Michigan, had a 3.8 GPA in high school. She had a 25 on the ACT.
According to the facts presented to the Supreme Court, a minority in one of the preferred groups, there's only three preferred groups, blacks, Hispanic, and Native Americans. If you are an Arab American, you don't count. If you're an Asian-American, you don't count.
A person in one of those preferred groups would have automatically gotten into the University of Michigan. She didn't. She did not get equal protection. That's the point.
ECHAVESTE: And I wonder how many white students had 3.8 and still beat her out for that spot.
JEFFREY: Why do you care about the color of her skin? Why are you so obsessed and concerned of the color of her skin?
ECHAVESTE: No, actually, the fact is that our society is obsessed with it. And...
JEFFREY: No. I say let's forget it. Let's be colorblind.
ECHAVESTE: You're trying to pretend that the last 400 years didn't happen. That suddenly all of a sudden everybody -- there's equal opportunity. And when you look -- look, someone could come from outer space right now and they would see that actually there is a much greater chance you're going to be poor, you're going to be black. You're not going to graduate from high school, you're going to be Hispanic. You're going to be in all kinds -- drug infested (ph), you name it. There's a racial component to it.
BEGALA: I'm sorry to do this. This is a great debate. But we're going to have to go to break. I'm really sorry. Terry Jeffrey from Human Events, Maria Echaveste, my pal from the Clinton White House, thank you both. Sorry, but we've got to go to a break.
We will tell you in a minute why security is extra tight at tomorrow's scheduled launch of the space shuttle. Aaron Brown will have details next in a CNN NEWS ALERT.
And then a Texas judge is letting TV cameras not only into his courtroom, but into the jury room as well. Later, the NFL acts to protect its integrity. Not by telling the beer ladies to stop fighting and get out of the pool and put their clothes back on, but by stiffing Las Vegas. We will put that it in the CROSSFIRE, and you make the call. (APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
CARLSON: Next, lights, camera and the verdict, but should it be against the law to put a jury's deliberations on television? And then we'll ask the mayor of Las Vegas if the NFL is out of bounds for declaring commercials for his city off limits.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from beautiful downtown Washington, the George Washington University to be specific.
The PBS program "Frontline" recently asked a Texas judge to permit cameras in the jury room to videotape deliberations in a capital murder trial. To everyone's surprise, the judge said yes. The district attorney went ballistic predictably. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals heard arguments on the decision today and Texas lawmakers are working on a bill to outlaw cameras in the jury rooms from here forward.
And to deliberate this weighty topic with former judge and Court TV host, Catherine Crier, she joins from New York. Her latest book, by the way is called "The Case Against Lawyers."
With us here in Washington, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Jeffrey Toobin, there are not cameras in the men's room and there are not cameras in jury rooms. And with a few exceptions, there never have been. Why do you suppose that is?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Because the tradition in our legal system has been one of great secrecy and keeping the public out. And in virtually every case, when cameras and scrutiny and journalists and outsiders have been able to look at how our system works and expose it, it gets better. Because as Justice Brandeis said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," and it is -- it will be here too.
BEGALA: Catherine Crier, a former state district judge in our beloved Texas. The judge in this case, Ted Poe, said this. "I believe we have the best system there ever has been. We shouldn't be ashamed of how it works."
Now grammar aside...
(LAUGHTER) CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV ANCHOR: Now don't you dare. That's just fine in Texas, now, Paul.
BEGALA: Absolutely. You and me both. Now why -- I know you were a judge, but why should you run Judge Poe's courtroom for him? If he wants to let cameras in the jury room, why not?
CRIER: Well, I think that we're comparing apples and oranges. To go into a system that is supposed to operate in a certain fashion with rules of evidence and certain behavior by attorneys and judges, and we want to make sure that that is comporting, that's fine.
But do we want to do into say a grand jury proceeding that is supposed to be secret...
BEGALA: Yes.
CRIER: ... just because they agree to let us in?
Do we want to go into the jury room if they agree when in fact I'm not so worried about their behavior being altered as I am an opportunity then to raise all sorts of what will often times be frivolous issues on appeal because we're beginning to dissect people's mental processes.
I think that's wrong. We don't have rules governing how people think, and yet we'll come up with some if we start televising these deliberations.
