Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Prince Charles' Car Attacked by Protesters; Sarah Palin's Ultimate Goal?; House Democrats Reject Obama Tax Cut Deal
Aired December 09, 2010 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Ali, thank you. A couple of developing stories this hour.
CNN has just gotten some video in from London. Guys, let's put it up on the screen here. Take a look. On the left side of your screen, that is a bit of a beaten-up Rolls-Royce. It was carrying Prince Charles and Camilla. You can see it's a bit mangled. It was attacked by some of those student protesters. Those thousands of students apparently broke a window, threw some paint on the vehicle.
You know the story. The British Parliament voted today to raise students' tuition by 300 percent. They have been out and about protesting. And this car apparently got hit in the fray.
Also, we are watching the slow burn of this house, still burning at this hour. This is what they called the bomb house. This is in north San Diego County right around Escondido, California. Dozens of homes are evacuated right now so crews could dispose of the nation's largest-ever cache of homemade explosives.
A gardener apparently discovered all of them just a couple of weeks ago, the homeowner right now sitting in jail.
But I want to go back to this story out of London.
We have Geoff Hill. He is a producer for us out of London, talking about these student protests that have been happening all day long.
And, Geoff, I want to bring you in. I don't know how close you were to that car that was carrying Prince Charles and Camilla. But tell me what happened? And I guess the obvious follow-up was didn't they know protests were happening today? Why didn't they avoid the area?
GEOFF HILL, CNN PRODUCER: Yes, it's a very good question, Brooke.
I actually missed the event itself. But it happened sort of further down Regent Street towards Leicester Square in the heart of London.
I had actually left the bureau to go and collect a tape of one of our producers who had been following the protests all day. And I was waiting on the corner and then I noticed a very large police escort and a cordon. And I noticed what is quite clearly the royal car carrying Prince Charles and the duchess of Cornwall, Camilla, coming around the corner towards the Royal Variety Performance, which is happening very, very close to the bureau here in London.
And then I noticed that there was paint on the back of the car and some damage to the window, a smashed window on Prince Charles' side. So I sort of left my post, ran after the car and I recorded some video of the car as the prince and Camilla were getting out of the car going in towards the Variety Performance around the corner -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: So this is video that you recorded for us, thinking quickly there on your feet there, Geoff Hill.
And just to answer my second question, what were they doing in the area? And then what happened once this happened? Were they escorted out of the -- that area?
HILL: Yes. Well, I think that they only sort of had minor some damage on the car, so they carried on through and then reached their final destination.
BALDWIN: I see.
HILL: I think questions are going to have to be asked now to the police as to why the royal party was driven through an area where protesters were moving around.
I think, in the police's defense, this happened quite quickly and quite fluidly. And the protests earlier in the day were around Westminster and the Houses of Parliament. And there are several breakaway groups and protesters who have made their way up towards the center of London through Leicester Square and through Regent Street. So it's a rather fluid situation for the police.
But I think you're right. I think questions are going to have to be asked now as to why the party did come through an area where protesters were clearly active, Brooke.
BALDWIN: Geoff Hill, we appreciate you whipping out your camera and taking those pictures for us, Rolls-Royce, pretty nice car, a lot of damage. Geoff, thanks to you from London.
Now I want to get you to Washington, some breaking news out of nation's capital, the big fat no to the White house from Democrats in the House of Representatives, no to the tax deal with the GOP, the deal to stop taxes from rising for all of us come the 1st of January.
Here's what we're hearing right now. Vice President Joe Biden, he angered his own troops when he took a trip to Capitol Hill, told them to essentially take it or leave it. That's a quote we have heard. The tax deal is set in stone, he says, no negotiations on the cuts for the wealthy, the top 2 percent, as part of that deal.
In fact, this morning, the Democrats met and said, guess what, they want changes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: This message today is -- is very simple, that the -- in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic Caucus. It's as simple as that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash joining me now live.
And, Dana, let's just make this real simple. I'm going to ask you this one question. Then I'm going to defer to Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington State.
The question is this. Are these Democrats serious? Are they willing to watch the American taxpayers' taxes go up come the 1st of the year if this deal -- if they don't get changes to this deal?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, are they willing to watch taxes go up for everybody? That is the --
BALDWIN: For everyone.
BASH: Exactly. That is the big question.
What they are trying to do, very clearly, and, in fact, a Democratic congresswoman just told me this moments ago, is try to give the president leverage to make some changes. But I got to tell you, what the House Democrats did today was absolutely stunning.
There's no question it was an act of major defiance. What happened in this meeting, Brooke, is they -- it was a surprise vote. This was not planned on. It happened -- it was not planned that this was going to happen today. It was done by voice vote. It was a measure offered by Congressman Lloyd Doggett.
And we are told that there was rousing approval for it, people even chanting, just say no. So, that sort of gives you a sense of where this caucus is.
Now, I just want to mention two things, because we're talking about anger on two fronts: substance and process.
Substance, of course Democrats across the board are not happy with the fact that tax cuts and tax cuts will continue for all income levels, even the wealthiest Americans. But what Democrats are most angry about, Brooke, is the fact that they added this estate tax provision in, which effectively exempts everybody making up to $5 million.
