Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Justice Stevens to Retire from Supreme Court; Possible GOP Candidates Show for Conference; Bart Stupak to Retire from Congress; Fighting High Property Taxes
Aired April 09, 2010 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Good Friday afternoon to you all. I'm Ali Velshi. I'm going to be with you for the next two hours today and every weekday. I'm going to take every important topic that we cover and break it down for you. We've got a full plate today. I'll try and give you a level detail on each of those stories that will help you make important decisions about how you vote, where you travel, and what you spend.
Let's get right down to it. I've got a new rundown for this hour. We're following a major developing story today: another retirement from the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice John Paul Stevens ends the speculation and says he is stepping down this summer.
Will President Obama pick a replacement that maintains the balance on the high court, amid this poisoned political climate? We'll look at the contenders. We'll look at the odds-on favorite in just a moment.
You can bet the president is already weighing his choices. He is just minutes away from taking the White House podium where we're expected -- we're expecting him to talk about Justice Stevens, as well as the mine disaster in West Virginia.
Four miners are still unaccounted for. Rescuers are suffering setback after setback. We'll go to West Virginia and bring you the latest.
Also on the rundown, thousands of Republicans gathering in New Orleans right now, and potential presidential candidates are testing the waters. We'll hear from one of them, Sarah Palin, live this hour.
Let's get right to our developing story: a major change happening in the highest court in the land. Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring, probably this summer. He's the oldest member of the current court, serving 34 years.
Here's a breakdown of the way the court looks right now. On the left -- the political left, I'm talking about -- you've got Stevens topping the list. Then Judge Ginsburg. He's at least considered the leader of the liberal bloc. After he's gone, you've still got Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and the newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor leaning left. Anthony Kennedy is in the middle. He's often the swing vote, but he is often also been thought to have looked to John Paul Stevens for influence on -- on how he thinks about judgments.
On the right, you've got Justice John Roberts, the chief justice; Antonin Scalia; Clarence Thomas; and Samuel Alito.
Kate Bolduan is live outside the Supreme Court for us. CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin joins us live from New York. Roland Martin will be joining us on the phone. Jeff, by the way, literally wrote the book on the Supreme Court. "The Nine" is the name of the book, "Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court." Roland is in Philadelphia, joining us by phone.
Kate, let's start with you. The update on the news that we've got this morning.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Hey there, Ali.
Well, of course, you really topped it off really, really well. Justice John Paul Stevens has announced that he is stepping down. And that, of course, quickly moves to the question of what's next, who is next.
And from what we know, I mean, it's all part of the conversation that's going to be going on for days and weeks ahead. President Obama announced his choice of Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor now, about 26 days after -- after a retirement. And some people -- many think that President Obama will be ready to make his announcement possibly a little faster this time around.
But who will that be? Of course, there are a lot of names being tossed around. No one ever knows. People close to the process do tell CNN that it is likely, while there is a list of quote, unquote, you know, "top contenders," Ali, that we'll talk about, that they do fully expect President Obama to ask to expand his list of options, to look at more people.
But here are some of the people that are being talked about for the job. One person that we've heard about before, we're hearing about it again, is Elena Kagan. She's 49 years old, currently the solicitor general to the United States. That is the government's top appellate attorney. I've seen her working here and arguing cases in here this year. Very strong person, very strong -- very strong contender. But she does have no judicial experience, no experience as a judge.
Another person being talked about is Judge Diane Wood. She's 59 years old, Ali. She is from the Chicago Court of Appeals. That is actually the same court where Justice John Paul Stevens came from. She's really seen as a strong intellectual force. And being a strong intellectual force in the left -- in the liberal bloc is something that may people say they really need. They need maybe what they would call the Justice Scalia of the left, to really kind of offer some of those fiery sound bites, while we only really get quotes coming out of the Supreme Court, but that's one thing that people say they are looking for.
Another name that we do -- are hearing a lot about is Judge Merrick Garland, 57 years old. He is a judge from the D.C., Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals. He is really seen as more of a moderate choice, would have maybe a more -- an easier go during the confirmation process. But all of this, of course, is talk, as, of course, we now wait for President Obama to make that announcement. But these are some of the people being talked about for the job.
VELSHI: Yes. Great job setting that up for us. Kate, stay right there.
Jeff Toobin, our senior legal analyst. Jeff, the president can't move the court more to the left, because he's going to appoint somebody who's being replaced from the left. So ultimately, what's the political consideration here?
We know the president will replace Justice Stevens with somebody who has some of his points of view, a liberal point of view. What has he -- what else has he got to be thinking about? Does he have to worry about the fact that Justice Stevens was an elder statesman on the court and influenced people like Kennedy and others?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, yes, that's true. But I wouldn't diminish the significance of any appointment to the court. Yes, it is true that the ideological balance will remain more or less intact. But Justice Byron White had an expression he liked to use that other Supreme Court justices quote all the time. And he says, when you change one member of the court, you don't just change one member of the court; you change the whole court.
And if there are suddenly two new young liberal members of the court, young by Supreme Court standards, Sonia Sotomayor and, say, Elena Kagan, that gives the liberals a considerable amount of momentum.
