Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Obama-Bush Powwow; Interview With Wesley Clark; Interview with Max Kennedy; Gov. Mark Sanford on Future of Republican Party
Aired November 11, 2008 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Coming at you right now: We know what they talked about. I will do this if you do that -- deal-making at the highest levels of government.
Is Ford or GM worth rescuing with your money? Who is rescuing you?
Veterans Day questions: When will Iraq and Afghanistan end? Is it time to talk to our enemies? What General Petraeus says may surprise you.
Why is the Deep South so anti-Obama, redder than ever?
And we talk to a Kennedy about the new Kennedy influence. Where will it lead this president-elect?
What you have to say about this on the air and on the Internet. It is noontime in Portland, 3:00 in Miami. Your national conversation begins now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: And we welcome you. I'm Rick Sanchez here at the world headquarters of CNN.
The big story yesterday, of course, Barack Obama talking to President Bush. Today, we have the pictures. Keep in mind, Barack Obama had never been to the Oval Office, never mind what the two gentlemen talked about. Now we know both. Oh, and we have the picture.
There they are discussing several items, talking about the things that both men want. And, by the way, what the guy on the right wants is not the same as the guy on the left wants, in case you needed to know that.
One of the big issues for the president of the United States is a deal in Colombia, a free trade deal that Barack Obama is not for. What Barack Obama wants is deal for the auto industry, which it appears the president, at least right now, is not for.
Maybe rather than me say it, let me let two different people prevent this argument for you. One is an economist, and one is somebody who is a worker in the auto industry. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The auto industry is the heart. You can have a lot of veins, but if the heart stops pumping, you are just gone.
PETER MORICI, ECONOMIST: General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have been some of the worst-run companies in America. That is why they are in the fix that they are in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Now let's talk about what they got and what they want, first, what they got, $25 billion last year. In fact, we can put that up and show it to you. This is what the auto industry received as part of the rescue that had been passed by Congress -- or approved, I should say, $25 billion. Is it enough? No.
Here now is what they want that it appears that Barack Obama is willing to compromise on or talk about. Let's talk about the wants. Here they are. The big three want $25 billion in loans to help them survive the slump, and $25 billion to cover health care obligations for 780,000 retirees and dependents. Now, that is interesting.
Neal Boortz joins me now. He has been raising this subject for a month now. One of the first times we talked to you, you said you are not comfortable with government money being used to bail out business, period. Do you still hold true to that?
NEAL BOORTZ, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, I do.
And, look, General Motors and the rest of them, they negotiated these contracts with the unions. Nobody put a gun to their head. The government -- I certainly didn't put a gun to their head. And so if they want a bailout, here is the deal, OK? All union contracts null and void.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting, because what you are talking about is important. And I have the information here. From the 1950s all the way through to the 1970s, this is what he is talking about, these big three established rules, one of them called the 30 and out rule. That means you work for 30 years and you are guaranteed your full pension. So, think, if you start at 18, 28, 38, 48...
BOORTZ: I would have been out of here a long time ago.
SANCHEZ: ... you retire and you get all your money.
BOORTZ: Yes, exactly, full pay, plus medical benefits. And then they have the UAW jobs bank. Do you know how people these automakers are paying that don't work anymore? They just sit on their duffs and collect their -- we void all those contracts.
(CROSSTALK) SANCHEZ: But here is what we consider, though, the fact that there are -- I think I have the numbers here -- 1.1 million people are covered by these plans, $5.6 billion in health care costs. And the number of people who would be out of work -- if this industry is divided in half, all right, if this industry is divided in half, as some believe could happen, the number of workers that would be losing their jobs is pretty darn high. I can't find it exactly on my notes right now, but they say it is too impressive and it would hurt the economy.
BOORTZ: The demand for cars will come back.
SANCHEZ: Two-point five million, there you go.
BOORTZ: OK. The demand for cars comes back.
If these three people -- if these automakers are out of business because of the miss and malfeasance...
SANCHEZ: Right.
BOORTZ: ... somebody else is going to fill the gap and build those cars. And they will probably build them in this country. Maybe it will be foreign and American automakers working in right-to-work states with plants in right-to-work states where they will hire people to build cars on some sort of a reasonable economic basis, instead of this mess we have going on up there in Detroit.
Look, I don't care how many -- that million jobs over there...
SANCHEZ: Mm-hmm, 2.5 million.
BOORTZ: Whatever, 30,000 that General Motors wants to get rid of,, whatever that is, is no more important to that listener out there than their job. And their company might be in trouble, and why are they not getting a bailout while we bailout these automakers that created these problems for themselves.
SANCHEZ: It's an important question. There's people who differ with you. And we're going to have one of them on in just a little bit.
Let's go over here to the board. This is coming in on MySpace.
"Heck no. We have already bailed out the financial industry and now GM? If we succumb to their request, all companies are going to start looking for the government to bail them out. We need to implement cost-cutting methods and stop living on credit."
There's somebody who tends to agree with you.
BOORTZ: Smart person.