And then, when the tax kicks in, it's at 35 percent. They say it's just too much of a giveaway to the wealthy. And then, on the process, boy, that's where we're really hearing it from Democrats. They're really upset with the White House and the way they handled this, negotiating this with Republicans, leaving Democrats in the dark.
One Democratic leadership source told me that it is breathtaking the way the White House mishandled this, from their point of view.
BALDWIN: Yes.
BASH: So that is another message that the Democrats are trying to send here.
BALDWIN: It sounds like this whole take it or leave it line from the vice president not at all sitting well specifically with the House Dems.
Dana Bash, thanks. Thank you.
And I know standing very closely to you, we have Congressman Inslee. We're going to mike him up right now.
So, as we do that, I want to bring in national correspondent Jessica Yellin.
And, Jessica, you have been talking to some of your White House sources. What do they have to say about these defiant House Democrats?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first, I would point you to what Robert Gibbs said publicly, which is that the tax plan will ultimately pass.
And his argument, the White House argument, is that Democrats will have to get on board for the reason you pointed out, because they would face blame for letting taxes go up in the new year if they don't. Now, you should keep in mind also they don't really need that many or all the Democrats, because they will get enough Republicans on it, too.
But, Brooke, you know, privately, Democratic administration officials tell me that they're basically mystified with these critics in Congress, who they think are being profoundly unrealistic about what can get done.
BALDWIN: Huh.
YELLIN: You almost get the sense that they wish they could say to folks, grow up.
BALDWIN: Well, Jessica, let me bring in Congressman Jay Inslee.
(LAUGHTER)
BALDWIN: And I want you to stand by here. You're very -- oh, he's not there yet.
Well, Jessica, before I bring him in, then, are you surprised at all perhaps by -- with regard to the House Dems? Some of this defiance, and I guess is it more, perhaps, political posturing or do they truly want concrete changes to get this thing passed?
YELLIN: Well, what -- they definitely want concrete changes. And, you know, but the big question a lot of folks are asking right now, a lot of other Democrats, is, are we seeing what's to come in the new Congress?
Will Nancy Pelosi, as the new minority leader, sort of take on the position of the no, party of no, where they're going to resist not just Republican efforts, but White House efforts to make compromises in the new Congress?
BALDWIN: We have Congressman Jay Inslee.
So, Jessica, stand by. You're very plugged in. I want you to participate in this interview. There he is, Democrat of Washington State.
Good of you to pop that microphone on and talk to me about this whole conversation.
(LAUGHTER)
BALDWIN: And, specifically, Congressman, we're scratching our heads a bit over these numbers. And I'm hoping you can help me out here, because they're kind of all over the place.
The latest we are getting is this two-year cost of this new tax cut, it's somewhere in the ballpark between $800 billion and $900 billion. That is just specifically the tax cut. And then the top 2 percent would take up about 20 percent of that, that $800 billion to $900 billion pie.
So, Congressman, how close is that to what you're hearing? How close is that to reality?
REP. JAY INSLEE (D), WASHINGTON: I think the upper-income portion of that pie is actually higher than that 20 percent, a bit higher.
BALDWIN: Huh.
INSLEE: And, as a result of that, you know, we basically know this. We know that America deserves a better deal.
We know we would prefer the Clinton era economy to the Bush era millionaire tax cuts. And we know this is not coming to the floor as it is presently constituted. And we look forward to working with the president and the Republicans to move forward on the bipartisan consensus.
We do have -- we do have a bipartisan consensus to move the middle class tax extension forward, but we are not -- what the House said today, House Democratic Caucus, very loudly and almost unanimously -- I think there was one vote against this motion -- we said that this should not come to the floor of the House of Representatives. So, it was a very strong and very unifying statement.
BALDWIN: You say it's not -- not going to the floor. I read your -- part of your letter. You said because this is not a compromise. You say this was a mistake.
Congressman Inslee, I want you to -- I want to play you a sound bite. This is President Obama 48 hours ago. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On the Republican side, this is their Holy Grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is -- seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So, Congressman, the president essentially saying to you and your fellow Democrats, you don't get it. This is reality. This is the best deal he could get.
What do you say to the president?
INSLEE: I think it is hard. I think that is their central Holy Grail.
But, you know, I liken this we're a team. We're a team with the president right now. He's our quarterback. I used to play a little quarterback in the day.
And when my right tackle and my left guard came to me and said, hey, we can block these guys, we can make progress, I had -- I listened to them. And I think the president, I hope, will listen to this message today, which is, we believe, with the combination of the will of the American people, which, by the way, is totally with us on this by 2-1 margins -- American people believe that our Democratic principle of middle-class tax cuts and not the Bush era high-income is the correct policy by 2-1 margins.
BALDWIN: We have seen the polls.
INSLEE: Now, that in combination with the veto --
BALDWIN: Sure. We have seen the polls.
INSLEE: That in combination with --
BALDWIN: I know.
(CROSSTALK)
INSLEE: And the president has a veto authority. And if he says he's going to use it, this dynamic will change.
BALDWIN: Right. Well, I want to bring in Jessica Yellin. She is very plugged in. She's seen the polls as well.
Jessica, jump in. Ask the congressman a question.
YELLIN: Thanks.