Yes, it is going to be very important to build an alliance with Anthony Kennedy. Anthony Kennedy is the most powerful Supreme Court justice of our lifetime. He has to decide so many big cases, because the court is so polarized in terms of the other eight justices. So, yes, it will be important to pick someone who is a consensus builder, who can reach out to Justice Kennedy.
But it is also, when you're making Supreme Court appointments, you're playing for the long term here. This Supreme Court justice, in all likelihood, will be in office decades after Barack Obama is gone from the presidency. So that's a very significant factor, and the turnover in justices, you know, can come quickly or it can come late. But you never know when it's going to come. So the fact, if you can name a young justice, it makes a big, big difference.
VELSHI: You -- when we talked last you felt that Elena Kagan, the country's solicitor general, the -- sort of the highest name on the list that isn't a judge, is the most likely candidate, in your -- in your view.
TOOBIN: I still do. And I'm going to probably have to say this a bunch of times over the next few weeks. Elena Kagan and I were law school classmates. We have been friends for a long time. So you should probably discount what I say a little bit in light of that.
Nevertheless, I do think that she is a very strong candidate. She's only 49 years old. She had a reputation at Harvard Law School, which was an extremely ideologically divided place, of being a consensus builder. She was very popular with the conservatives, with the Federalist Society at Harvard Law School.
She has experience in the executive branch. She worked in Bill Clinton's White House. She got along; she had positive dealings with Senator John McCain, dealing with smoking legislation. She's someone who has experience in the broader world, not just in the courtroom. In fact, she would not be a judge, first justice in quite some time who has not been a judge.
I think all of that plays in her favor, but it is very far from a done deal. And I don't know who he's going to pick.
VELSHI: Roland, are you on the phone? Are you with us?
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN ANALYST (via phone): Absolutely. Absolutely.
VELSHI: Roland, the president just passes health care. He -- he's trying to move on to sell this in light of a new -- of a mid-term election coming up. What does this do to the president's agenda, that John Paul Stevens has announced that he's going to step down in the summer? It was expected. He had told Jeff Toobin this just about a month ago. But what exactly is this going to do to the president's agenda?
MARTIN: Well, the conventional wisdom out of D.C. is that this is going to, frankly, get in the way. Folks are saying that, well, they hoped that he would do this after the election.
But frankly, I disagree with that. Coming out of health care, now you're talking about financial reform, also the student loan bill. What you're seeing are Democrats who are saying, "Look, we want to run the table. We now want to really take charge with our particular agenda. And look at the home foreclosure program.
And so what I'm hearing out of the White House is that, "Look, we're not going to treat as if everything is going to shut down; the whole focus is going to be on getting this nominee confirmed." They said this is one of many things that they want to be able to do.
Republicans clearly recognize an opportunity. Understand, when you have a Supreme Court nominee, perhaps it energizes the left and the right in terms of the people who take a hard position.
On the left right now, the question is going to be whether or not he is going to appoint -- seeing a liberal, will he appoint a centrist. The left -- folks are already saying is they don't want somebody where they have to figure out if they're going to be a strong liberal.
Remember Harriet Miers? Social conservatives said, "Look, Mr. President, we like you, but we're not quite sure about her." The left is saying they want somebody with -- a strong liberal to maintain the presence on the court. When it comes to the president's agenda, they're saying, "We are going to handle multiple things at one time." But clearly, this can energize the left, because you've had Democrats' lagging enthusiasm after the health-care year-long debate. This is going to help them get their folks involved.
Now, the last piece: the president has to pay attention to the centrist notion because, remember, he's been losing independent voters...
VELSHI: Right.
MARTIN: ... who put him in the White House. And so politics will play a role who he chooses.
VELSHI: All right. Roland, thanks very much for joining us with that analysis. Jeff Toobin, our senior legal analyst, and Kate Bolduan is at the Supreme Court following the story. We will be back with you both. Thanks very much for that.
We're going to continue our coverage of this -- this story, including cases that are before the Supreme Court that could be seen by this new justice and how that might affect you. We'll stay on this story.
The other big political story today is the Southern Republicans' Leadership Conference that is going on right now in New Orleans. It's being called the unofficial jumping-off point for the president -- the 2012 presidential election. So you're going to want to hear who may be running. You're also going to want to hear from Sarah Palin, who is there, and we'll be bringing you that live very shortly. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Some of you political junkies may like this. Some of you are probably wondering why we're already talking about the 2012 race for the White House. But for some people it's in full swing.
Yesterday a gathering began of top Republican officials and an early cattle call, if you will, of potential presidential candidates. It's the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The SRLC is essentially a fund-raising convention. It's being held in New Orleans.
Among possible White House candidates in New Orleans this weekend, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, U.S. representatives Mike Pence of Indiana and Ron Paul of Texas, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, all of them potential candidates. And there are more, some of whom are not there.
Let's go to our chief political correspondent who is there, Candy Crowley.
Candy, what -- what is this? This is a testing ground for presidential candidates? CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it is, but even more than that, it's a table setting for 2010. Remember, there are huge elections coming up in November: all of the House, a third of the Senate. It is very important to Republicans that they seize control of one of the other. Their pipe dream, of course, at least their dream, and they think it's reachable, is for the Senate and the house. So there is that.