SANCHEZ: Neal Boortz, him and someone else coming back in just a little bit who disagrees with Mr. Boortz. Stay with us. We will stay with this argument before we move on to the Republicans having a meeting in Miami. Who is the superstar there? Sarah Palin?
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back.
It is amazing. The great majority of the people who are contacting us right now, like you, are fed up with these rescues or bailouts or improvements or whatever the buzzword of the week seems to be.
As a matter of fact, let's go. Robert, let's go to our Twitter board, if we can.
K_Michael writes this: "Rescue Chrysler, GM? Not. Cerberus Holding Company, they got rich enough off of us and off people's backs," he says. "Rescue jobs, not multiheaded dogs." That's interesting.
People are not wanting this.
Joining us now is Jordan Goodman. His MoneyAnswers.com blog is very well read.
You're hearing now what Neal Boortz says and what some of the folks out there are saying well. What is your take on this possibility that we need to salvage these guys or rescue them in any way?
JORDAN GOODMAN, AUTHOR, "EVERYONE'S MONEY BOOK": I think Neil is totally out of touch with what the public is looking for and totally being cruel to Americans who have been working very hard.
We need to bail out the auto industry. It's much better than not bailing them out. And just the example you want to see is what happened with Lehman Brothers. We made a massive mistake by not bailing out Lehman Brothers. It's costing us huge amounts of money more than had we bailed them out. And it is the same with GM.
If we let them go under in his kind of libertarian, laissez- faire, let the market think care of itself, let the auto industry be taken over by the foreigners, this is going to cost us much, much more, cost Americans a lot of pain, not only directly with the automakers, but all their suppliers.
SANCHEZ: We have got news. I'm going to let you respond to him, and while you do that, let me get my laptop up here, because I'm being told now that we have got news crossing the wires on Nancy Pelosi and a possible story about what we are talking about now.
You, go ahead. Answer him.
BOORTZ: Well, I did not say, don't bail them out.
I did say, look, if you are going to bail them out, void these union contracts. These union contracts are totally absurd, and the benefits that they pay people that are not even working anymore, salaries they pay people that are not working. If the American people are going to bail out these automakers, OK, for the mistakes that they made, then the American people deserve something in return.
And the very least we should get out of this is to void these union contracts, tell these automakers and these unions, go back, get real. Negotiate a deal that is going to help these businesses stay alive. If we bail them out, we will be back doing it next year, the year after, the year after, if we don't do something about those union contracts.
SANCHEZ: Jordan, to you.
GOODMAN: I do agree that we should be tough with the automakers and put a lot of restrictions on them. I think probably GM and Chrysler should be forced to merge. And there would be a lot of layoffs and a lot of labor people would be losing their jobs.
But I think voiding contracts like that is going to not going to go over well with the UAW.
BOORTZ: Who cares?
GOODMAN: And it's going to make it very hard. Because these are the people that are doing the work for them. They do have contracts. And just going out and voiding contracts is not a particularly good way to handle workers who you need their cooperation to...
(CROSSTALK)
BOORTZ: You void contracts all the time in bankruptcy. They are bankrupt. And you give them a fresh start. A fresh start means a fresh start, not saddled down with these irresponsible, onerous union contracts.
GOODMAN: The other thing you're forgetting, Neil, is that, if this happens, if they go bankrupt, it's going to cost the government a lot.
For example, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation is going to have a huge amount of pension benefits thrown onto it, which will basically make it go bankrupt, because of the huge amount of pension liabilities. These liabilities don't just disappear. They are going to shift from GM to you, the taxpayer, through the PBGC.
BOORTZ: Some of them will, and of course the whole idea of the federal government guaranteeing pensions, tell me where that shows up in the U.S. Constitution.
GOODMAN: Well, it is a law passed by Congress. And it has to be repealed...
(CROSSTALK)
BOORTZ: Well, again, laws passed by Congress are supposed to be somewhat in touch with our Constitution. And nowhere does it say Congress or the taxpayers guarantee private pension plans.
GOODMAN: It is a PBGC law. That's the way it works. It wasn't in the Constitution. There's a lot of laws have been passed since the Constitution, and that is one of them. FDIC, you could say that everything FDR did was illegal as well. You could say the income tax is illegal.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Let me jump in here, gentlemen.
Chris, go ahead. Tell me in my ear, because I'm not able to get the report because we put the laptop down here. Tell me in my ear what it is that Nancy Pelosi is -- this deal she's trying to strike? What is it? She is going to sneak -- she's going to seek legislation to provide relief to the auto industry.
BOORTZ: I like the word sneak better.
(LAUGHTER)
GOODMAN: Well, it is clearly going to happen.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, likely to convene in the next few days. There's the news items. We knew that they were going to be doing it, but now it looks like they are going to be doing it before Barack Obama takes office. How significant is that?
(CROSSTALK)
GOODMAN: Remember, you have got the $700 billion bailout bill, which was supposed to be for toxic mortgages.
SANCHEZ: Right.