Congressman, I'm curious. As Dana has been reporting, you guys really thumbed your nose at the president today. But, still, his spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, is saying in the end this will pass. House Democrats will ultimately let this get to the floor and vote for it.
Do you have the votes to block it?
INSLEE: Of course we do. This can't come to the floor without the Democratic Caucus voting for a rule to allow it to happen.
Mr. Gibbs, who I like and respect, was not in the room today. Let me understand. This is one of the few times I have ever seen the Democratic Caucus almost totally unified in full-throat commitment to the American people to improve this deal before it passes.
And we want to work with the president to do that. We are a team. As part of a team, we listen to each other. This was a message to the president that we believe the combination of the American people, his skills, and the veto can, in fact, move this process forward and get a better deal for the American people.
(CROSSTALK)
BALDWIN: I have got to -- I have got to --
INSLEE: And you had to be there to listen to us
BALDWIN: I have got to jump in and I have got to follow up with this and then I'm going to let you go, Congressman Inslee. But we heard from Larry Summers, the top economic adviser out of the White House, and perhaps this doesn't sound very team-like, because he essentially said, look, if this deal as is does not get passed, there could very likely be a double-dip recession.
Just curious how that sat with you. Did you see that as a threat?
INSLEE: Well, listen, we're all concerned about this. We are in a fragile period of time. But adding $800 billion of deficit spending and not one new clean energy job is not a formula for improving our short- or long-term economy.
And I have got to tell you, I had memories of the Bush administration talking about the mushroom cloud from Condoleezza Rice when we heard this kind of statement.
You know, we are very concerned. The economy is fragile. But loading this deficit of $800 billion, you know, that has a -- a restrictive impact on the amount of investments people make, too. So there's arguments both ways. We intend to have a both short-term and long-term provision. And that's a better deal for Americans, which we can have if we do a little hard work together here.
BALDWIN: Well, We are staying plugged in with you, sir, and your party and the other party and the president. We are going to see if this thing gets through and how.
Congressman Inslee, thank you.
And, Jessica Yellin, of course thanks to you as well.
INSLEE: Democracy in action.
(LAUGHTER)
BALDWIN: Thank you.
INSLEE: Thank you.
BALDWIN: And now this. Look at this, chaos today for hours and hours in London, thousands of students taking to the streets, basically speaking out over these tuition hikes. But they didn't win. That's the news today. What are they going to do tonight? That's ahead.
And investigators say they found the largest collection of homemade explosives ever in the U.S. inside a home in California. Now they are burning it down. There are the flames. There's a lot of smoke really. We are going to get a live report from the ground there in California next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: Welcome back to the NEWSROOM.
I'm sure you heard about this house. It is deemed so dangerous, some liken it to a mine field. Take a look at this with me, pictures coming out of Southern California. This is what they're calling a controlled burn of what authorities are calling the bomb house, the bombmaking factory near San Diego, the fire reaching 1, 800 degrees in Fahrenheit to neutralize explosives inside. That's how they're doing this.
A Serbian national who was renting the home was arrested last month.
CNN senior producer Lindy Hall is outside the home north of San Diego and joins me by phone.
And, Lindy, let's just start with I have been watching this video coming in a router here at CNN. And so far we have not seen any rogue explosions, correct?
LINDY HALL, CNN PRODUCER: Correct. We have heard a few pops, cracks now and then. (LAUGHTER)
HALL: And we're told that's probably some hand grenades and other ammunition blowing up. But basically everything went exactly as they planned. And the fire is dissipating as we speak.
BALDWIN: Explain to me, because we're hearing this -- this place was called a bomb house. Man, we're talking super-powerful stuff found inside, apparently owned by this guy.
Tell me what they found and why they don't just take the explosives out one by one very, very carefully. Why burn them?
HALL: Well, apparently, the situation was so dangerous because the man who lived there was considered a bit of a hoarder. And when they went in, they found jars and jars and jars of solvents and acids and explosives and ammunition and nine hand grenade hulls, and also lots of this volatile explosive called PETN and HMTD, which are explosives that terrorists use. The underpants bomber used the PETN.
BALDWIN: Right.
HALL: They had -- they found nine pounds of HMTD in the yard, which was large -- that's considered like a large car bomb. So, they -- they deemed the situation way too volatile to go in and be able to move around, because they didn't know what they'd find.
BALDWIN: And I know that the fire department very much so on stand by. Apparently, there's a Red Cross shelter set up just in case at a nearby university.
And, I mean, they have to shut down parts of, what, an interstate nearby.
HALL: They have.
BALDWIN: And I imagine a lot of the neighbors were evacuated, right?
HALL: They were.
The interstate is actually back open now. The -- they're very hopeful that they're going to get the residents back in this afternoon or early evening. There's about 130 homes in this area, most of which -- which were evacuated voluntarily.
There's about 14 homes where people decided to stay behind. Those people are being told to stay in their home until they get the word, though, because it was a very hot -- it burned very hot and very quick.
BALDWIN: Yes, yes. Can you imagine? I cannot even begin to imagine, knowing that this home is in your neighborhood, let alone having this happen perhaps down the street from your home.
We're watching it with you, Lindy Hall. If anything rogue happens, please, hop back on the line, let us know.
