Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Budget Deal; Pope Responds to Limbaugh Criticism; Historic NFL Collapse in Dallas; NSA Phone Surveillance Program

Aired December 16, 2013 - 14:00   ET

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

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, there. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Great to be back in the seat today.

I am sorry I missed the fun last Friday involving House Speaker John Boehner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Are you kidding me?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

BALDWIN: Sorry. I have not seen that.

John Boehner critiquing his own side, his conservatives, his Republicans for the role in forcing October's government shutdown for which -- surprise, surprise -- they ended up getting the blame.

Roll it again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: Are you kidding me?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Sorry.

So, with October's disaster in mind, Speaker Boehner rallied his troops last week, enough so that Democrats climbed on board, and he finally won passage of a real, live federal budget. It covers the next two years. So no more government shutdowns, no more threats of government shutdowns for at least 24 months unless -- that is where we are right here in this moment on this Monday afternoon, because unless Republicans, you know, Boehner's party in the Senate, decides to wreck Boehner's handiwork.

It's kind of a funny thing, right, because the Senate's supposed to be the adults. The ones a lot more likely to compromise than the hot heads roaming around the House, so we hear. Dana Bash, our chief congressional correspondent, is joining me now. And so this landmark -- this budget here, I know it has to survive several votes in the Senate. It needs 60 yes votes tomorrow. So that means at least five Republicans will have to support this compromise, yes?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. Tomorrow is the first key procedural vote. It would require 60 to effectively break a filibuster. And just so our viewers understand what we're looking at with regard to the numbers here, the party breakdown of the Senate is 55 Democrats, 45 Republicans. So just as you said, Brooke, just assuming for argument's sake here that all Democrats support it, which we're not sure they will, but just assuming they do, you will need five Republicans.

We do have five Republicans on the record saying that they are going to vote yes, at least for the procedural pressure. John McCain, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Richard Burr, and Ron Johnson. And I talked to Ron Johnson just a few minutes ago on the telephone, actually. He's making his way back from Wisconsin, ironically with Paul Ryan on his plane, and he said that he's supporting this for a few reasons. Number one, because he wants to make sure there's no government shutdown. We heard that from John McCain right here on CNN this weekend. Number two, because he's a business person and he wants stability for the economy. And number three, because he knows he was elected in 2010 with the backing of the Tea Party, and he supports this so he wants to get out there early as a leader.

So that sort of gives you a sense of where things are going. Republican sources and Democrat sources in the Senate, Brooke, say that they are pretty confident that by the time we get to the procedural vote tomorrow, that this is going to pass comfortably.

BALDWIN: OK, so we know, as we mentioned before, you know, the chamber we were really watching initially was the House. We talked about that last week, you know, would it pass? Yes, we know it did. So why are we -- why are we even really sort of questioning, not that we entirely all, but the fact that this could actually hit trouble in the Senate?

BASH: No, absolutely. I mean, this is legitimate that we don't know for sure.

BALDWIN: Wow.

BASH: We didn't know for sure, really, until today that there were those five Republicans. It really is sort of opposite world here because I was talking to a House Republican source who just reminded me, I don't even think that this has happened since the House has taken over, meaning there was a big bipartisan vote in the House that has been a little more, maybe a lot more challenging in the Senate.

The situation and the atmosphere with this particular budget deal is that you have a lot of Republicans, even senior Republicans, like the number one and the number two, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, they have primary challenges, so they're unlikely to support this. You don't have the leadership from them kind of twisting arms or cajoling their rank and file. And then another thing, just on the substance, you have -- you've had some time for some of the details of this to come out. And some Republicans are upset about this, are not comfortable with it because military retirees would lose some money long-term with their pensions. And there's a lot of pressure from these military retiree groups on these senators to not support this. And we were told they were kind of caught flat-footed when the House came out with this, the compromise was put out and it was voted on pretty fast. Now they've had a long weekend, five days to sort of look at it and get their lobbying troops up and running. So that has -- they've been somewhat effective. But again, big picture, sources in both parties feel that by the time you get to this procedural vote, it will clear the 60-vote hurdle and maybe and then some.