GOODMAN: But now they're using it for all kinds of other things. And the congressman from Michigan, like Levin and so on, are going to say that that money should be used partly for helping out the automakers.
Neal, if your kind of laissez-faire system goes into effect, GM won't be around by the end of this year. They need the money now. We can't wait until Barack Obama on January 20. They need the money now in order to survive.
(CROSSTALK)
BOORTZ: Why? So what if they are not here by the end of the year? The government does not pick winners or losers. The marketplace picks winners and losers. The marketplace has picked GM as a loser. Why?
Well, because their cars didn't appeal to the marketplace, and they were too expensive. They didn't keep up with technology. They didn't keep up with the times. So, the government doesn't step in and say, you know, the marketplace said you did a bad job here, but we, the mighty titans of government, we're going to pick you as a winner anyway.
SANCHEZ: But, Neil, what do you say to this young lady here who just sent us this e-mail right now?
She says: "Look, I am a fourth-generation Ford employee spouse. My grandfather, father, husband, and son have worked their entire lives for Ford. Is it my family's fault that the big three mismanaged their finances? No, it's not."
(CROSSTALK)
BOORTZ: Now, here comes -- this is the harsh reality. It is not your family's fault that these companies mismanaged their finances, by it is your family's fault that they didn't see what was happening, what was coming down the pike a long time ago, and say, you know what? A couple of generations of this nonsense is enough. Maybe we had better go to a work in an industry that is better managed and where we might have better job security.
SANCHEZ: Jordan, to you. Finish us out.
GOODMAN: Well, these industry workers have been working very hard and they didn't do anything wrong. And the management did do some things wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
BOORTZ: They did do something wrong.
GOODMAN: No, I'm saying the workers didn't do anything wrong.
BOORTZ: They did. They didn't pay attention. You pay attention to the health of your employer.
GOODMAN: If you are living in Flint, Michigan, or someplace, and that is where the jobs are, that's where you're going to take a job.
(CROSSTALK)
BOORTZ: They don't sell luggage in Flint, Michigan?
SANCHEZ: You are saying the union organizers and the union deal makers overreached and cost their company big bucks?
BOORTZ: I am saying, you know, you -- don't you pay some attention to the health of CNN?
SANCHEZ: Of course I do. BOORTZ: I pay attention to the health of the company that I work for. And if I see them going down the tubes, guess what? I am going to say, well, maybe, maybe I ought to make an escape plan here.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, but is there a fault on the part of the union people who didn't do this? That is the assertion he's making. Is he right?
GOODMAN: The union did have very generous contracts. There's no question about it. I think paying people for not working is not very smart to do.
And I agree the unions milked it for much more than they should have. But lately they have had massive concessions to try to help GM and Ford and Chrysler stay afloat. It is not enough for the level of sales.
GM sales were down 45 percent last month. So, no matter how many concessions they made, it wouldn't be enough...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But you remain with your original point that you think, Jordan, that the deal should be done and that Barack Obama is right as long as he says he gets some of these agreements from them that they're going to start putting that money into building cars not like they have been building in the last 10 years?
(CROSSTALK)
GOODMAN: That's correct.
There should be a tough negotiation, I agree, but the U.S. taxpayer is going to save money by saving GM and Ford and Chrysler much more than if they let them go under and have literally millions of jobs directly and all the suppliers be lost, and devastate places like Ohio, Michigan, and so on, even more than they already are.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Let me share with you the rest of the information. I finally got my hands on this. It is written in very small print. You probably couldn't read this.
BOORTZ: Mouse print, yes.
SANCHEZ: "Pelosi is not expected to specify how large a bailout she wants. The aides who described her views Tuesday did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss it publicly." This is coming from the Associated Press. "The speaker's decision comes a few days after General Motors warned that it is rapidly running out of cash, and Ford announced its situation was only slightly better."
They say that their stocks are down to the 1940s levels. Interesting enough.
All right, we're coming back in just a little bit. One of the things that we're going to be talking about is General Petraeus sounding Obama-ish when he says or suggests that we need to reconcile, if not talk to our enemies. General Wesley Clark is going to be joining us to discuss that.
Stay with us. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
When you claim to be as connected to the Internet as much as I do, you better get ready to take some heat for just about everything you say and do from those bloggers.
Case in point, yesterday, coming back from a break, I meant to say: Welcome back. Let's check the blogs.
Instead, I tripped over two words and said, "Welcome black." The blog socialites -- Gay Socialites -- pardon me -- said, I have -- quote -- "black on the brain." See it right there in their blog.
And then there's the Web site Nightlifegay. The headline on their blog reads: "Rich Sanchez welcomes you black" -- "Rich Sanchez."
OK. I made a mistake, but here is one for you. Who is Rich Sanchez?
Coming up: Republican governors are arriving in Miami as we speak to try and regroup the party. Do they go Palin's way, Charlie Crist's way, Pawlenty's way, Bush's way?
And guess who says we should reconcile with our friends? No, not Barack Obama. I will tell you that as well.
Stay with us. That is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Before we button up that segment, let me tell you what some of you are saying about it. Interesting.