But there is also, as you noted, pretty much a 2012 flavor to this, because a lot of the rhetoric here, while they do talk about the upcoming elections, is really about President Obama, is about the direction of the country. And so that's much more of a presidential race kind of conversation than it is about Congress and the Senate...
VELSHI: Right.
CROWLEY: ... although Newt Gingrich, although he did, in fact, give a speech about the president, also talked, in fact, about being a party of yes, coming up in 2010. So it's a little of both.
VELSHI: Well, that -- and that's a good issue, because right now the Republicans, Sarah Palin, wore that -- that hug warmly, the idea that they are the party of no. She said, "What's wrong with being the party of no when there's a president working against the wishes of the people?"
Who is the candidate who's most likely to emerge from this gathering? And are they likely to have the same candidate that Republicans nationwide would like to embrace?
CROWLEY: Who knows? They still have a straw poll on Saturday. I imagine it will be somebody who showed up here today. Noticeably, or at least during this conference noticeably, we have not seen Mitt Romney. We have not seen Tim Pawlenty, both of them off doing other things. They're not coming to this conference. So generally, it will probably be somebody here.
But you know, these straw polls, like the larger national polls we do, which are far more scientific, are really a lot about what people think right now. And the reason we keep taking polls is polls change.
VELSHI: Right.
CROWLEY: So somebody, you know -- I think it's probably a good guess that perhaps it would be Sarah Palin. She is drawing a big crowd here for her speech. But who knows? And again, it will have staying power for about two or three days before something else happens.
VELSHI: All right. Let's talk about this discussion. I'm going to talk to Mark Scoda (ph) very shortly from the Memphis Tea Party. This business about the Tea Party and the Republican Party, Tea Party probably fielding candidates in November. What happens here? Do they -- do they split the same base and only give more room for the Democrats to succeed in November?
CROWLEY: Certainly, neither side of that equation wants to do that. Although the Tea Party says, "We want to put conservative Republicans in place." The wish on both sides is, if in those primaries there's been a big battle, that's fine. Whoever wins, what they want to work on doing is bringing conservatives and Republicans together.
But there's no doubt that there is a splitting right now of some in the party who think, "You know, some of this is a little bit excessive, maybe a little too conservative for me."
But they are treating the Tea Party very respectfully and very gently, frankly, because what the Republicans understand is that, in fact, the passion right now is with the Tea Party.
VELSHI: Right.
CROWLEY: And what do you want in November, which an off-year election? You want the passion. So the Republicans are trying to figure out how to embrace that passion without embracing what may be the excesses of conservatives or others that may or may not be members of the Tea Party.
VELSHI: All right. Candy, we'll check right back in with you very shortly. We're going to be listening in on Sarah Palin's comments.
Candy Crowley is our chief political correspondent and the host of "STATE OF THE UNION" on CNN.
Sarah Palin is slated to address about 4,000 activists at the conference later this hour. And we will dip into that live when it happens.
Now, the housing bubble burst years ago, so why are you paying pumped- up property taxes based on a value that doesn't really exist for your house? Christine Romans is going to show us how you can fight the tax man and save hundreds of dollars right, after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: I want to go right to Dana Bash, our senior congressional correspondent. She has got an exclusive interview with Congressman Bart Stupak, who has announced that he will be retiring.
Dana, what have you got?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Well, we do have the congressman here. We're lucky enough to have the congressman for his first interview since announcing that he is retiring from Congress.
Congressman, thank you very much for joining us.
The first question I asked you in the press conference, but you said that there wasn't really one specific issue that tipped your decision, but there had to have been a light-bulb moment when you said, I can't do this anymore.
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: No, not really. It had been building for some time, the last two or three election cycles. Laurie and I and our family would sit down, and do we want to go another time. This district, as you know, is a massive district. When I come out of Washington, I don't go home. I stop home for a minute, see my wife for a few hours. I'm on the road again, and I'm gone all weekend, sleeping in different motel rooms. And it's just -- it's just finally after 18 years, just got enough is enough.
BASH: Now, your wife got choked up when she was talking about the kinds of calls that you have gotten.
STUPAK: Sure.
BASH: Not just at your office but at your home. She talked about the fact that they were vulgar, cruel, and profane, and threatening.
STUPAK: Yes.
BASH: And you said that most of them were from outside the district.
STUPAK: They are.
BASH: But that had to have had an impact on your family and your decision.
STUPAK: Well, it's unnerving. But, you know, I've been a police officer for many years. I've been through some tough things. We've gone through this before. But not to the degree of viciousness of this time.
And when you look at it, and you know, I'd been thinking about time to retire. We got health care passed, my No. 1 goal I ran on in 1992 was national health care, accomplished what I went to do. I was tired of the travel. Maybe this just sort of icing on the cake on my decision that, do you need this anymore?
I have -- I'm still a young guy. I got plenty of opportunities out there. I want to do those opportunities. I'm not going to be in Congress the rest of my life. I always said that. And this is a great time to step aside while we have a good Democrat majority in the House and Senate.
