Return to Transcripts main page
Glenn Beck
McCain Statement on Iraq Fuels Criticism; Some Congressional Democrats Not Backing Obama; Are High Gas Prices a Blessing in Disguise?
Aired June 12, 2008 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE PAGLIARULO, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, John McCain under attack from the Democrats after a poor choice of words, and a Supreme Court rules that the terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay do have rights.
These topics and more, coming up.
Hello, America. I`m Joe Pagliarulo, Joe Pags, in for Glenn Beck once again while he keeps you laughing on his comedy stage show tour.
Well, when it comes to keeping America safe, I don`t care if you`re a flaming liberal or a screaming conservative, and neither do most Americans. You know, we can all agree that, in today`s world, national security is important to all Americans. And like it or not, our Iraq policy is part of that.
You don`t need me to tell you that Barack Obama and John McCain see Iraq just a little bit differently, and their policies deflect that divergent thinking. But yesterday on NBC`s "Today Show," McCain said something that had Democrats licking their chops, ready to pounce.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, NBC`S "TODAY SHOW": If it`s working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, but that`s not too important. What`s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea; Americans are in Japan; American troops are in Germany. That`s all fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAGLIARULO: Oh, boy. "Not too important," not too good. Doesn`t sound good, does it? And the Democrats and our old friend, John Kerry, from his wind-surfing escapade -- remember that guy? -- went to work pounding McCain as, quote, "unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of most Americans," end quote. Is it possible Obama and his surrogates can really hit McCain in the area where he is arguably strongest, foreign policy, and make him seem weak?
A new CNN poll out today suggests 54 percent of voters feel John McCain is stronger on foreign policy. So will the spin work?
Keeping me company again tonight is Amy Holmes, former speech writer for Bill Frist while he was Senate majority leader and current CNN political contributor.
You know, Amy, this smells to me of the same thing that was happening with Rudy Giuliani when he was running for president. We`ve -- well, many people thought -- I never did -- that he would be the nominee for the Republicans.
The Democrats, for a very small window, attacked Rudy Giuliani on 9/11. I just thought that was the dumbest thing going. Rudy Giuliani, if nothing else, was America`s mayor that day and the days after that. Attacking him on his strongest point didn`t make sense to me.
Isn`t this the same thing they`re doing to John McCain now?
AMY HOLMES, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, I think that`s a really interesting analysis. And I think that there is a real parallel here.
And with this quote from "The Today Show," I think Democrats are clearly taking this out of context.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: What he said is what matters are casualties, that American troops should not be in harm`s way. They`re cutting it off. They`re using only the first half.
But I wonder if this isn`t bad politics. Is America really going to believe that John McCain, someone who held up as a POW for 5 1/2 years in a Vietnamese tiger cage, doesn`t care about the troops? I didn`t know that this is going to fly.
PAGLIARULO: Well, I think that`s what he meant to say. He meant to say, "I care about the troops. I don`t care about the length of time." And this length of time thing has been jumping out at him and biting him for a while now...
HOLMES: Remember the 100 years.
PAGLIARULO: He said that, and I think he said, 100 years, 1,000 years, I don`t think people care how long we`re there as long as the fighting stops, as long as there`s a stable Iraq, a stable Middle East.
He was taken out of context then. He didn`t mean, let`s go fight a war for 100 years. What he meant was, we have a presence in Europe. We have a presence in Japan. We have a presence in South Korea. That`s going to continue.
HOLMES: Right.
PAGLIARULO: But we`re not fighting presently.
HOLMES: Right. But I think there`s a lesson to be learned here, though, for John McCain, that he needs to be clear. He cannot be making these statements that can be so easily taken out of context.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: One of the great things about him is that he`s the straight- shooter, Straight Talk Express.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: But it also is opening up opportunities for Democrats to distort what he`s saying.
PAGLIARULO: OK. Listen, Michael Reagan is a radio talk show host, GOP strategist. Keith Boykin is the editor of "The Daily Voice" and former Clinton administration aide. And David Paul Kuhn is a senior political reporter with Politico and author of "The Neglected Voter."
Michael, I want to start with you.
Welcome to all three of you.
Listen, John McCain needs to keep talking about the war. He needs to keep talking about the military, because that is where he`s strongest. But does he need to watch how he starts the phrase of the sentence that can be chopped off and used by somebody like John Kerry and Barack Obama?
MICHAEL REAGAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hey, in this game, everything, everything you say can be used against you in a court of public opinion.
PAGLIARULO: That`s true.
REAGAN: And he`s finding that out in this presidential campaign.
What he said yesterday was completely taken out of context. If you go on and follow it out further, here`s the man who remembers that we brought people home from Southeast Asia without honor.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
REAGAN: And he certainly does not want to bring men and women home from Iraq and from Afghanistan without honor to go through exactly what the Vietnam veterans went through back in the 1970s, `80s, and still going through today. He understands that more than John Kerry. He understands it more than Barack Obama or anybody else who`s playing on the other side of the coin.