BALDWIN: OK. All right, we'll watch for it tomorrow. Dana Bash, thank you very much, for us in Washington today.

And now to this. There's a whole -- if the whole pope thing doesn't work out, Francis would make a pretty good cable news pundit because he is certainly not afraid of taking on his critics. The leader of the world's Catholics responding to folks like Rush Limbaugh who call him a Marxist after the pope ripped capitalism and trickled down economics. Francis telling an Italian newspaper, and I'm quoting him, "Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don't feel offended."

Joining me now, CNN religion commentator, Father Edward Beck.

It's so nice to meet you in person, by the way.

FATHER EDWARD BECK, CNN RELIGION COMMENTATOR: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Let's just begin with, in all of your studying and knowledge of the pope's past, have you ever heard of a pope taking on a talk radio show host?

BECK: No, I can't say that I have. However, you know, he was asked by Les Tampa (ph) in an interview about this. And you know this isn't a pope who shies away from answering. This is, I think, the third interview he's given. Remember the impromptu one on the plane on the way back from Brazil?

BALDWIN: Of course. All the questions he took then.

BECK: So, unlike other popes, he is engaging even with the media. And so that's not surprising to me that he should respond to him.

BALDWIN: Even though we're not hearing specifically the name Rush come out of his mouth, we know who he's responding to in this particular interview. And I'm curious, though, do you think he should have even -- do you think he should be responding? Do you think it diminishes his stature?

BECK: I don't, because I think what people like about him is his willingness to respond. And people like it. Rush isn't the only one who has said similar things, by the way. BALDWIN: Right.

BECK: So if he's going to critique global capitalism, which he has, and he says it's not equitable, people are going to say, OK, then what do you really believe? And he has really a responsibility then to say what he does believes, and he's certainly saying it.

BALDWIN: It's pretty clear what he believes when it comes, you know, to money. And this is the pope's point of view, but it's fair to say also that a lot of more conservative Catholics around the world do not agree with this man.

BECK: Well, you know, Brooke, in Acts of the apostles, you'll recall perhaps the early community said you're supposed to pool all of your resources. And if somebody doesn't have enough, then you have an obligation to give to them. So the early Christian community really was a socialist model.

Now, in later incarnations of that, we know politically, it began to be oppressive and it didn't work out at all. But if you look at real Christianity and the early church, now, they thought they'd only be around for a little bit of time, too. They thought the end of the world was coming. So it worked for them. But --

BALDWIN: It changes things a little bit.

BECK: Yes, it does. But the pope is saying, you have to take care of the less fortunate. You figure out how you're going to do it. Global capitalism is not working. Trickle-down economics does not work. So you may not like Marxism, but how are you going to make sure that those who have are going to be providing for those who have not. That's his point.

BALDWIN: Just fascinating to me that I feel like there is some Pope Francis story that comes in to us it seems like weekly, even daily. He's a fascinating man.

BECK: I know. He certainly is. He's a rock star, isn't he?

BALDWIN: Father Beck, thank you very much. Appreciate you.

BECK: Thank you.

BALDWIN: And now to this. You know the big guys with the stars on their helmets? The boys from the big "d"? Well, did you hear what happened to the Cowboys? Good things it's just a game, folks, because the storied Dallas Cowboys collapsed so completely on Sunday that Texans not left totally speechless are screaming for heads to roll today. Here's CNN's Ed Lavandera.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If you thought the meltdown after the recent Texas ice storm was an epic sight to see --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Holy crap. LAVANDERA: It doesn't compare to the hot-blooded wrath of a city after the Dallas Cowboys seemed to rewrite the definition of meltdown.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): That was an absolute team disaster that you can only explain by it being the Dallas Cowboys. Only team in the NFL, hell the only team in football going to pop (ph) warner (ph) that can blow a game like that are the Dallas Cowboys. That's it.