BASH: Now, you were announcing, as you know, as the Tea Party Express is here in your district. They came initially to try to send you into early retirement. You made that decision for them. But there's somebody who prides yourself -- I've watched you -- as a fighter. Is there any risk in looking like you're actually a coward, not a fighter here?
STUPAK: No, no, no.
BASH: And saying this as they're here trying to get you out of office?
STUPAK: No. Tea Party is not even from my district, you know. I'm glad -- I hope they're spending...
BASH: I was there yesterday. There were a number of people from your district at that first rally.
STUPAK: OK. Well, they were in my district in summer. Look it. Ads you see on TV, where are they from? Sacramento, California. All the -- most of the calls that come to our office, Texas. I mean, that's what the Tea Party is.
This district is independents. One-third independents, one-third Democrats, one-third Republicans. You have groups come and go. When I ran it was the Perot people, the Ross Perot people. I mean, I get along with those folks. And even if they were from my district, they're my friends. And there's no doubt in my mind I would win re- election if I chose to run again. I've chose not to.
BASH: Congressman, I'm going to toss it back...
STUPAK: Sure.
BASH: ... for this live section to Ali Velshi, but we're going to keep talking. And Ali, thanks for your time. It's very interesting to hear the congressman. Obviously, he has been a huge figure and gained a lot of notoriety because of his vote for the health-care bill and the struggle that went along with that. And we'll talk more to the congressman about that and get that to you later.
VELSHI: We look forward to hearing more about that, Dana. And those threats that you were referring to were because -- because Congressman Stupak made a deal to support health care, along with others who shared his view, anti-abortion views, but was able to do that. And those were those vicious calls that you were asking him about.
BASH: Exactly.
VELSHI: All right. Dana, thanks very much. Continue your conversation.
BASH: That's exactly right.
VELSHI: We'll check in with you again. Thanks.
BASH: Thanks, Ali.
VELSHI: Dana Bash with Congressman Bart Stupak, who has announced that he is retiring from Congress.
All right. I want to bring Christine Romans in. Here's an interesting conundrum that people are being faced with. High taxes, high property taxes. A lot of people's taxes were based on their property value in 2005, 2006, 2007.
Take a look at this. You might have had a house back then that was worth a lot of money -- let's say 2007 -- and you were assessed taxation as a result of that. But then your value has come down from your house. But now you're still stuck with taxes that are based on a higher value. What are you supposed to do about that?
Well, there are a few things you can do. But first I want to tell you what these property taxes pay for.
They are very, very important to your -- to your municipality. They pay for schools. They pay for libraries. They pay for emergency services. They pay for other services that you'll see itemized on your bill. But they're a major source of government revenue.
So when we talk about all these cuts that you're seeing, in many cases it's because people have given up their homes, they're lost their homes. And as a result of that, cities and states don't have as much money from taxes.
That said, a lot of people don't want to keep on paying high taxes based on a higher valuation. Christine Romans joins me now. She's my co-host on "YOUR $$$$$." There she is in New York.
Christine, what do you do if your find yourself in this position?
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Look, it really irritates people, been in the same house for 10 or 15 years, and they've seen their taxes double or triple. Right? And now they're still being taxed on 2005, 2006, 2007 valuations of their home, and they didn't even think it was worth that much at the peak.
So you look around the country, Ali. Home prices are down 30 percent. Some parts of the country they're down by half. In for example, Phoenix, down very sharply; down more than 40 percent in Miami. And so, depending on where you are, if you were assessed near the bubble, you're paying a heck of a lot more right now than you were -- than you think that you should be.
And a lot of people are walking into their county assessors and saying, "How is it -- how can I -- how can I pay taxes that are more reflective of what you're seeing on that screen there?"
Sixty percent of properties in this country, Ali, might very well be over-assessed right now. This is according to the National Taxpayers Union, which by the way, favors lower taxation overall.
Only about 4 percent of people go and try to appeal their tax bill. Only 4 percent. And of those who do, Ali, up to 40 percent of them are actually successful.
Now, one of the things anecdotally we've been hearing, because we've been talking about this on Twitter and Facebook, one of the things anecdotally, some people are saying they've had better luck if they do it themselves, they get all the paperwork and keep all the paperwork. They have an example of five or six different properties in their neighborhood or in their county that is assessed at a lower rate and that they're very diligent about their own paperwork, and they don't come in there with some high-paid, fancy lawyer to do the dirty work for them.
They have found that this is the kind of thing...
VELSHI: Yes.
ROMANS: ... that's been working a little bit better on the local level.
And every -- every county is different.
VELSHI: Yes.
ROMANS: So you've got to be careful about -- about how you do that. But basically, you need to go to the county and say, "I'd like to appeal my taxes, because I think there's been a decline in value in this property."
VELSHI: The biggest issue here is having comparable properties. What other people pay in their taxes...
ROMANS: Yes.
VELSHI: ... what other properties have sold for. That's what you need to -- you need to prove. But they're not going to go out of their way to prove it for you. If you show up with the paperwork and you get this done, you might succeed.
ROMANS: Right.