Meantime, hackers, they are tacking major Web sites, including MasterCard and Visa. And at the center of it all, the WikiLeaks firestorm. But guess what? Here's a new twist. There is an arrest today. That is next.
And what is driving the House Democrats to defy President Obama? Is it one big bluff? Jessica Yellin, she is standing by. We are going to bring her back in and continue this conversation. She's going to break it all down, including what it means for all of us collecting a paycheck come January.
That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: You know, continuing this conversation about taxes, really, it's about our money. That is why we are back to this tax cut deal.
Again, House Democrats, you just heard from one, saying no to the deal today, no to the White House. And here's one of the things they're really up in arms about right now. We touched on it a bit yesterday. If you were paying attention, we talked about the estate tax. It affects in the range of right around 40,000 families at a cost of some $88 billion.
Now, here's the deal. Right now, they're paying 55 percent on what they inherit above a million dollars. So above that marker, that's what they're paying.
Now, under the White House deal with the Republicans, the tax- free exemption rises to $5 million, and the rate of tax drops to 35 percent. So, here's the thing.
I told you, you know, the left doesn't like this. Well, neither do they really on the right. They want the estate tax eliminated, period. And that's not all that the right doesn't like, because, remember, this deal would add an estimated trillion-plus dollars to our national debt. Think about that.
Rejoining me from Washington, our national political -- our national correspondent, Jessica Yellin. I wanted to throw another word in there.
(LAUGHTER)
BALDWIN: Jess, where is the rage coming from concerning this tax cut deal from the right?
YELLIN: Well, it -- it depends. And it's in some Tea Party groups and not all and in some fiscal conservative groups, but not all. But it really is a case of strange bedfellows, because on the one hand, you have got MoveOn and progressives objecting.
And then look at this. Mark Meckler of the Tea Party Patriots hates the deal. He tells CNN -- quote -- "This reeks of politics as usual. I'm very upset." He says, "It's a direct breach of the Republican pledge not to raise taxes," a conservative hating this.
Also, the Club For Growth president said -- quote -- "This is bad policy, bad politics, and a bad deal for the American people."
Now, both groups mostly concerned about changes in the estate tax, also concerned about the extension of unemployment insurance and the payroll tax, that none of these efforts are paid for.
BALDWIN: I want to bring in a voice of someone who has not quite started his job on Capitol Hill just yet, but he's already talking about it, senator-elect Rand Paul.
He says he doesn't like this. Listen.
YELLIN: Mm-hmm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY SENATOR-ELECT: Well, I think the most important thing government can do right now for the economy is to extend the Bush tax cuts.
I would be for extending them permanently, so that's my first problem with this. The other thing is, is one of my biggest concerns is the deficit. So, I think, if you're going to extend and add new tax cuts, you should couple them with cuts in spending. Instead, we're coupling them with increases in spending, and I think that's the wrong thing to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Jess, you touched on this the other day, the whole concept of perhaps a credibility problem.
YELLIN: Right.
BALDWIN: You have the Republicans who say, you know, fiscal responsibility, but then we're adding like more than a trillion dollars to the deficit here. To some, it doesn't make sense.
YELLIN: Right.
And this is really in the eye of the beholder, Brooke, because there are people like incoming Senator Paul and Senator Jim DeMint who say, look, this adds to the debt, and we can't stomach that without some changes.
But some other Republicans who are on board with the plan will say, it's true, none of this was included in our current deficit projections, so now the deficit will be bigger, but the government shouldn't have planned on having all that extra money, because these are taxes you're taking from the American people anyway. We shouldn't have counted on taking those taxes. It's the American people's money. It's not the government's money. Do you follow that logic?
BALDWIN: Kind of.
YELLIN: It's a little --
(CROSSTALK)
BALDWIN: So it's the American people's money, so they're saying, we didn't have it to begin with.
YELLIN: Right. In other words, don't ever count on getting any tax revenue from the American people.
BALDWIN: Yes.
YELLIN: You have to start fresh every year.
The truth is, it does increase our deficit projections. And if you want to bring down the deficit, you have got to find to cut spending, and this isn't doing it.
BALDWIN: Oh, wow, that is an interesting perspective, indeed.
(LAUGHTER)
BALDWIN: Jessica Yellin, it's one perspective of many that we're hearing from these days.
Jess, thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
YELLIN: Thanks.
BALDWIN: Hey, here's someone people are talking about just a tad, Sarah Palin. She's on the cover of upcoming "TIME" magazine. And it's asking this question: What does she really want to do? Is all of this 2012 speculation just to help her bank account? I'm going to ask those questions coming up.
Plus, a major development in the standoff between North and South Korea. It sounds like the North may be ready to make a move now. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: All right, I want to get you a quick update on some of the stories moving right now.
The U.S. attorney general urging senators to drop their opposition to moving terror suspects from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States. The House has passed a bill that bars the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the states to stand trial. In fact, most Republicans and even some key Democrats against -- are against trying those suspects on U.S. soil, citing security concerns. Mr. Holder announcing there last year actually he intends for the self-professed 9/11 mastermind to stand trial in New York City.
And you remember the DREAM Act? It was a priority of President Obama's. It was a bill designed to give some children of undocumented immigrants a chance at legal status here in the United States. Well, here's what we have learned. It's passed in the House, but the Senate is quite a different story.