LAVANDERA: On Sunday, the Cowboys had a 23-point lead at halftime over the Green Bay Packers. After it was all over, the Packers walked out of the stadium with a 37-36 victory. The Cowboys' defense couldn't stop the Packers' backup quarterback, and all the team had to do was run out the clock in the end, but Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo threw two interceptions, yes, two, in the last three minutes of the game to complete the epic meltdown.

After the game, Cowboys players mastered the sports cliches that Kevin Costner's character Crash Davis mocked so brilliantly in the classic baseball movie "Bull Durham."

KEVIN COSTNER, ACTOR, "BULL DURHAM": We got to play them one day at a time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, ACTOR, "BULL DURHAM": That's pretty boring, you know.

COSTNER: Of course it's boring, that's the point. Write it down.

TONY ROMO, DALLAS COWBOYS QUARTERBACK: This one's obviously a tough one. We were in a position to have a chance, obviously, to win the game, and we didn't get it done.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got to put this one behind us, make the corrections, learn from it.

LAVANDERA: The collapse inspired a wave of scathing online humor. Yes, Tony Romo, chronic choking is covered by Obamacare. Dez Bryant, the Cowboys' star receiver, stormed off the field even before the game ended. And Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones couldn't find coherent words to explain the collapse.

JERRY JONES, DALLAS COWBOYS OWNER: But -- this is certainly -- the circumstances of getting up like we did and then -- and playing so well and then not -- playing the exact reverse the second half is very frustrating.

LAVANDERA: The Cowboys extravagant new age stadium is often mockingly called "Jerry's World," named after the team's owner. It might sound like it alludes to a magical setting, but it's really a place where mythical misadventures bring tears and fears to the eyes of Cowboys' fans, and sheer enjoyment to Cowboys haters everywhere.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: Ah, brutal day in the big "d" today, huh, Eddy? LAVANDERA: Yes. You know, and actually writing that piece this morning, it was a good bit of catharsis, good therapy for myself actually.

BALDWIN: Sorry to hear that, Ed Lavandera, but, you know, hey, there's always next weekend. I know Cowboys fans don't like to hear that, right?

LAVANDERA: Yes, that -- yes, they've been saying that for like more than 15 years here and I think people are getting tired of hearing it, actually.

BALDWIN: Sorry about that, Ed Lavandera, for me in Dallas. Great win for the cheese heads, though, I guess. Thanks, Ed.

Coming up, have you ever seen the reality show "Sister Wives," about the life of a -- as a polygamist. Well, these folks just scored a huge, legal victory. Hear what they can now do in the eyes of the law.

Plus, here's a debate for you today. Should the U.S. grant amnesty to the man who leaked all those NSA secrets? A top man at the NSA said he would consider it. You will hear both sides. You be the judge, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: All right, got some breaking news for you. I want to pass it along, as we've been covering, for the better part of the last couple of months as far as what information the NSA has been gathering when it comes to phone calls and things of that nature. We have now learned that this district court judge has now ruled that specifically the NSA actions of collecting calls to, from, or within the United States is likely unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Joe Johns is standing by with more on this. He is our crime and justice correspondent.

And so, Joe, just talk to me specifically about the specifics of this ruling and the Fourth Amendment here.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Brooke. Yes, this is sort of the camel's nose under the tent on the issue of NSA surveillance as it applies to what's known as metadata. Now, we know from months and months of reporting about Edward Snowden that the government has been collecting tons of information about the telephone calls that people make. This is the numbers dialed, the number, you know, that it is -- the phone call is made from, where it went, how long it lasted, and so on. Not content of the calls themselves, but information about those calls.

So there's a judicial activist in Washington, D.C. named Larry Claimen (ph), very well known. He went to court and sued saying, in part, that the metadata program that the NSA uses is unconstitutional. And now what we've gotten is a lengthy ruling from a judge who essentially says, Larry Claimen is likely to prevail on the merits as to the Fourth Amendment question of inappropriate search and seizure. So that's one thing. He's also said, the judge has, that he's going to stay (ph) his ruling, that it might be unconstitutional, and stay his ruling of sort of issuing an injunction in order to stop that program from going forward. He's going to stay that until this case is appealed.