VELSHI: Hey, Christine, I want to ask you something else.
ROMANS: You've got to also...
VELSHI: Just go ahead.
ROMANS: Sure. No, you go.
VELSHI: Finish your sentence. Finish your sentence.
ROMANS: No, you also want to make sure that the math is correct and that, if someone comes to your house and is assessing your house, they actually go inside the house, and they haven't made any mistakes on the paperwork, because there are a lot of mistakes.
VELSHI: Very good. You know, Christine, what some of our viewers don't know is that there's -- sometimes there's a little bit of a tiny delay between you and me talking. That's why I interrupted you. I apologize for that.
Listen, this weekend you and I are not doing "YOUR $$$$$" together, because you're doing something very special, very important.
ROMANS: No.
VELSHI: And by your definition, it's a topic that is sometimes boring but very, very important.
ROMANS: Boring but important. That's -- I always say that should be the thing that comes underneath my name, right? Christine Romans, boring but important.
Look, this is "IOUSA Solutions." It's a film that's about fixing right now our huge, mounting, exploding debt problems in the country. Ali, let's listen to a little bit of the clip of the film.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In 2008 our federal budget deficit, which is how much money the U.S. government needed to borrow to pay all its bills, rose dramatically to $459 billion. Last year, due to extraordinary economic conditions, our budget deficit exploded to $1.4 trillion. That's over $4,500 for every American.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: And then when that graphic and that film goes on to show the projected budget deficits, you keep having to pull back from that screen...
VELSHI: Wow.
ROMANS: ... to make the scale so that you can get all of that red ink. It's a pretty dramatic representation of what many people are concerned about, exploding problems. Once the debt problems, once the economy gets under control and is growing again, Ali, what kinds of things do we need to do as a nation to address those growing -- those growing debts?
We have a lot of guests from every kind of political spectrum to talk about raising taxes, cutting services, what kinds of things we need to do, what kind of sacrifices need to be made. We talked to old people, young people, experts, and -- and people who just want to, you know, make sure that they can assure living standards for this country for their next generation and those beyond it.
It's 1:00 on Saturday Eastern time, 3:00 on Sunday. I hope you guys will stop by and - and watch.
VELSHI: In place of "Your $$$$$" this weekend.
Christine, you are never boring to me. It's always my pleasure to talk to you everyday. It's an extra treat for me.
ROMANS: Thanks.
VELSHI: Christine Romans, my cohost on "Your $$$$$", but this weekend catch her 1:00 P.M. on Saturday, 3:00 P.M. on Sunday for "IOU.S.A."
Bringing you up to seed on the top stories we're covering, the site of the West Virginia coal mine disaster, rescue teams reached one of the two chambers where they hoped four missing miners might be. It was empty, and smoke forced them to turn back before they made it to the second chamber.
Another opening coming on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens sent a letter to President Obama today saying he is retiring at the end of the summer session. Stevens will turn 90 this month.
He was nominate by President Ford back in 1975. He's viewed as the leader of the High Court's Liberal block. Today's other big retirement story, Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan says he wouldn't seek a tenth term. Anti-abortion Democrat came under fire from the Left and the Right for his 11th hour deal with the White House to support the health care reform bill.
He signed on after he was satisfied that the measure bans federal funding for abortion.
And in Augusta, Georgia, Tiger Woods is still on the first page of the leader board today after his best-ever opening round at the Masters yesterday. It's Woods' first tournament since he stepped away from golf five months ago following revelations of numerous affairs.
And, oh yes, springtime, the beauty of the blooming trees and flowers. There is a downside which I have experienced quite acutely this year. We'll tell you about the Susan - the season's bloom and gloom when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Spring is taking a break in some parts of the country. There's even snow on the map. But allergy sufferers look out.
Chad Myers is tracking the weather and the pollen for us in the CNN Weather Center. What do you got, Chad?
CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: This was a perfect storm season for pollen this year, Ali. Temperatures warmed up everywhere in the eastern part of the United States, from 40 to 70 and 80, and stayed there for enough days and all the trees just went - bing. All the grasses did the same thing.
And even across the Deep South, pollen is high all of the way - and then it didn't rain. It just didn't rain for five or six days, and that pollen hung in the air and people in here, I swear they were - they were sluggish. It was like they weren't getting enough oxygen because the - their lungs were filled with this pollen and the oxygen couldn't get across the membranes, I don't know. People were just - they were lethargic.
Finally now, at least with the rainfall from yesterday, things have gotten a little bit better here across the southeast, across the northeast as well, washing away some of that pollen. It gets so ridiculous in Georgia that things literally turned kind of a chartreuse green because of the pollen as it just lands on everything.
Still going to be here, still going to be high for the weekend, but certainly numbers, Ali, cut in half from how many pollen grains have been in the air to how many pollen grains are in the air.
VELSHI: I'm not one of those guys that really reacts to it that much, but until I got here and winter just sort of ended and spring showed up and everybody was talking about the beautiful trees and I'm coughing and sneezing and carrying on. It was really quite interesting.
MYERS: Yes. I spent five years in Columbus, Ohio and had sinusitis, sinus infections every spring from whatever was in that air.