Let's go over here to MySpace, where we hear Miguel Velez say: "We should let these big companies fail. They took a risk and screwed up. That is business. Open up the market for next big thing."
And then Liz is watching us, Liz Dyer down there. And she says, "You know, the bailout stinks, but it has to be done."
Now, what was that, Michael? Facebook? Thank you, Michael.
Let's change the subject.
I want to talk about something General Petraeus has been quoted as saying. He was talking to NPR and he said the following. Listen to these words, because they could have been very controversial about two years ago, if not even sooner. Let's see if we can put those up.
This is David Petraeus on an NPR report. He says, "I do think you have to talk to enemies." And then he goes on the say: "You don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency. If there are opportunities to identify and then isolate the irreconcilables in certain of these areas and then reach out to the reconcilables" -- key word, reconcilables -- "of course, that is a preferred course of action."
Let me bring in Wesley Clark. He's a retired four-star general. He's a former NATO commander. And he is just the perfect guest to be talking to about something like this.
Do you agree with what General Petraeus is now saying, which sounds so different from what they are saying a couple of years ago about this?
WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Absolutely. Absolutely.
It is what I have been saying from the very beginning, is, you must have politics inside Iraq. You must have diplomacy in the region, and you cannot win it by simply killing people.
SANCHEZ: Well, then what happened to the anathema of this argument, suggesting that you are a coward and you're not a patriot if you go and you talk to your enemies?
CLARK: Well, I don't know where that argument really came from. It was thrown out. It was political coinage. It was used in partisan politics.
But I think the military leadership has always been clear. And Dave Petraeus is certainly foremost among them now, but there have been many others who have said, look, you have to try to work this thing on different levels. You can't just win it by military force alone.
SANCHEZ: Look, real simple, clear question to you, as a commander, as a general, as a guy who has been there. Is Afghanistan even winnable?
CLARK: Well, I think we have got to be careful how we set our objectives in Afghanistan.
Is it possible to have an end to the killing and violence? Yes. Is it possible to have a Western-style democracy with full human rights and Thomas Jefferson-style principles there? Probably not right away.
SANCHEZ: OK.
CLARK: So, we have got to be careful how we define success there. SANCHEZ: What is it? What is reasonable for a success in that country, where we leave and say, look what a good thing we leave behind, as opposed to a mess?
CLARK: I think that you have got to look at ways to see the bigger picture. The bigger picture is tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, then issues in Pakistan, and then the spillover across the border, and then the results of 30 years of ceaseless conflict in Afghanistan. So, we have got to provide economic hope in the region. We have got to provide a modicum of security.
We can't impose our standards on peoples there that have their own ideas. We have got to respect them, probably decentralize a little bit in Afghanistan. Don't know. Going to have to work...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, you're right. You have got to look at this regionally.
So, let's talk region. Let's talk Pakistan. Barack Obama is saying we may need to fire into Pakistan, specifically to go after members of al Qaeda. I know that you can put on your political hat for us. You ran for the presidency as a Democrat, opposed Barack Obama. Is he wrong?
CLARK: No, I didn't oppose Barack Obama. I ran against John Kerry in 2003, and I campaigned for Barack Obama in this last election.
SANCHEZ: Thanks for the correction.
CLARK: I think he is exactly right. There may be times to do that.
I think the more we can help Pakistan to do this work themselves, the better off we are. The more we can be in a supporting role, instead of a leading role, the more we can take -- let Pakistanis' legitimate governmental institutions take the responsibility for the inevitable mistakes that occur when force is applied, the better off we are.
But I don't think you can say you will never, ever, if you get actionable intelligence on key figures, that you would never do it.
SANCHEZ: So, you could kind of have it both ways? You want to talk, as Petraeus said, talk to the reconcilables, in other words, try and get on the good side of those, but, at the same time, if you see one of the irreconcilables doing something, you fire at them, even if they are in Pakistan?
CLARK: Yes, but all things considered. Who else is there? What is the collateral damage? What is the likelihood of hitting them?
SANCHEZ: Yes.
CLARK: What is their real value in the organization? What is the impact of firing on them? How are you going to fire on them?
I think it is a dangerous thing for stability in the region to be too heavily overtly involved there. But, on the other hand, Pakistan needs support and assistance. And its government and military are in a very tough fight.
SANCHEZ: We're out of time, but I need a one-word answer for you. If Barack Obama asks you to be a part of his administration, will you accept?
CLARK: I would do anything I could to help the administration, but I am not asking for a position there. I just like to help.
SANCHEZ: Got it.
CLARK: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: General Wesley Clark, thanks so much, sir. Appreciate your time and your insight on this subject.
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: Thank you very much.
SANCHEZ: A huge meeting that is taking place in Miami. The Republican governors are arriving there as we speak. We are going to be talking to one of them about which way now for the GOP.
Stay with us. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I'm putting down my laptop to share with you some of the things that some of you are saying. Boy, continuing on the conversation. Neal Boortz has some followers out there and some people who agree with him. Don't be shocked. "Rick, Neal is right on. We must let business recover itself" -- this is from the Twitter board, Robert -- "must let our business recover itself. This is going too far. If G.M. fails, Toyota will expand. Simple."