BALDWIN: OK.

JOHNS: So he said, could be unconstitutional, but I'm going to wait and let somebody in a higher court review this. He says it could take as many as six months for this thing to get worked out. But he's also warning the government, you've been put on notice that your program could be unconstitutional and you ought to start taking steps now just in case my ruling gets upheld by a higher court and you may have to, you know, take action based on this ruling.

BALDWIN: Yes.

JOHNS: So it's a step in the direction of a real problem from the National Security Agency, but not there yet, Brooke.

BALDWIN: OK, no surprise this will go to a higher court, but fascinating that we're now hearing this unconstitutional ruling, specifically from this district court judge.

Joe Johns, thank you very much.

Just want to broaden out the conversation. And David Sirota, our syndicated columnist, and Ben Ferguson, CNN political commentator.

And, guys, to both of you, we have talked about Edward Snowden multiple times on this show. David Sirota, you were the first person that popped into my brain when I heard Fourth Amendment, because this is what you have been, you know, saying over and over and over. So do you feel a little relieved with this ruling?

DAVID SIROTA, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Absolutely.

BALDWIN: Yes.

SIROTA: I mean this proves that Edward Snowden is a whistle blower. He is a whistle blower who blew the whistle on serious crimes. I mean before this ruling, we knew this. "The Washington Post" reported that the NSA has been violating rules and laws about privacy thousands of times a year. Now we've got a court ruling about the constitutionality.

And my question for the entire political system right now is, if Edward Snowden is going to be prosecuted as a criminal, despite the fact that he's exposed these crimes, why aren't James Clapper, the head of the office of national intelligence, and Keith Alexander of the NSA, why aren't they being prosecuted for their crimes in the face of the Fourth Amendment, their crimes against the Fourth Amendment, their crimes lying to Congress about this?

BALDWIN: I know you've made that point before. We've talked about the Clapper exchange. Ben Ferguson, now I know you disagree. Go ahead. BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, no, I mean, here's the problem, Edward Snowden may have actually given some information that we already knew about, but he still stole it to attain it, and he broke the law to get it. And the other issue is, he's not a hero, he's not a saint because a lot of the information that he did take had nothing to do with this data mining subject at all. And he took it because he could. And then he shopped it around the world to our biggest enemies and has asylum in Russia.

So to imply that this was just one single piece of information that Snowden took from the American government is naive at best or just flat out trying to mislead the American people because he is a person that broke the law and stole far more than this information, which by the way we already knew and was already reported on, and very well could have been challenged in court. So he is no hero.

BALDWIN: OK. This is the perfect jumping off point because I'm sure you all saw the "60 Minutes" report. And in case the viewer has not, let me just play this, because this is how this top NSA official is now describing the scope of what Ed Snowden stole. So, "60 Minutes" last night and this official says that he is open to any deal that would get those secret documents back. And that actually includes an offer of amnesty to Snowden. Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, "60 MINUTES": He's already said, if I got amnesty, I would come back. Given the potential damage to national security, what would your thought on making a deal be?

RICHARD LEDGETT, HEAD OF NSA SNOWDEN TASK FORCE: So my personal view is, yes, that's worth having a conversation about. I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured. And my bar for those assurances would be very high. It would be more than just an assertion on his part.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that a unanimous feeling?

LEDGETT: It's not unanimous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Not unanimous. Let me move on just to spell this out. So this would mean a free pass back to the U.S. from Russia, where he's currently sitting there, he's under this temporary asylum in those espionage charges he is facing, you know, here in the U.S., you know, may be dropped. Let's be clear, though, that the White House specifically today, because we reached out, they're shooting down any talk of amnesty for this man here in the United States. But, David Sirota, you say, bring him back. Why?