VELSHI: Yes.
MYERS: Here in Atlanta, whatever - it's worse down here, but I'm not allergic. I'm not allergic to that, whatever that is --
VELSHI: Right. Right, right, right.
MYERS: Coming off those trees.
VELSHI: Very good. Chad, thanks very much. We'll keep checking in with you this afternoon about weather across the country.
All right. Sarah Palin, we told you about it, speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. We're going to take you there after the break. That's the podium she'll be speaking from.
She's not up there yet, but when she starts talking, we'll bring that to you.
We're also waiting for the president at the White House. He is going to be speaking about the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens from the Supreme Court. That's where he'll be, and he'll be talking about the rescue efforts at the Big Branch Mine in west Virginia.
All of that coming up soon.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: All right. We have been following developments at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, which is in New Orleans. It's a fund-raising gathering of Republicans, but it's a testing ground, really, for potential presidential candidates for 2012. 2012 - I'm not talking about the 2010 midterms.
At that podium, in just a few moments, Sarah Palin is going to appear, and she is certainly amongst Conservatives in this country consistently polling as one of the most popular people, not always amongst Republicans. She doesn't always top that list.
She's - she's still very high amongst Republicans, but amongst Conservatives, and that, in many cases, involves Tea Partiers. She's rating very, very high.
Joining me now is Gloria Borger. She's our Senior Political Analyst. She obviously follows this very, very closely.
Gloria, for those of us who don't follow it as closely, what do we make of this conference, of the straw polls, of the people appearing. There are list of people who are potential presidential candidates. Is this an important thing to be watching?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's kind of - it's kind of one of those old-fashioned dog and pony shows. You know, you have all these Republican candidates out there who want to be president, and this is a place to speak to the party faithful, Ali.
Cnd I remember being there the last time around. I know Candy is there this time. It's always a lot of fun to watch how they interact and see who wins the straw poll.
But, I can tell you, Ali, that when I was there last time, remember Republican Senator George Allen?
VELSHI: Yes.
BORGER: He won that straw poll and now he is not - was not even re- elected to the United States Senate.
So these things are kind of popularity contests. Inside the party, there are also trial run, for example, for Sarah Palin to see how she can speak to the party faithful who are looking at her, not as a Tea Party person, per se, but as a potential presidential candidate. So, you know, it - it may be an important kind of speech for her.
VELSHI: All right. And -
BORGER: Sorry. We're having a little problem with my ear here.
VELSHI: No problem. Hopefully that's - that's sorted out. Can you -
BORGER: OK.
VELSHI: You're good?
BORGER: I can hear you now, yes. I was hearing myself. Go ahead.
VELSHI: Let's - that is one of the more irritating things in life, when you hear yourself back in slight delay.
But let's talk about Sarah Palin for a second. So she is going to headline this thing in just a few moments. The other day she was in Minnesota, stumping for Representative Michele Bachmann.
She's definitely walking that line between Tea Partiers and - and Conservative Republicans. Is she very clearly -
BORGER: Who isn't?
VELSHI: Well, but - and, in fact, she's walking into - up to the podium right now. Why don't we take a look at what's going on in that hall and we'll continue this conversation after her speech.
There she is. Sarah Palin at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
SARAH PALIN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: Thank you so much. I thank you, New Orleans. Thank you very much. Thank you, friends. Thank you.
Thank you so much. It is so good to be here in the Big Easy. Thank you so much, and please have a seat. And I am so honored to get to be here in this nice crowd of friends. It's good to be here in the Big Easy, enjoying getting to know the people of New Orleans.
The last time I was here it was for an oil and gas conference, and now, being here, hearing of the inspiring stories and people who have rebuilt and really revitalized and restored after Katrina, it's - it's very inspiring.
I want to take a moment to thank this amazing city, especially the people who represent New Orleans who are working here, serving guests today with public safety and with the wait staff, making us feel so at home. We thank you, New Orleans. Thank you.
Good, patriotic people too. I knew I shouldn't say you betcha after that. I don't think it will go over well. But, who dat? That's - there you go. Go Saints.
Good, patriotic people here. And I know this crowd, too, patriotic people, and do you love your freedom? If you love your freedom, then we think of that, and we're going to do that right now.
I know that there are folks here who have served in the past, may be serving today in uniform. Raise your hand. We want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts. We thank you, sir. We salute you. God bless you. Thank you for your service.
Yes, last time I was here, oil and gas conference, and now we are here as April 9th on American Tax Freedom Day. Happy Tax Freedom Day.
Jonah Goldberg wrote a good piece in "USA Today" earlier this week about this, explaining that American citizens now spend about 100 days of the year working for their government before they start earning our own money that we get to spend, and that just doesn't sound right to me. That sounds like we're working for government instead of government working for us. It's time we reverse that.
But Happy American Tax Freedom Day here on April 9th.
Well, folks, it seems like we are really learning what the president meant with his slogan, "Yes, we can." When you turn that sound bite into a sentence, you get, yes, we can spread the wealth around. Yes, we can spend money that we do not have on programs that we don't need and we're going to stick the next generation with the bill. To a lot of us, that's stealing.