CARLSON: Now Jeff Toobin, I want to put on the screen, the least true sentence uttered this year so far.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: The year's early.
And that's the sentence. Here it is. This is from a trial lawyer -- surprise, surprise -- quoted in the Houston Chronicle arguing for cameras. He says, "When you put a spotlight on people, they become more noble, just, fair, compassionate."
And I know that's a lie because I work in television.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: And so do you. And in fact when you put a camera on somebody he's apt to become less fair, less compassionate. I mean I could give you the examples. You know them.
TOOBIN: Yes. I am...
CARLSON: Well, there may be others at this table. But the point is you don't want that to happen to jurors, do you?
TOOBIN: The argument that is reflected that you're making that cameras change behavior is exactly the argument that's been used to try to keep cameras out of courtrooms.
And as Catherine knows at Court TV, they have shown that these cases are generally better, if not the same, with cameras. And it just shows that scrutiny makes people behave better, use better arguments, act more fairly. And I think it's just a false argument that you suddenly are diminished by having a camera on you.
CRIER: Jeffrey though, Jeffrey just imagine though, if you've got a very tense situation, political environment, Houston case death penalty known for those verdicts, and the jury will feel the pressure of the community if their faces are going out there, if their deliberations are going to be telecast. And you may actually get altered verdicts.
You bet you change the way they behave. When it's supposed to be private, their deliberations private, it should stay private.
TOOBIN: But Catherine, that's why the context of this case is so interesting. Harris County, Houston, if Harris County were a separate...
CRIER: Oh, Judge Poe is an interesting judge.
TOOBIN: If this were a separate state, it would have the third most executions in the country after Texas and Florida.
Tremendous number of executions there.
Why? Because of what goes on in those jury rooms. I don't know what it is.
CRIER: You know darn well it's the selection of those case...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from there. They're rednecks. They want to kill them all.
CRIER: ... by the prosecutor.
BEGALA: Let God sort them out, Catherine. What's wrong with letting cameras in there and taking a look at what those rednecks are saying in the deliberating room.
CRIER: Paul, wait a minute, you're barking up the wrong tree, baby, because if you read my book, I oppose the death penalty. So that's not my problem here.
It's must more once you go into this, and start opening up the deliberations, I can see the clogged appellate courts as somebody says, "Well you could tell he was biased because of his behavior, or because of some word that he used." Or, "This wasn't fair for some legal reason that we will now manufacture," when what we're talking about a common sense pragmatic approach which is the whole purpose of using a jury.
BEGALA: But Catherine...
CRIER: You can't regulate that. And that's what's going to happen.
TOOBIN: When I was an assistant U.S. attorney we had a rule. As in if you got a conviction you were never supposed to talk to the jurors afterwards because you could find out something terrible. That they convicted the guy because he was black or they flipped a coin.
That was a good way to preserve our convictions. Isn't that a little disturbing? isn't it disturbing that we don't want to know what goes on in the most important place?
CRIER: No, no, if we want to get rid of the jury system, a jury of our peers where 12 citizens are asked to get together, listen to evidence and make their own -- their private deliberations, then let's get rid of it and have a judge do it on the record. They write the brief, we can analyze it until kingdom come.
That's not the jury system. If, in fact, there is one aberration here or one aberration there and a problem, we try to ferret them out. But let's not reason to destroy the entire jury system. Cameras in the courtroom will change what we have had for centuries and what the people of this country seem to think is a valuable service in the criminal justice system.
CARLSON: Jeff, don't you think you would have the reality TV problem here, where the shows themselves...
TOOBIN: Is there a problem with reality TV?
CARLSON: There is. Where the shows themselves self select, they draw a certain sort of person who would, say, want to date someone on television. This would draw a certain kind of juror. And I suspect that's not the kind of jury you want making weighty decisions.
TOOBIN: That is a potential problem. But I think the benefits outweigh it. I don't think...
CRIER: What are the benefits, Jeffrey?
TOOBIN: The benefits are public scrutiny. The benefits are...
CRIER: That's so broad I could drive a truck through that. What are the specific benefits?
TOOBIN: It's a broad benefit. That's even better.
BEGALA: Shouldn't be there some place in government for private deliberations? Shouldn't Supreme Court chambers, Congressmen meet with their aids, judges in their chambers?