The DREAM Act has stalled. And many, many analysts are giving it very little hope for passage in the Senate. Democratic supporters labeled -- or tabled the bill today, promising to make another run at it next week, but given filibuster threats and the little time left here in the congressional session, it is not looking likely that it will pass.
And China now involved in the delicate diplomatic effort to defuse tension on the Korean Peninsula -- word today that China's top foreign policy official met personally with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il today in Pyongyang. In fact, this video here is from the last top-level meeting between North Korean and Chinese leaders.
A spokesperson says both countries -- quote -- "reached consensus" about what to do, but, as expected, no details beyond that. This is the first time the two sides have met since last month's flare-up between the two Koreas.
Hackers attacking major Web sites, including MasterCard and Visa. Now there's an arrest. That's just minutes away.
Plus, does Sarah Palin -- does she want to be president or does she just want to be rich and famous? "TIME" magazine, take a look at that cover there, asking that question, including many, many others.
Jay Newton-Small, she wrote this amazing article. And she's going to talk to me about it, what she learned about Palin's inner circle. It's fascinating stuff. Jay is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: Whether you call it a cyber attack, maybe cyber terrorism, the online battle to avenge WikiLeaks and its jailed founder Julian Assange is escalating now. The avengers in fact are calling themselves the "hacktivists." One of them has been arrested in the Netherlands. He's only 16 years of age. Prosecutors there say he probably part of a larger group of hackers.
So here is what we know. Here's what's happening right now. After taking down the websites Visa, MasterCard, and other, supporters of WikiLeaks tried to knock Amazon.com offline, but their initial attack appears to have failed.
There are also reports new attacks are being planned against Facebook and Twitter. So basically any organization out there that has messed with WikiLeaks could feel the hacktivists' wrath. Who is most at risk? Listen to this. This is a cyber security consultant. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEMU NIGAM, CYBER SECURITY CONSULTANT: If you are maintaining information for consumers around the world, financial information, and it took one single group to take you down, the question we should be asking is can your private, personal, financial information be stolen if they chose to do so as the next wave? And I'd be on red alert right now, whether I'm the government or I'm a corporate entity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: And now this. There are several reports that the cyber vigil antes may be targeting several individuals. And Sarah Palin is saying she's been attacked.
Speaking of the former Alaska governor, with all of this tax cut talk, we have almost forgotten about her. We can't do that, can we? Take a look with me. This is the cover of the latest "TIME" magazine. It's Sarah Palin.
Does she want to be president? Does she just want to be rich and famous? I want to bring in the author of this article, Jay Newton- Small. Jay, she's joining me live from Washington. It's a fascinating cover, it's Sarah Palin paint by numbers. Let me just ask you, what does her calendar look like come next year?
JAY NEWTON-SMALL, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "TIME": That's really interesting. When she resigned as governor, right off the bat you knew she had plans, that he was going to write a book and then she became a FOX News consultant, giving speeches. Now all of those contracts are kind of coming to an end. Right now her schedule next year looks pretty bare. Her second book tour is done. Her reality TV series is ending. Her speaking engagements are -- the pace of them are slowing up as the Washington speakers bureau does with all people who might consider a run for office. They warn potential clients saying, you know, this person might have to cancel on you. So if she doesn't run for president next year, she'll be pretty bored.
BALDWIN: Interesting. Let's talk about -- you have this great diagram in this article of her inner circle. I was really fascinated because you write about how specifically not at the center. You say "Palin has no Karl Rove or David Axelrod whispering in her ear. Only her husband comes close." What does Todd do for her day to day?
NEWTON-SMALL: It's really interesting. It's sort of a role reversal. He used to be the main bread winner. He went off to the North Slope every winter on this oil job. In the summers he was running the family's commercial fishing business. He was always gone, sort of earning the money and she was at home taking care of the kids and being mayor towards the end.
And so now you've got -- he's quit his jobs. He's handing over the commercial fishing business to Trapp, their 21-year-old son. Now he's become CEO of Sarah Palin Inc., where he pres her for TV appearances. He's got a Google alert of anything that, you know, is written about his wife that goes directly into his blackberry. He'll text or call when he objects to something in a story. So he's very much her CEO, her campaign manager, her -- he's --
BALDWIN: The right-hand hubby. I just find that really interesting.
Back to the idea of her calendar, very empty, perhaps for a reason next year, perhaps not. You mentioned in the article about how she's been particularly coy when asked, you know, Sarah Palin, will you be running for president come 2012. We put together a montage of sound bites. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN, (R) FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: After prayerful consideration and literally polling the family, that's what it would take because it's a great sacrifice on a family to even offer yourself up in the name of public service as a candidate, you know, a lot of sacrifices have to be made, so it would be prayerful consideration, and then getting a good lay of the landscape. I'd be in it to win it.
If there are others willing to make the sacrifices I'll support them. If there's nobody else, I would do it.
WALTERS: If you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?
PALIN: I believe so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So what's the advantage, perhaps, of playing coy?