And, yes, we can put our country back on a track that's not a good track because this track is going to quadruple our national debt. And yes, we can let the government take over 1/6 of the private sector economy with the mother of all unfunded mandates, Obamacare.
These are just a few of the domestic policy accomplishments, and in foreign policy, well, now we've got the makings of the Obama doctrine. The Obama doctrine, which is coddling enemies and alienating allies.
The administration eased sanctions on Cuba and sided with Chavez against Honduran democracy. They wouldn't bring up human rights with China because they, quote, "They already know what they're going to say." They offer tepid conditions and sanctions on North Korea and gold stars and cookies to the Sudanese presidents. Based on letters to Iranian mullahs but can barely muster a word of support for the green movement, those in Iran seeking freedom, seeking women's rights, barely uttering a word of support for that.
Now, the president, with all the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer and as a part-time senator and as a full-time candidate, all that experience, still no accomplishment to date with North Korea and Iran.
Meanwhile, this administration alienates our friends. They treated the Afghan President Karzai poorly and then they feigned surprise when he reacted in kind. They escalated a minor zoning decision into a major breach with Israel, our friend, our closest ally in the Middle East. Let's remind our president, Jerusalem is not a settlement and Israel is our friend. And the critical nuclear concerns of our time will be North Korea because they have nukes, and Iran, because they want nukes.
So, yes, we can kowtow to enemies, criticize allies, vacillate, bow, dither. Yes, we can, but somebody needs to tell the president that just because we can does not mean that we should.
So now they're revising that 2008 slogan for 2010, and having just ran through more than $2 trillion health care takeover, flying around the country now on those taxpayer funded victory lap, proclaiming proudly, yes, we did. Well, you know, I wouldn't be so quick to slap that one on a bumper sticker, not just yet, because I think a lot of common sense Conservatives can relay some slogans that the majority of Americans like a lot better than that like repeal and replace.
And the bumper sticker, how's that Hopey, changey thing working out for you all now? Or my favorite, don't retreat, reload, and that is not a call for violence. That, of course, meaning take an opportunity to engage and debate and to vote is not a call for violence. No one - no one is calling for such a thing, and the media so desperate to discredit the people's movement and the Tea Party Movement that, you know, they'll make that up. But now, nobody's calling for violence.
Now, whether we're talking about foreign or domestic policy, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda, it defies logic and it defies common sense, and it will leave us less secure and more in debt and more beholden to foreign countries and more under the thumb of big government. It is out of touch. It's out of date. And they're running out of time.
Because Americans across this great country, they are standing up and they're speaking out for common sense Conservative solutions. And they're telling Washington, just back off.
Some of us, part of the Tea Party Movement, some of us registered Republicans, some of us are what? We used to call Reagan Democrats, and some are just, like most of my friends and my family, including my own husband, most just independence, just lovers of this great country, so proud, every day, to be American, but also very, very concerned about the path that we are now on. All of them deeply concerned about our country. And frankly, some of them are a little bit skeptical, concerned about our party, about our own GOP. For years, the federal government grew and individual freedom shrunk for Americans who believed in Conservative first principles. This was quite concerning and disheartening to watch some Republicans stop putting those principles first.
I kind of lived through that as the governor of Alaska, having vetoed some of Obama's stimulus funds that had fat strings attached and kind of violated the tenth amendment to our Constitution. My veto of those funds was overridden by a Republican-led legislature, because too many people just want to believe this is all free money. Somehow it's all just going to magically work out.
In the words of Bill Clinton - remember, he kind of paraphrased it well when he said, if this ain't the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. (INAUDIBLE), you know, before Obama was elected, so it - we don't know in what context - well, I'll take it in the context that I wanted.
But today, though, the Grand Old Party has its eyes wide open. Do we not have our eyes wide open? And we're realists. We know now. We know. We know.
We're getting back to our grand old roots. And when the other party is wrong, we're stiffening our spines and we're saying so, because there is no shame in being the party of no if they're proposing, the other side proposing an idea that violates our values, violates our conscience, violates our constitution. What's wrong with being the party of no? We will oppose it. Or, better said by the good governor of this state, he said, the party of no? No. We're the party of, hell no.
Now, going forward, we have to keep supporting those Republicans in Congress who are leading the loyal opposition. Let's help them starve the beast. They're putting the Liberal elite on notice. Government overreach did not begin with the Obama administration, but it will end with the Obama administration.
Because, friends, truly the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan, is back, and we have our eyes wide open going into these midterm elections. We're not just the party of no, we're the party of ideas, and with articulate alternatives, we will prove a better way for America.
And, in that spirit, let me get on something that's been making headlines lately, and I know it well. It's very, very important to all of us, and it's energy policy.
Energy is not just about heating our homes and fueling our rigs and keeping the lights on. It's an issue that really touches every challenge that we face, from the value of our paychecks to our interests abroad. There is an inherent link between energy and security, and energy and prosperity, and energy and freedom.