SIROTA: Well, I say that he certainly deserves amnesty, except I also would say this. If the NSA is making such an offer, it means the NSA is very frightened about what other information Edward Snowden has that may embarrass the NSA or actually show that the NSA has been conducting even more criminal acts against the American people than we even know about. I think that what we need is a congressional inquiry, a congressional hearing that really brings out all of this stuff so that we know what the scope of what the NSA is actually doing in full.

BALDWIN: So there's a bigger concern there as far as what else could be out, whether it's whistleblowing or leaking depending on your perspective.

Ben.

FERGUSON: It could be an issue, though, that you have people at the NSA that are wanting to save their own legacy and their own rear ends by making sure that more embarrassing information doesn't come out and it's not really an issue that much of national security.

But I go back to the court here. If you bring Snowden back and you give him amnesty, you're basically saying to anyone that works in government, that at any point you're not happy with either your boss, the president, your chain of command, that if you're willing to steal information and go out in the world and it's big enough and good enough, we'll let you give it out to the world and we'll invite you back home afterwards. You can't do that. The same way that America has a policy that we don't negotiate with terrorists for American citizens, because if you do it once, it will never stop and there will be plenty of people that don't --

BALDWIN: It's a great point. It's a great point. Of setting some sort of precedent.

David, how would you respond to that, the notion that -- the notion of, if it's OK for one person, then it's OK for others?

SIROTA: No, I don't -- I don't -- but I don't -- but here's the thing. I don't buy it because there should be --

BALDWIN: Go ahead.

SIROTA: There should be a precedent that says that when government higher ups are committing crimes, that whistleblowers should be able to blow the whistle in a way that exposes the crimes that they've committed. That's the precedent that would be set here. That's the precedent that needs to be set. We have an administration, the Obama administration, that is waging a war on whistle blowers right now, making it impossible for them to expose the crimes that are happening within the government, crimes against the American people. I think we should feel more comfortable with a precedent that's set that says whistleblowers who expose systemic crimes against the population, systemic crimes against the Fourth Amendment, deserve to be treated as heroes, not as criminals.

FERGUSON: But you're -- but you're omitting -- you're omitting a major fact, which is, Snowden took things that were far outside the scope of what you're choosing to talk about right now.

SIROTA: You're assuming that. You're assuming that.

FERGUSON: That is not a whistleblower. It's a traitor. SIROTA: Where is your proof for that? You have no proof for that.

FERGUSON: That is a traitor. When you look --

SIROTA: You are simply assuming that.

FERGUSON: When you look at -- hold on, think about this for a second. If you're going to --

SIROTA: You have no proof for that. What we know --

BALDWIN: Go ahead, go ahead, Ben, make your point, make your point.

SIROTA: What we know that he has taken is information that has exposed crimes.

FERGUSON: If your -- if you know -- sir --

BALDWIN: Hang on, hang on. Both of you, time out, time out, time out, time out.

FERGUSON: Sir, millions --

SIROTA: We know that. We know that he has that has exposed crimes.

BALDWIN: Time out. Time out.

Ben Ferguson, make your point. David Sirota, respond. Go.

FERGUSON: There are millions of pieces of data is what we've been told that he has. He's even claimed that. All of it cannot be connected to one single core issue. And that's exactly why the Russians and other people offered help, because they had information they wanted that he had that was outside the scope of what he did in his narcissistic interview when he wanted to become famous with that reporter months ago. Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken the political risk of housing him in Russia if they already knew everything that he had because he gave it up in a report. That's beyond whistle blowing. That's called committing a crime against your country.

BALDWIN: Facing espionage charges, David.

SIROTA: My response to that -- my response to that is that is that I find it interesting that a conservative, an alleged conservative would berate a whistle blower for blowing the whistle on crimes against the Fourth Amendment, which conservatives hold up supposedly as so sacred to them. Edward Snowden was not --

FERGUSON: I'm a true conservative. You can knock me --

SIROTA: -- is in Russia because the United States government would not offer him a safe passage back to his country with amnesty or a safe passage to another country. So blaming him for being in Russia is positively absurd.