Hmmm. Interesting.
I want to do this now. I want to talk about Republican governors, because they're going to be meeting. As a matter of fact, many of them have arrived or are already there or are arriving in Miami. We're talking about Palin from Alaska, Haley Barbour from Mississippi, Pawlenty from Minnesota, Jindal from Louisiana and Sanford from South Carolina, who's good enough to join us now.
Governor, thank so much for being with us, sir.
GOV. MARK SANFORD (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: My pleasure.
SANCHEZ: You know, as you walk into this convention center tomorrow in Miami -- and you're going to be in the presence of Sarah Palin, among others -- but I imagine she's going to really achieve or has achieved a some sense of almost rock star status, hasn't she?
BOORTZ: Well, obviously, she has. Anybody who has been a nominee on the vice presidential side is a big deal. We think she was a big deal before that, because she happened to be a Republican governor. And I think she had that star quality long before she got the nod from the McCain campaign.
SANCHEZ: I guess I asked you that question somewhat smart- alecky, wondering whether, as a result of that now, she leads the party.
How much more weight do her arguments get than they would have gotten prior to her being the candidate for the vice presidency?
SANFORD: Well, I mean, I think that what's unusual or I think important about being a governor is that everybody has their state that they attend to. I was formerly in the United States Congress. And there you certainly watch out for your district. But a lot of the issues are fundamentally national in nature.
And I guess it was Tip O'Neill, speaker of the House a long while ago, who said that all politics are local. And that holds very true of these different governorships.
So that the pressures that Bobby Jindal may be facing down in Louisiana inevitably may be quite different than that which, you know, Tim Pawlenty is facing up in the Upper Midwest.
And so I think that she will bring her opinion to the table, but so will everybody else. And I think that that's the whole point of the conversation we're going to have here come the end of the week, which is not only what are some policies, what are some practices that are best working within our respective states that we might then, in turn, borrow and use in different states.
SANCHEZ: Newt Gingrich tells "The New York Times" today -- and, Neal, you'll appreciate this. Newt Gingrich tells "The New York Times" today that the first thing those governors and Republicans need to do is to "honestly assess the failures of the last eight years."
Is he right?
BOORTZ: Oh, absolutely. The doubling of federal spending, the doubling of the size of government, the failure to live up to some of the promises made in 1994.
SANCHEZ: Do you agree, Governor?
SANFORD: Oh, absolutely. That will obviously be part of the conversation, as well. We're going to borrow ideas that work from each other and then we're going to have a big sit down and pow-wow about where does the party go next because...
SANCHEZ: But does it...
SANFORD: ...because we got a shellacking in the last... (LAUGHTER)
SANFORD: ...in the last election, much of which was well earned, based on people, as was just suggested, not walking the walk on things that they supposedly said they were going...
BOORTZ: The last two elections.
SANFORD: They campaigned as Republicans...
BOORTZ: The last two.
SANFORD: They just didn't govern that way.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Well, does it mean, though, there's an about-face that needs to be done here or just a minor tweak?
And there's an important distinction in those two, isn't there?
SANFORD: Well, I think that the about-face is back to the principles that originally brought to you power in the first place. I mean, Ted Stevens is, in many ways, the personification of what went wrong in the party. I mean here's a guy who did not talk about, you know, lower taxes and less spending. All he talked about was how much stuff can I bring home to my home state. And he became -- you know, stayed so long, he became ethically blind to some things that would have caught any hockey or soccer mom's eye. And that was the beginning of his end doing.
So, I just think that we've got to -- you know, you can call it an about-face or you can call it turning back to the principles that originally brought this party (INAUDIBLE).
KING: It's interesting, Governor. We have Sam Flowers, who's watching us right now, from Tennessee, I believe. And he says this -- this comment to us: "You know, I think that the only way for the conservative Republicans to regroup and regain their strength is to become more progressive as a whole. Being rigid in your views may not always be beneficial for the nation. Republicans need to gain a bit more flexibility in their policies, agenda and views."
Which leads us into the next discussion, interestingly enough, about what's going on in the South in particular.
Is there a particular Southern strategy, if not a Nixonian Southern strategy, just a Southern strategy that also, perhaps, needs to change?
We've got some interesting numbers to share with you and a map that really tells the story. Governor, would you mind hanging with us so we can get into that discussion?
SANFORD: Sure.
SANCHEZ: Good. We'll do that in just a little bit.
Is the South getting redder?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL)
SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back.
Here's what else is worth taking note of today. The "New York Times" picked up where I left off yesterday. I told you about my jog yesterday, about driving into rural Georgia, seeing flags at half staff in some places, about a sign on a church which suggested when the wicked rule, the people mourn.
I wanted to have the representatives from that church to join us today, but they say that the sign did not really fit the argument. They say it was not meant toward Barack Obama specifically, rather at politicians in general, and that it was just a way to get people to vote. We appreciate their sharing that with us, by the way.