NEWTON-SMALL: She's teasing the base. She's trying to get them to almost draft her to run for president. And she definitely, you know, to me in the last six weeks when I first started talking to her about doing a story up until, you know, actually three months ago, until two days ago when I last had an exchange with her, her comments have gotten increasingly bullish.
And I think more and more, she's talking now about how the only person who could beat Barack Obama is someone who can draw a really sharp contrast with him. And she believes that she can draw that sharpest of contrasts compared to any of the other hopefuls like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or John Thune.
And she really has made a concerted effort. In her new book "America by Heart," the book is really almost Obama is like this and I'm like this. If she's high art, I'm Americana. If he's a teleprompter, I read off my hand.
BALDWIN: So she's trying to say, look, I'm nothing like him. Jay Newton-Small, it's a fascinating article exploring all different avenues when it comes to a possible presidential contender. Perhaps she just wants to sit at home in Alaska. I hear it's beautiful this time of year. Thank you for that.
Also, we're getting breaking news right now. The Senate, here are pictures. The Senate is voting right now on "don't ask, don't tell." That's what we're learning. Stay right there. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: Breaking news right now -- the U.S. Senate voting on "don't ask, don't tell." Live pictures from the floor there of the senators voting.
I want to bring in Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash because, Dana, I understand you have color about some negotiations involving a Republican senator from Maine, Susan Collins, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. What happened?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. I'll tell you about that. But I think first we should let our viewers know that this is incredibly important and critical to the fate of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This is it. Barring anything that we don't think could happen, this is going to be the vote that will determine whether or not the United States Senate actually goes forward and repeals this.
And if it doesn't go through, which we -- unless something crazy happens right now, we do not expect that it will, this could put in jeopardy Congress repealing it in the future because this is towards the end of the Democrats' lame duck session. Next year Republicans will have control of the House. Republicans will have more seats in the Senate. That's why what we are watching on the Senate floor right now is so, so critical to the fate of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. On the question that you asked me, which is about negotiations --
BALDWIN: Got a little heated.
BASH: This has been a roller coaster because this is a vote that the Democrats had said that they were going to take yesterday. They delayed that because talks with Republican Senator Susan Collins, who was the one senator on the Senate armed services committee to vote for the repeal, they were going pretty well.
She was saying she would vote -- and we're talking about just to begin debate on the defense bill, that she would vote for it if she was given ample debate time and ample amendment time on the bill.
So those talks were going pretty well. What Senator Reid decided by putting this on the floor today is that he basically said that he didn't have time to push forward because he knows that there is other Republican opposition, a lot of back-and-forth. And I can tell there is going to be a lot of blame that goes around, especially from the gay rights group whose have been pushing so hard on this, blame that is going to go to Harry Reid for putting up a vote that we believe is probably destined to fail, and Susan Collins for perhaps not negotiating in a different way. So that is what we're seeing right now.
I should mention, Brooke, that in terms of the policy, it is noteworthy that there are the 60 votes needed probably to -- BALDWIN: That was my next question -- 60 is the number that they need. So you were alluding to the fact that that's just about a done deal or no?
BASH: Well, there are 60 votes on the policy, we believe, or at least close to it, because if you have close to all of the Democrats, you're at 57 or 58. There are now three Republican senators who are on the record saying they believe that this policy should be repealed. Susan Collins is one. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is another. And Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is the third.
Scott Brown, I just saw him on the way over here. He said he's going to it vote no on this. Why? Because of the process. He believes not only that there should be more time for debate, but more importantly, he is one of lots of Senate Republicans, all of them, who signed a letter saying -- well, yes, and signed a letter saying they wouldn't do this until the Senate takes up tax cuts.
That's another reason why you'll see a lot of blame around, questions for Senator Harry Reid about why he didn't wait on this, take up the tax cut bill, and probably get more votes. So that's why this is a very interesting and questionable and frankly dramatic vote that we're seeing right now.
BALDWIN: And Dana, just to back up and explain specifically what's happening as we're watching these pictures on the floor, this is so historic, how long will the voting happen before we know the next step?
BASH: I'm looking at the TV along with you. It looks like there is under four minutes left in this vote. Again, what you're going to need to see is 60 for the debate to begin on this. Barring any surprises, and it is a Senate. We've been here long enough. There are surprises that happen. We do not expect the 60 votes to go.
And that really does mean that the idea of repealing the policy of don't ask, don't tell is unlikely to happen in this lame duck session. And as I mentioned before, probably even less likely to happen come January when the new Congress takes over and Republicans have a lot more seats, Republicans who more broadly oppose repealing "don't ask, don't tell."
And from the perspective of the Pentagon, which I should point out, we talked about this last week when officials and the brass were up here testifying, they're not happy about this either. They've been pushing this very hard because they want Congress to act because they believe if Congress acts, the Pentagon and the military will have a lot more leeway in how they implement a repeal of this policy.
BALDWIN: Let me jump in there, because you just gave me the perfect opening to bring in Barbara Starr, who is live for us at the Pentagon. Barbara, just quickly so I can update our viewers, we about three minutes to go there in the vote. It's alphabetical. We're in the W's. We know we're ending the vote and then we will see if they get the 60. Barbara Starr, Dana just mentioned how we saw secretary gates last week testifying, feeling very, very strongly that he wants this repeal to happen.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely, Brooke. Let me follow up on what Dana is saying here. Here's the problem for the Pentagon. There is a court case out there that is being heard. There will likely be a number of appeals coming down the road on this court case.