Used to be the president could meet with their aids in private until Ken Starr came along. Shouldn't be the jury room be another place where people can meet in private? TOOBIN: You know I don't think so. When there is consent of both sides -- and here is where I disagree with what the judge did in Texas because the prosecution objected. I think this should be only done when both sides agree. I don't think the judge should be able to impose it. But it is a good idea.
CARLSON: Unfortunately we are out of time. Jeffrey Toobin here in Washington, Catherine Crier, thank you both very much.
One of our viewers has fired back a suggestion that would be certain to make the 2004 presidential debates more entertaining. We'll get that in a bit.
But next, the NFL is running an ad for Miller beer with women wrestling in their underwear. Thank heaven. But they're rejecting an ad for Las Vegas tourism. What's going on? We'll show you both ads and tackle the apparent hypocrisy. Stay with us.
By the way, we'll show you the Miller beer ad, and we'll have the ad. More ads. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. If you are a football fan you have no doubt noticed the NFL has nothing against interrupting games to show commercials featuring nearly naked women mud wrestling in order to sell beer. Nonetheless, pro football's higher-ups want you to know that they do have standards. So when you watch the Super Bowl you'll be spared from having to see a commercial that asks you simply to visit Las Vegas. We're going to review that call. Joining us from the replay booth in Las Vegas is the mayor, Oscar Goodman. And at CNN Center in Atlanta is radio -talk-show host Steak Shapiro.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Steak, let me start with you. First, I'll show our audience a brief clip of the offending ad. No, not the mostly naked chick, we'll play them later. This is the Las Vegas Travel Tourism ad. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Airport?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, my name is Jim.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just love the smell of your limo, Jim.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yeah? Well it's a new car.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love the new car smell.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wish it was mine.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Smells so good, Jim, this leather.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here we are.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'll be at Poland after 2:00, OK? Yes. I know, I know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Now, how great is that? First off...
STEAK SHAPIRO, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Very entertaining.
BEGALA: ... there's nothing more exciting than a trip to Las Vegas and nothing more boring than an NFL game. The only people that watch NFL are gamblers and wife beaters. Why are they chasing away half of their audience? They'll just be left with the wife beaters.
SHAPIRO: I think I've heard that, considering the NFL's the most popular sport in the entire world and most people aren't sitting at home on Sunday's watching them.
Everybody knows who follows professional sports there's nothing more taboo, ask Pete Rose, than having professional sports attached with gambling. Is it a hypocrisy on some level? Yes.
But it's very clear in the rules, the NFL does not want to be directly correlated -- Las Vegas is the only town in America that -- the only town in the world that takes professional sports gambling. And all the NFL is saying is, We don't want to hit you over the head with it. We don't want the Super Bowl next to an ad for the town that takes sports gambling. It's real simple.
Oscar should not bite the hand that feeds him. The NFL brings so much action to Vegas, the Lions bring a ton of money to Vegas. Just take it easy. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. And relax. It's only one ad.
CARLSON: Oscar Goodman...
(CROSSTALK)
MAYOR OSCAR GOODMAN, LAS VEGAS: Don't talk about the hands that feed me right now. Without Vegas, the NFL would be broke because probably every game would be fixed. We're the only regulators that make sure that the sport is kept honest. Let's be serious about this now.
CARLSON: Wait. Mayor Goodman, if that's true, then how can you account for the following statement faxed to CNN this afternoon from the NFL. This is part of it. It's quite a disapproving statement, by the way.
"The public perception of the integrity of our game is critical and this type of advertising," meaning your type of advertising, "on our game telecast has the potential to negatively impact that perception." In other words, a sport in which men in tight clothing grapple with each other is looking down on Las Vegas. This is like O.J. Simpson not wanting to be seen with you in public. It's insulting.
GOODMAN: As far as I'm concerned, as a member of the convention authority board, I directed our attorneys to research whether or not that kind of action is defamatory. And I think it is. And I'll throw a lawsuit against the NFL. Hopefully when we own them, we'll have some honest refereeing.