According to "The New York Times," though, the South has gotten much redder. Take a look at this map.
You see that red area there?
It's really a pretty remarkable trend. While the rest of the country leaned more blue, Democrat in this last election, those counties you see right there, it's in the Deep South. They actually got more red. That means they voted more Republican in this election for John McCain and Sarah Palin than they had in the election of George W. Bush.
The Southern vote and the Southern strategies, when we come back.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL)
SANCHEZ: That's interesting. We've already gotten some response to the story that we started in that conversation. This is from Jefferybiggs. He says: "You know, "The New York Times" lumping all Southerners in one belief is poor journalism. The truth is the South is more progressive than ever."
Well, but then we go to the other map that we were looking at moments ago. And you'll see what you'll see in the actual "New York Times."
Wait, let me see if I can put that up. Stay with that, if you will.
All right, there's the map we were talking about. Look at Arkansas. That means they voted more Republican this time than they did in 2000 and 2004. Look at Tennessee. Look at parts there of Kentucky. Look at parts of Alabama and Georgia. Now, the coastal areas more Democrat, the deeper South more Republican.
Neal Boortz, as you look at this, the...
BOORTZ: The coastal areas are resort areas, resort homes, higher income. That's the I-95 Corridor. People streaming down there out of New England.
But as far -- if you want to call that the Deep South -- I'd call Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama and Georgia the Deep South. South Carolina -- a lot of blue there.
But I think that maybe this is one of the areas of the country where Independents -- independence of thought, independence of spirit still reigns. These are people that aren't quite yet ready to turn their lives over to government paternalism.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting you would say that.
Governor Sanford, are you with us, sir?
SANFORD: I am.
SANCHEZ: You know, as you look at this map and you start to look at the South, there was some suggestion in that "New York Times" article, for example, that maybe Democrats are going to get from this that you know what, they can win in the future without the South.
So if the South wants to be whatever word they want to use to describe them, let them be that way.
SANFORD: I would just say, you know, I'm going to leave the Democratic strategy up to the Democrats. But, you know -- and this is the whole point of the Republican governors meeting here come the end of this week, is where do we go next?
And I think that our problems as a party are much bigger than simply being progressive or coming up with the right strategy. All that we can be too cute by one half. It goes to the core of what is the brand about.
If you think about Caterpillar or John Deere or Campbell's Soup or any of the big brands across time, they have succeeded because they stand for something.
When you buy a John Deere tractor, you know you're going to get a John Deere tractor and it will do certain things.
SANCHEZ: Well, let me ask you a very specific question then.
Do you need to continue to stand for abortion, do you need -- or abortion rights or do you have to -- let me rephrase that.
Do you have to be anti-abortion, because that's a very important, big topic in the South, as is, you know, some of the other amendments for gay rights, for example?
Those are two big issues in that area...
SANFORD: Right.
SANCHEZ: And you've moved away from those.
SANFORD: But I would just respectfully say you're in the media and so you're going to pick the most controversial of topics out there. I happen to believe, yes, that remains important, because I think that life begins at conception. But that's a whole different story to what is very much on people's minds right now, which is do we stand for, in fact, restraint on spending?
I mean, if you look at this, you know, tsunami that's coming our way with regard to entitlement spending, does the Republican Party, in fact, stand for a restraint on spending or restraint on taxes?
Does it stand for economic freedom?
And you look at the list of bailouts and it looks like the auto companies are going to come next...
SANCHEZ: Can you...
SANFORD: ...and who knows who goes after that?
SANCHEZ: Can you be both, though?
Can you be a fiscal conservative Republican and a social conservative Republican at the same time without making one side mad, Neal Boortz?
And then to the governor.
BOORTZ: Well, I think one thing here is that that governors meeting in Miami, in that group -- and I don't know how many -- Governor Sanford, I don't know how many Republican governors there are. I should.
SANFORD: There are 21 and 19 of them will be here.
BOORTZ: The Republicans' next candidate for president is going to be at that meeting in Miami. It's going to come from some governor. It could be Mark Sanford. It could be...
SANCHEZ: It very well could be Mark Sanford.
BOORTZ: It could be Rick Perry. Bobby Jindal is a real rising star.
SANCHEZ: Charlie Crist.
BOORTZ: Charlie Crist. So tread lightly down there, because your next senatorial or your next presidential candidate is coming from there.
All -- you know, also, Rick Perry.
SANCHEZ: But you -- I mean... BOORTZ: Unless...
SANCHEZ: If -- you're not a Republican, but if you were to tag yourself in that area...
BOORTZ: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ...you'd be the fiscal kind, right?
You're not a social...
BOORTZ: I'm a social -- I'm pretty much a social liberal. I'm a fiscal conservative.
SANCHEZ: A fiscal conservative.
BOORTZ: And if I had to pick a Republican candidate right now...
SANCHEZ: It wouldn't be Sarah Palin, then?
BOORTZ: No, it wouldn't be. It would be Mike Huckabee.
SANCHEZ: Mike Huckabee.