And the feeling by the Pentagon leadership and Secretary Gates is that the courts will eventually make that final ruling. They believe that "don't ask, don't tell," banning gays and lesbians from openly serving, that it is unconstitutional and that the court will rule that that ban has to be lifted.
What happens if the court rules? Well, nobody can predict. The court could say instantly that's it. You know, no more. At 9:00 tomorrow morning, you know, everything changes.
And for the military, which likes to plan ahead and plan things, that's their problem. They wanted a legislative solution so they could have some predictability, so they could get the force ready for all of this. If the courts rule, there is absolutely no predictability. The government would have to comply with that court ruling once all appeals are exhausted, and just get on with it.
So this is the solution that Bob Gates didn't want to see.
BALDWIN: Let me interrupt you, Barbara. Let's just listen in to the Senate floor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mrs. Hagan. Mrs. Boxer, aye. Mr. Levin? Mr. Levin, aye.
BALDWIN: Dana bash, I know you're still standing by for us in the Capitol rotunda. We're watching. Walk me through what we're looking at. They're calling out the names and the votes. We're seeing people sort of really mill about and filter back in.
BASH: This is the Senate at work. We watch it all the time. You know, the roll call is being called. As you said, they go in alphabetical order. People come in and out and they vote when they can.
But the fact of the matter is that there's -- it's almost up. The time is almost up. We should get an answer pretty shortly. But I think that the drama of this really should be underscored, the fact that this vote was -- it was a surprise that the Senate majority leader said he was going to take this yesterday. Then he decided to wait because negotiations were going pretty well with the one Senate Republican who was talking to him.
And then overnight, the Senate majority leader decided, you know what, I'm not going to go ahead with this. And again, it is important to underscore that it is possible, it is possible that -- that supporters of repealing this "don't ask, don't tell" policy could have gotten the 60 votes need. We're not sure, but it's possible they could have when you look at where people stand on repealing the policy if they would have waited until after doing the tax bill.
But Reid went on the Senate floor, he gave a lengthy speech and said that he doesn't believe that Republicans are going to help him out on this and there will be other "delaying tactics," in his words, if he doesn't go for this now.
Already getting e-mails from gay rights activist in particular, throwing up their hands at everybody in this process, very upset that this vote is being taken, assuming that perhaps it won't succeed.
BALDWIN: And I just want to make sure I'm hearing Barbara Starr correctly, because we know about the court case. Ultimately perhaps this is just a test of time to see who rules first here, Barbara, because you said depending on if the court rules, then the government rules, then the government would have to follow under how the court ruled on "don't ask, don't tell." Is that how I'm hearing you?
STARR: Right.
BALDWIN: Right.
STARR: Absolutely. If this there is this federal court ruling, they just have to move ahead and get on with it. And I have to tell you, Secretary Gates, the entire military leadership, everyone you will talk to will say they believe it is inevitable that this ban will be lifted either by law, by a federal court, or by the Congress. And they wanted the legislative solution so there could be more planning for all of this.
I haven't heard anyone in months now say that they don't believe at some point the ban would be lifted. There is a very clear legal record that is beginning to emerge over time that the courts are not particularly sympathetic to the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military.
The courts, as Dana said, just like the legislature, just like congress, things can certainly change, but there have been a number of rulings that clearly do say the courts -- some courts do believe that the ban is unconstitutional. So, if this goes -- does not pass by the Congress, falls back into the legal jurisdiction, it could be any day of the week that the federal court rules and the Pentagon simply has to comply with it, Brooke.
BALDWIN: I think it is fascinating and noteworthy to point it out.
Also, Barbara, let's just remind everyone, according to this new national poll just in terms of taking a pulse on how Americans feel about this, it's two-thirds of Americans say they favor repealing the law, repealing don't ask, don't tell. And not only that, it was last week when we heard from Secretary Gates, you remember went Pentagon, you know very well, they polled a number of members of the military and it seems a majority of those polled, or surveyed, said, hey, we don't mind. We are in favor of the repeal.
BALDWIN: It's been so many years now, there is kind of a feeling, if you will that society has changed, time to move on. In that DOD survey of military troops, the one segment that expressed very clear reservations were front line combat units, marines, army units, some opposition from them.
But you know, even the commandant of the marine corps, General James Amos, who has been very concerned about lifting the ban, even he says flat out, if the U.S. military is ordered to do this by Congress, by the courts, by the president of the United States, in this country, the U.S. military will salute smartly and get on with it.
And that's what Secretary Gates thinks is going to happen. What he wanted was Congress to pass this, that would give them a little time to prepare for it to train the force, to provide some education, to help explain to everyone in the military that there are rules and regulations regarding personal behavior that everyone follows without question or they get disciplined.
He wanted to be able to have the time do all of that. That's why he was looking for Congress to do this, so there would be some time set up in the law.
Now, we have this situation, if Congress does not do this and doesn't have a law set up with certain timeframes like we talked about a minute ago, any day of the week you could you wake up, there could be a federal court ruling, and then everybody just has to get on with it. Brooke?