My simple point is this. The information that Edward Snowden has disclosed has exposed major and systemic crimes against the United States government. And conservatives like Ben and anybody else who berate him are taking the side of criminals and taking the side of violating the Fourth Amendment, as we just heard a court just ruled.

FERGUSON: Sir, true heroes -- let me end with this. True heroes don't have to go to America's biggest enemies to find a place to live if they're such great heroes, as your describing now. That's called being a fraud and a traitor and working against America.

SIROTA: True heroes get the protection of a country that says thank you for blowing the whistle on crimes.

BALDWIN: OK.

SIROTA: A hero in a country that's patriotic is a country that says thank you for blowing the whistle on crimes against the Constitution. And it's amazing that a conservative or somebody who calls himself a conservative would --

BALDWIN: Wait, let me -- let me ask -- let me ask this, let me ask this -- can we -- guys, let me take the heroes out it. Let's -- just practically speaking, I'm just curious, just for fun --

FERGUSON: Sure.

BALDWIN: David, first to you. If Edward Snowden were to come back to the United States and that asylum would be granted, what would he do job wise?

SIROTA: Well, I don't know what he would do. I mean, that's a good question.

BALDWIN: What do you think he should do?

SIROTA: I don't know what kind of deal he would cut.

Well, look, I think that he certainly offered up enough information to convict a whole lot of people in the United States government potentially and to potentially reform the NSA. I mean even President Obama, who's been embarrassed by these disclosures, has said that these disclosures have resulted in exposing a lot of systemic wrongdoing. What would he do?

BALDWIN: He is praised, but he is also a hated man.

SIROTA: I can't speculate.

BALDWIN: Does he hide?

SIROTA: Well, sure. I don't know what he would do. I mean, nobody -- you should ask him that.

BALDWIN: I'd love to. Ed Snowden, love to ask him that.

Ben, what do you think? FERGUSON: I think if he came back to America, which is probably not going to happen, he'd probably hang out with a lot of guys like the one you just heard from and they'd sit around talking about how great they are and some patriots, even though they're in favor of breaking the law. I mean this guy's about as employable as George Zimmerman is right now in this country. It's going to be a bad day if he comes back, as many people know.

SIROTA: Keep billing yourself as a conservative and taking the side of people who violate the Fourth Amendment.

FERGUSON: OK, let me -- let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish.

SIROTA: A conservative is not somebody who takes the side of violating the Fourth Amendment.

BALDWIN: Go, Ben.

FERGUSON: Your definition of conservatism and mine are very different. If you say that being a conservative --

SIROTA: Clearly.

FERGUSON: Is advocating for law breakers, then I'm not your type of conservative because I actually believe in the law of the land in this country.

SIROTA: You're advocating you're on the side of people who want to violate the Constitution.

FERGUSON: That's not true.

SIROTA: You're literally taking the side of people who have violated the Constitution. You are proudly taking the side of people who have violated the Constitution. And conservatives, at least the ones that I know, are not for that.

BALDWIN: All right, gentlemen, leaving it there.

FERGUSON: Well, you and --

BALDWIN: I should have brought -- leaving it there. I should have brought my whistle today. I always appreciate both of you. I love hearing both sides. The passion in your voices. Appreciate both of you. David Sirota, Ben Ferguson, thank you very, very much.

SIROTA: Thank you.

FERGUSON: Thanks for having us.

BALDWIN: We should mention, we will have much, much more, of course, on this district court ruling with regard to the NSA and the unconstitutionality based upon the Fourth Amendment at the top of the hour, and also, gosh, just a lot of you talking about what should happen if, if, the big if, Ed Snowden is granted amnesty right here in the U.S.

Coming up, more singers are cancelling their gigs at SeaWorld over the CNN film "Blackfish," but are the artists overreacting here? I'll talk live with someone who says there is a place for killer whales in captivity.

Plus, Iowa is the first contest out of the presidential gate in 2016. And when you look at this here, no surprise, you have Hillary Clinton, she's polling well among Democrats. But Republicans, it's a different story. There is a surprising front runner and a surprising drop, actually, in these polls. That's next.

You are watching CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)