BOORTZ: Yes.
SANCHEZ: If...
BOORTZ: And I'm going to be with him this weekend at a fair tax rally, by the way, Governor Sanford.
SANCHEZ: But Governor Sanford, do you have to make a choice?
Answer the question, if you would, sir.
Do you have to choose either fiscal responsibility or...
SANFORD: No, I don't think so. I mean this is the whole notion of a big tent. If you look at, again, go back to Ronald Reagan. His was not exactly a dying flower from the standpoint of electoral success. His was the big tent that included social conservatives, it included fiscal conservatives and, for that matter, you know, defense hawks.
So I think that you could have electoral success, but the key there is actually standing for something. And the problem of the Republican Party has been it has gotten incredibly cloudy as to what it does or doesn't stand for.
SANCHEZ: Governor...
SANFORD: The bailouts are doing that. The spending is doing that -- a variety of problems that we're going to talk about come the end of this week.
SANCHEZ: And Mark Sanford joining us from Miami, getting ready for that big GOP Association meeting today -- Governors Association meeting. We'll be covering it tomorrow, as well.
Thank you, sir, for talking the time to talk to us.
SANFORD: It's sure a pleasure.
SANCHEZ: Next, a Kennedy on the Kennedys and a new book that he has out. Boortz and a Kennedy -- get ready for that.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back.
I'm Rick Sanchez here, along with Neal Boortz, who's joining us today as my anchor buddy.
Let's go to the Twitter board, if we can. This is pawmarks, who says: "Women's rights, including reproductive and gay rights, are fundamental reasons I no longer vote Republican."
That's interesting.
Now let's go over here. This is Facebook. On Facebook, we have John saying to us: "Rick, I live in the Deep South of Texas and I can tell you firsthand that the reason for this higher Republican voting is because of race. That is the god's honest truth. I caught more hell for being a white man voting for Obama. It's ridiculous."
What do you think of that, Neal?
BOORTZ: Well, I mean he's supporting Obama. So we will assume there that he's Democrat and he wants to cast aspersions on Republicans.
What better way to say than they didn't vote for Obama because they're a bunch of racists?
SANCHEZ: Interesting point.
BOORTZ: I mean it's a -- I think it's exactly what you would expect out of him.
SANCHEZ: All right.
Well, let's go to Max Kennedy. Max Kennedy, as you know, is a Kennedy, which is one of the reasons that we're talking to him. My gosh, it's that face, isn't it -- that Kennedy look.
Thanks so much for joining us.
You've written a book. It's called "Dangerous Hour."
This is an interesting topic, when you think about it, about what's going on in the world today. "Danger's Hour" -- kamikaze pilot that crippled the USS Bunker Hill. You know, interesting topic considering what we're going through today.
You know, I should probably ask you this straight out. Bill Maher got in trouble for saying the 9-11 attackers were courageous.
They were, in a sense, kamikaze guys.
Do you link the kamikaze guys with some of the people who are doing these suicide bombings today in our world?
MAX KENNEDY, SON OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY: Well, I don't directly link that in the book. But -- and let me just say, I'm really grateful to be here on Veterans Day.
But the -- you know, there's different types of courage. And, you know, there's one fellow in the book who ordered 200 of his men to go down into the bottom of the Bunker Hill and -- knowing that they were going to die, but that it would save the other 3,000 men aboard.
SANCHEZ: Wow!
KENNEDY: And I think the courage to send men to their death when you're absolutely certain that they're going to die is also a special kind of courage.
SANCHEZ: You're working on something having to do with suicide bombers, as well, aren't you?
What can you share with us about that, because it's -- you know, I'll tell you, it's something that the world is kind of tussling with right now -- who are these guys and are they different than soldiers or soldiers in their own right?
KENNEDY: Yes. I think it's an incredible point. And General Petraeus sort of spoke to it today when he talked about, you know, those who could be convinced to come over to our side.
And the amazing thing that I found when interviewing -- I interviewed about 100 kamikaze pilots who had not flown their final mission. And almost universally, they now love the United States.
And I think that -- you know, America has so much to offer the world and we are a unique country. And I think that, you know, that does point, as General Petraeus said, to a way out of the mess, you know, in terms of the Islamic fundamentalists because I think that the more people get to know America and what this country is really about -- and I'm not talking about Gap Jeans, but, you know, rather the camaraderie and the...
SANCHEZ: The spirit...
KENNEDY: ...you know, the sense of purpose.
SANCHEZ: The moral. Right. Yes.
KENNEDY: The moral base of being a Democrat, small D, in America, that that is a very, very powerful idea.
SANCHEZ: I've got to fish for news while I have you here. Your brother may be the head of the EPA. Your cousin may become ambassador to the United Nations.
What do you know?
(LAUGHTER)
KENNEDY: I'm going to...
SANCHEZ: Do...
KENNEDY: I think I'll let Senator Obama make those decisions.
SANCHEZ: Well, is there a feeling in the family that this is an opportunity, with an Obama presidency, to kind of link -- get linked up with power once again?