BALDWIN: Barbara, let me ask you, just sort of go along with me, make the if game, if don't ask, don't tell ends up being repealed, would that repeal happen immediately or would there be some lag time?
STARR: Well, if the courts do it, it would depend how their decision, of course, is written. The way Congress was looking at it in the bill that was already passed by the house, what the Senate looking at today, there was going to be a period of time they call "certification," some period of months would go by in which the administration you can including President Obama would have to certify that the military was ready to take on this change.
There is a whole implementation plan, basically, that's already been written and published about what steps they would take, what kind of training they would take, education. You know, all of that had been written down.
That's what may now go by the wayside and it's that uncertainty. You know, uncertainty that always makes the military nervous and concerned and that's what they are facing right now, brook.
STARR: Barbara, I want to bring another voice into this, Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Wolf, again, we are weight, the vote has been happening there on the Senate floor, of course, waiting for the number 60 to see if debate could begin. I want you to take me back to 1993 when this went into effect. And Wolf, just in terms of historic perspective, how big a deal was it at the time?
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": It was huge at the time. I remember it very, very vividly before becoming the senior White House correspondent for CNN back in 1992 during the Clinton campaign, I was the Pentagon correspondent. And at that time, the law was firm. If you were gay you couldn't serve. If you were quiet about it, open about it, they could ask any questions they wanted.
And as a result, during the '92 campaign, Bill Clinton was adamant saying he wanted to lift that been on gays not being allowed to serve in the U.S. military. It was a big campaign issue. After he was elected in November of '92, he reiterated that and caused a lot of stir. Colin Powell was then the chairman of the joint chiefs, he opposed lifting you the ban on gays serving in the military.
They came one this compromise in '93 while he was president, about six months into the presidency, which basically is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. You can serve but just don't acknowledge it publicly and if you're serving in the military, don't ask anyone if they are gay.
That became the law, it was a compromise a lot of folks don't like it then but it was the best Bill Clinton thought he could do under the circumstances. He had all of the chiefs, all of the military basically strongly opposed to lifting the ban on gays serving in the military. And that's where it stayed ever since.
Since then as Barbara and Dana have been pointing out, there has been an evolution in thinking in the U.S. military, the public at large, now the polls show the majority of Americans want to see that ban on gays serving openly in the military lifted. And that is what is being debated and voted on at this moment.
We should know in the next few minutes whether or not the Senate has followed the House of Representatives several months ago in lifting the ban. If they don't get the 60 votes, at least for now it is dead. The "don't ask, don't tell" -- "don't ask, don't tell" policy will continue, either until the courts change it or there's another vote in the next Congress.
But right now, this is a really dramatic moment for gays serving in the United States military and we are all waiting to see if Harry Reid has those 60 votes that will break down Republican-led filibuster.
BALDWIN: And I guess, Wolf, waiting for the final vote tally to see if he gets the 60 votes, and then what happens next? You have been on Capitol Hill. Once they get the 60, what is the next, I guess, procedure there on the floor?
BLITZER: The next procedure it is part of a broader defense bill, and that will presumably pass, and then the policy will be repealed, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy will be repealed. As I pointed out you can the house has already passed that overwhelmingly earlier in the year. They are waiting for the Senate to reconcile some of the aspects of bill. Presumably that won't be that hard.
This is the key vote right now this procedural vote to break a filibuster, it is what they call in the legislative language of Washington, cloture. If they break this vote, right now, they get the 60 votes in the Senate, then all -- the path forward for case to serve openly in the military, just as they do in most of the NATO militaries, and other militaries, Australia, Israel, around the world.
So this is a dramatic moment right now. It is one that President Obama campaigned on when he was running for president. He said he wanted to lift the ban and this is a decisive moment. We will see if Harry Reid has the votes or not.
BALDWIN: But it the president said he wanted to lift the ban, I want to bring Dana Bash back in to answer this one. Wolf, stand by for me for just a moment. Dana, if the president wanted to repeal it and we've known how the president has felt about don't ask, don't tell for quite some time, then why doesn't President Obama come in and essentially issue an executive order? Why is this up to Congress to hash this out?
BASH: That's a great question. Because Congress has to change the statute. In fact, I think that you will see if this does, in fact, fail, I think you will see more pressure on the president to use the power he does have to try to sort of tinker around the edges, if you will to try to ensure that openly gay people can serve in the military.
But when it comes to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it was Congress that put it in place 17 years ago and Congress that has to take it away if that is the will of Congress and the will of the land.
BALDWIN: I want to bring Barbara Starr back in at the Pentagon. Barbara, I understand you wanted to add something?
STARR: I do. Following on what Dana said, secretary gates the last several months has tried to do some of that tinkering around the edges, ease some of the regulations, make it harder to just automatically dismiss people from military service when these cases come up.
But I think there is another political undercurrent here, which is this is not just a repudiation of the president's hope and what he wants to do, but some extent, we'll see, a repudiation of Bob Gates.
He has been really untouchable in Congress in the last couple of years. He is very highly respected as defense secretary. He has gotten almost everything that he wants but he is planning to leave office within the next six to eight months or so. So, time is ticking for him.
BALDWIN: Barbara, let me jump in. Forgive me.
(CROSSTALK)
STARR: There's just no other way around it.