BEGALA: Let's talk about the NFL's reputation. Twenty-one percent, one in five, more than that, 21 percent of NFL players have been charged with a serious crime. They include Rae Carruth, who was, of course, convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Nate Newton of the Dallas Cowboys, convicted of drug trafficking. Dwayne Goodrich has been charged, not yet convicted, or two counts of vehicular manslaughter -- that was today. Cosey Coleman was charged with battery.
I could go on and on and on. Why, when they have nothing but a game full of thugs, are they worried about a few people rolling the bones in Las Vegas?
SHAPIRO: Well, first of all, I mean it sounds like a circus. This is -- first of all, the mayor, good luck with your suit against the National Football League.
The one thing that affects the integrity of professional sports is even the thought of gambling. That's why it's outlined in every locker room, the first thing you see, is about the dangers of gambling as it relates to the integrity of the sports. A bunch of half-naked women does not affect the integrity on the field.
And by the way, you are kidding about football being a bunch of Neanderthals. It's the most popular sport, the most highly marketed, and it is the American past time.
BEGALA: Losers and couch potatoes and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and wife beaters.
(CROSSTALK)
SHAPIRO: What are you doing on Sunday at 4:00 this week that's so -- you going to the opera, you going to ballet? What are you doing...
BEGALA: No, I'm deer hunting, Steak. I'm shooting deer like a real man. I'm not sitting there beating my wife and watching the NFL, the most boring thing on television.
SHAPIRO: Guys who watch the NFL -- you make it sound like the most pompous commentator in the history of television. Watching the NFL is one of the great joys American men have. You might want to try stop watching "Ally McBeal", for crying out load...
(CROSSTALK) BEGALA: This Sunday, Steak, I'm going to be out deer hunting in South Texas, which is what real men do. Not watching a bunch of murderers on the screen.
SHAPIRO: I think the deers are going to have an easy time of it.
CARLSON: Let me suggest, what sort of ad, Oscar, as mayor of Las Vegas you should have run. I'm going to put up on the screen.
Purely for clinical reasons, an ad the NFL does accepts and does run. Here it is. This is for Miller Beer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doesn't Miller Light taste great?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, but I drink it because it's less filling.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, man, now that would make a great commercial.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who wouldn't want to watch that?
ANNOUNCER: Life is best told over a great tasting Miller Light. At a place called "Miller time."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now what can you -- what can you learn from that?
GOODMAN: Well, for guys who don't like to watch football, they'll certainly be watching that ad, that's for sure. To me, our ad is, it's sensuous, it's edgy, it's thought provoking.
That borders on the obscene.
CARLSON: It's basically too much vulgar for Las Vegas is what you're saying.
GOODMAN: No, what I'm saying is this. What I'm saying is let's be honest about this whole thing. Why does every newspaper in the United States have a Las Vegas line on? Because people want to find out what the score is? No. Because they want to bet.
So how can the NFL be so two-faced about this? They want to have it that way to get everybody in the world interested in betting on their games all over the country. There will be more bets taken in San Diego at QualComm, probably, in the books here, because people aren't going to watch a football game without betting on it. That's why it's absurd.
BEGALA: In fact, Steak, shouldn't the NFL be worried? Because those girls tackle a lot better than the ninnies in 40 pounds of pads in the NFL.
SHAPIRO: Well, I just wish Warren Sapp could get 30 seconds with you in the open field. But let me this.
BEGALA: Bring it on, baby! Bring it on, Warren!
SHAPIRO: Let me this: the reason that ad, the ad -- this is not about tastefulness and commercials. Walk into a locker room some time and look at the first thing it talks about: gambling. Now, is the NFL being hypocritical? Somewhat. But when you're the most powerful league in the world, you can say, We don't want gambling next to our product. That's what they're saying.
It's not about tastefulness. It's not about -- by the way, half- naked women is legal in the NFL for players, but gambling is not for players.
GOODMAN: But Steak, there's nothing in that ad that even suggests there's gambling. It's from Las Vegas. It shows hat when people come here, they have freedom, they don't have to worry about some jerk next door neighbor looking at them and being critical of them. They can come out here, they can have their fantasies and desires. It has nothing at all to do with gambling.
SHAPIRO: But it's also the only town...
BEGALA: Mayor Oscar Goodman -- I'm sorry to cut you guys off. May Oscar Goodman in Las Vegas, my favorite mayor in America, thank you for joining us.