We need affordable, domestic, reliable, environmentally sound energy, and there's just such a big difference, though, between how the Republicans and the Democrats want to accomplish that goal. The Left has waged a multi-front war on conventional resources, and this administration proposed billions, tens of billions of dollars in new fees on domestic production because they evidently think that we are overproducing oil and gas. And Liberals in Congress want to stop things like hydraulic fracturing to produce clean-burning natural gas.
The administration is locking up even more federal lands that are filled with this God-given huge reserve of oil and gas and uranium, and even if a producer is lucky enough to finally be prevented (ph) to drill and to mine, well, good luck transporting that resource to where it can do the most good.
You want to build a pipeline? It can take years to get a federal permit. And a transmission line could take you decades.
When it comes to consumption, the Left's plan is - the plan is very devastating, but it's pretty simple, and at least they're honest about this one. They do want you to pay more so you'll consume less. And they call it this new scheme coming down the pike, cap and trade. I call it cap and tax.
And whatever you call this scheme, it's going to kill jobs. It's going to kill production and productivity and a work ethic in this industrious America that we have grown to love. It will pass an even greater burden on to the next generation, on to our small businesses, on to our working families today. And if that sounds like a bad idea in a bad economy, well, yes, the Left thought that you would think it's a bad idea, so what they want to do now is just skip the legislative process and go right to the regulatory agency. Let the EPA, which some are calling the Economic Punishment Agency, let the EPA do the dirty work then.
Like so much of the Left's agenda, they've decided what is best for us, and even if we don't like it and can't afford it and it makes no sense, they're going to do it anyway, because, yes, they can.
Now, if you watch some of the news, or are maybe on the White House's e-mail list, it might all come as a big surprise, all this energy stuff, the smoke and mirrors that's going on. But we know it's because the president can give some pretty nice speeches, and these speeches, they sound like he's finally getting it and he's going to enact energy policies that, of course, the overwhelming majority of Americans can overwhelmingly support, but when you really tune in and when the applause dies down, he stands by while the administration and the Democrats in Congress block those things one by one.
It is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Take nuclear power. He talks a good game about supporting it, but where was he when his Interior Secretary withdrew 1 million acres from uranium production in Arizona? And we all know that Harry Reid opposes safe storage of spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, but we didn't expect the administration to back him up on that for purely political reasons. Not safety, not environmental or geological reasons, but political reasons.
They can't have it both ways. You can't claim to support development of clean nuclear energy and then gut our options at both ends of the fuel cycle.
And, likewise - likewise, the Left may tell you that they're for renewable resources like wind and solar and hydro, and that's just great, but, God forbid you try to put a windmill in Nantucket Sound or you try to put a solar panel in Mojave Desert somewhere, because somebody may see it or a gecko may bump into one, you know? Oh, my!
Now, last week, so recently, we saw this bait and switch, and it had to do with offshore drilling. You had to pay attention to this one. The president gave a big speech at Andrews Air Force Base with all the fanfare that you would come to expect at this point with his speeches. The only thing missing from that ceremony was the soundtrack from "Top Gun" and Joe Biden in a flight suit. That was the only thing. That's next.
And since then, though, since that event, man, the spinners have been spinning that one as a huge victory for energy security, but - and anything sounds good when you say it in front of a fighter jet, but stop and think about what really happened that day and then the next day when we cut through the hype. Let's talk about what really happened.
After inheriting a good pro-development GOP plan that opened up both coasts for drilling, the Obama administration halted development, and then last week they opened Virginia's coastal areas for offshore drilling. But mostly so (ph), delayed until 2012, you know, so that the environmentalists who have more time to sue then, up until 2012, environmentalists who are so concerned about the world's environment that they would rather see less responsible countries develop resources and ignore our stringent environmental regulations. They would rather see the other countries develop. This gives them more time to sue.
Meanwhile, the Northeast Atlantic Coast is closed, four lease cells (ph) in North Alaska's rich Chuck-chi and Beaufort Seas, which is the next Prudhoe Bay, canceled. Drilling along the Pacific Coast with 10 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of clean burning natural gas waiting to be tapped, no, now that's prohibited.
And now we're going to study - more study of the South Atlantic and parts of the Gulf of Mexico and a couple of other areas that, my goodness, folks, these areas have been studied to death. And apparently the Interior Department reviewed almost 50 studies and decided not (ph), the government needs even more to collect some more dust on the shelf, more studies.
Now, as a governor and as an oil and gas commissioner and as chair of the nation's Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, I've seen so many, many studies. I say, let's send the White House this message that, no, we can save taxpayer time, save money and announce there is oil and gas down there and we can produce it safely and responsibly. We don't need more studies. We need more action.
VELSHI: All right. We've been listening to Sarah Palin at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. She's speaking there, headlining there. About a dozen people who are considering running for president in 2012 are there.
Momentarily, we're going to go to the White House where President Obama is about to speak. He will be expected to comment on the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens as well as on the continuing search for four missing miners at the Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. That's where the president will be momentarily.
And, standing by, I believe we've got Gloria Borger there. She was with me in New York as we started getting into this conversation.
Gloria, you were listening to Sarah Palin speaking just moments ago. What's your sense? It sounds very much like what she's been saying in the last few days. She's really ramping up her rhetoric, words that have appeared before but very strong, very targeted words against the current administration.