I suppose I should say the winning side?
KENNEDY: You know, I don't think -- I think that there's so many people in my family who are trying to make a difference in all sorts of different areas. You know, my sister works with volunteerism, my brother Bobby on the environment. My brother Joe helps people get, you know, oil for their -- to heat their homes.
And I think when a Democrat is in the White House, all of those efforts are, you know, made easier, because -- you know, our party, as your guests were saying earlier -- our party's fundamental value is that as a culture and as a society, we care for every single one of us -- not just the least among us, but all of us together -- which is really what I saw on that ship on the Bunker Hill that I wrote about.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
KENNEDY: It's an amazing thing.
SANCHEZ: Ted Kennedy, how is he doing?
I mean I have to ask you that question.
KENNEDY: No, thank you.
SANCHEZ: We're running out of time.
How is he doing?
KENNEDY: No, no. Thank you for asking. He's amazing. When you see him, you would have no idea that he's dealing with this -- this terrible illness. And he's absolutely alert and he's preparing legislation that, hopefully, they're going to start passing on January 20th.
SANCHEZ: I'll tell you, it's great to have you.
Max Kennedy.
The book is called "Danger's Hour," the story of a kamikaze pilot that crippled the USS Bunker Hill.
My thanks to you, sir.
KENNEDY: Thank you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Let's go to Wolf Blitzer.
He's standing by now to bring us up to date on what's coming up on "THE SITUATION ROOM."
Wolf, what you got?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Rick.
Today in "THE SITUATION ROOM," a CNN exclusive -- President George Bush's first interview since the election. He speaks with our own Heidi Collins about his meeting with Barack Obama, what he thinks about John McCain's loss, what he thinks about his low approval ratings and a lot more. He also talks about U.S. troops on this Veterans Day. That's coming up.
Plus, the head of Barack Obama's team meets with reporters to talk about the transition to power. And for the first time, we're seeing just how big the operation is and how quickly the president- elect will tap his cabinet.
And he went from important neighbor to president of the United States -- what life is like now on the Obama family's street in Chicago.
All that and a lot more, Rick, coming up in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
SANCHEZ: Hey, thanks so much.
We appreciate it, Wolf.
Ted Turner is part of our Fix today. You'll have that, along with Neal's reaction, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Time for The Fix. And you're going to love what you hear on this one. Talk about signs of the times and a little bit of Ted Turner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "LATE NIGHT WITH CONAN O'BRIEN, COURTESY NBC)
CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: And it's sort of sour news about the economy. The federal government has announced that due to the bad economy, it's going to have to lay off 40,000 postal workers. Yes. Yes, 40,000 disgruntled postal workers. What could possibly go wrong?
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "AMERICAN MORNING")
JOHN ROBERTS, CO-ANCHOR, "AMERICAN MORNING": Jane Fonda has said -- and she said in the "60 Minutes" interview that aired over the weekend, that she still loves you.
Is there a...
TED TURNER, CNN FOUNDER: She didn't say that.
ROBERTS: Well, she says that she would be at your side in a blue minute.
TURNER: If I was -- if I needed her.
ROBERTS: I would assume that somebody wouldn't do that unless they loved you.
TURNER: Well, that was -- it was nice of her to do.
ROBERTS: Any chance for reconciliation there?
TURNER: I don't think so, but you never know.
ROBERTS: What would it take?
TURNER: I don't know.
(LAUGHTER)
TURNER: More than a television interview.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: You and him are two of the most famous people in Atlanta.
What do you make of that?
BOORTZ: We go way back.
SANCHEZ: Really?
BOORTZ: I remember a lunch before CNN where he took me to lunch one day and said, Neal, I'm going to start this cable news network. What...
(LAUGHTER) BOORTZ: You know, would you like to stop what you're doing now and come?
Yes, right, Ted. Yes.
SANCHEZ: It will never work.
BOORTZ: Yes. You know, let me know how that works out for you.
SANCHEZ: And here you are now with me.
BOORTZ: Yes. Right.
SANCHEZ: We thank you.
Let's go to Stephanie Elam. She's checking on what's going on with the markets.
Up day, down day -- tell us, Stephanie. We're dying to hear.
(STOCK MARKET REPORT)
SANCHEZ: We've been talking about General Motors and here's what's interesting. We haven't had response like this in a long time on one question. Watch this one, Stephanie.
This is on MySpace. Somebody says: "Rick, why does the government get to pick and choose what companies to help and which to leave behind? They let Lehman fall, but bailed out AIG, among others. Now it gets to play God with the auto companies. What gives?"
What do you make of that -- Steph?
STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I don't think I have time to make much of it. But I think there's a lot that they're looking at to go through. There's a lot of companies in pain right now. And the Dow off 180 points today.
SANCHEZ: All right. We thank you, Steph.
We thank you, Neal Boortz. And we'll see you again.
BOORTZ: All right.
SANCHEZ: Neal Boortz is standing by now with "THE SITUATION ROOM".
BLITZER: All right. Thanks very much, Rick.