Steak Shapiro from Atlanta, thank you as well. Terrific fun. Good debate. Thank you, guys.
In just a minute, some of CROSSFIRE's fans are going to get a chance to fire back at the NFL. We'll see what they have to say, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time now for "Fireback," when you get to "Fireback" at us. And no, I'm not worried about NFL fans taking me on. They're too stupid to work a computer. Let's go to the e-mail box. Mary Walker of San Francisco, California says, "Between bad calls and players getting arrested, you would think the NFL would have bigger things to worry about than banning Las Vegas ads. Get a life."
I'm with you, Mary.
CARLSON: All right.
BEGALA: Get a life.
CARLSON: A number of our viewers have noticed the Miller Light ad we've been forced by journalistic ethics to keep putting on the air.
Donan Freitag writes, "The day that Miller Light beer commercial aired the disturbing fight between two sexpot girls wrestling in the pool and mud in their bikinis, I ordered the kids not to watch and my husband now drinks Corona beer, since I also control the shopping."
BEGALA: What ad is that?
CARLSON: I don't know.
BEGALA: What ad is that?
CARLSON: We should put it on again, to remind the viewers.
BEGALA: Howie (ph) our director, what's this ad she's writing about? I'm not familiar with it. We got any video of that ad because I'm not -- oh, they're not going to play it.
John Adams, the second president of the United States, writes in from Quincy, Illinois, fitting enough, "I nominate the intelligent and humorous Begala and Carlson to do the '04 presidential debates. I like the dueling powerpoints on the screen behind the debaters. It's hard to spin when faced with sourced and dated quotations."
BEGALA: This is why they won't let us host the debates, I suspect, Tucker.
CARLSON: Yes. Even when those sources are made up.
Next up -- oh a Canadian viewer. Joey Adams of Banff, Alberta, Canada, writes, "I love your show guys, but I wish Tucker would stop his anti-Canada crusade. The only difference between Canadians and Americans is that we play hockey better."
And build better igloos.
BEGALA: That's a real sport, by the way.
CARLSON: This is a concern in Canada. Our friends from the Canadian embassy came by today and dropped off this Canadian gift bag. I'm waving the Canadian flag to show that we have no animos toward Canada. I would sing "Oh Canada" but I don't know the words and that's another difference between us and Canadians.
BEGALA: You know what? Their national anthem has better words than ours. Sorry.
CARLSON: If we only knew them.
BEGALA: Yes.
CARLSON: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm Michael Clifford (ph) from Arlington, Virginia. I'm wondering how can a jury be impartial when they're going to be judged by their neighbors on television and by Tucker Carlson.
CARLSON: Well, that's exactly right. No, but it is true. I mean, people are different when they're on television. I mean, I wish you could come back and see Paul before the show.
BEGALA: No, it is a -- I do think, you know, we had a good debate on that. But I would leave the jury room alone.
Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. Kevin Campbell (ph) from Lincoln, Nebraska. My question is, why would the NFL be so concerned with Las Vegas advertising during the Super Bowl, when many of the teams a part of the NFL, are in states that sponsor lottery or other forms of gambling?
BEGALA: Good point. In fact, Mayor Goodman pointed out, in Las Vegas they bet $80 million on the Super Bowl. Eighty million. Legally. And the rest of the country, illegally, people bet $4 billion illegally. I mean, who is the NFL fooling?
CARLSON: And Las Vegas would like a piece of that.
Yes, sir?
Yes?
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, my name's Todd Marlett (ph) let from Arlington, Virginia. And my question is, if the University of Michigan system is held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, should the University of Michigan be required to pay reparations to all the students denied admission?
CARLSON: I guess I'm against reparations in each and every case.
No, it doesn't seem like a tall order to stop discriminating on race. I mean, that was something that was supposed to be settled 49 years ago but apparently hasn't been.
BEGALA: It's a difficult question, but the truth is, having gone to the University of Texas, where they stopped affirmative action, we went to almost zero minority law students at what was once one of the great educators of minority law students in America and that's not fair.
CARLSON: A principle still worth defending.
BEGALA: From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I am Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night 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
The Basis of Race; Sex, Not Gambling Approved for Sale During Super Bowl>