HOLMES: So Keith, what happened to this era of new politics? What happened to Barack Obama rising above the fray? I mean, in "The New York Times," it said some of his advisers were suggesting that McCain seemed confused, trying to even maybe put out the story line there that he`s a doddering old man, that he`s kind of losing his marbles. This doesn`t sound like new politics to me.
KEITH BOYKIN, EDITOR, "THE DAILY VOICE": Amy, I think the new politics went out the window with John McCain when the guy who said he was the head of the Straight Talk Express started accusing Barack Obama of being the candidate of Hamas.
I mean, for God`s sakes, John McCain is the one who started this whole fight in the first -- in the first place. The Democrats are simply finishing the fight.
John McCain has made one mistake after another, one gaffe at another, on Iraq. He went to Iraq. He confused the Sunnis with the Shiites. He made the mistake about the 100 years war. He voted against the G.I. Bill. Now John McCain`s...
PAGLIARULO: Keith...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGLIARULO: You`ve got to stop. You`ve got to.
BOYKIN: No, no, I`m serious. No, I`m serious. I think this is ridiculous. You`ve got...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLMES: Hold on, hold on.
BOYKIN: Let me just finish my statement. It`s ridiculous here. You guys, you can`t say anything about -- about John McCain, and suddenly it`s not fair...
PAGLIARULO: I want to go ahead and get a mean (ph) guy, Keith. Stop for a second. Stop, stop, stop, stop. We heard the campaign. OK?
I want to give it back to Amy here. We hear the campaigning. We hear the speech. Thank you, we get it. We heard Barack Obama say it.
Amy, please.
HOLMES: I`m bringing the question to David. David, I remember this spring, we heard all spring long by Barack offend -- defenders, rather, that it was totally unfair to take Jeremiah Wright out of context, to use just one snippet and not the entirety of all of his sermons.
And yet in the case of John McCain talking about something as important as national security and the war in Iraq, hey, that`s fair game. What do you think?
DAVID PAUL KUHN, THE POLITICO: Right. I mean, both campaigns are taking the biggest verbal gaffes of each candidate and pulling them in a context that benefits their strategy. What McCain yesterday was -- was a mistake in the sense that he had gained ground in recent months.
Since in January he had said, let it be 100 years. Doing exactly what you said, effectively saying that, as long as Americans aren`t dying in Iraq, that`s what`s important. We`ve been in Korea a long time. We`ve been in Japan a long time. As long as we`re in Iraq but there aren`t consistent casualties, he was -- you know, it could be a good thing, if you will.
Now, without debating the philosophy behind that, what`s important about what the Democrats are now doing is it`s not as if they`re trying to make McCain look too week on national security. They`re almost trying to make him look too strong.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
KUHN: In other words, they`re trying to make him a super hawk.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
KUHN: Americans -- Republicans always have to watch being made too hawkish, and Democrats always have to watch being made too dovish.
PAGLIARULO: I want to jump on that point, David, and I appreciate it. Michael, I want to bring you in here. When your dad ran for president, same thing happened. They said he was a warmonger and he was going to kill us all. Nuclear war was impending. And of course, he became the most peaceful president ever.
REAGAN: Yes, absolutely. It`s interesting, because the Democrats painted my dad as a warmonger, which ultimately helped him win the Cold War over the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries later on, because they believed what the Democrats were putting out there about my father.
You know, they also tried to play the age card on Ronald Reagan.
PAGLIARULO: Yes, right.
REAGAN: And that didn`t work either. Look at John McCain. He has a 95-year-old mother. He`s standing up pretty tall. If anything, he`s got experience.
We are at war. We need a man in there who understands war and understands you bring your men and your women home, and you bring them home with honor.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
REAGAN: That`s not what the Democrats are talking about. They`re talking about cutting and running.
KUHN: I think what`s interesting about what happened yesterday is that when McCain made this -- made this gaffe and Obama then jumped on him, in the short-term, I think Obama saw an opening, his campaign did, and they -- it was a strong strategy to hit McCain on this.
But in the long-term, this was a week when Obama needed to focus and intended to focus on the economy. The Pew has found that the top six issues on voters` minds are all domestic. And for Obama to basically go to McCain`s court on national security and play in his court on this issue, I actually do think is a larger strategic mistake.
And Obama really should have tried to stay on his own message this week, and I think he may have thundered that message a bit in doing this.
HOLMES: That`s a very interesting point.
Keith, I have a question for you. If Barack Obama made some sort of gaffe, was taken out of context on an issue as important as national security in Iraq and Republicans started attacking him for being out of touch with the American soldier, out of touch with national security, do you think Democrats would sit still and take it?
BOYKIN: Well, first of all, Amy, I don`t think what John McCain said was taken out of context. I watched it three times. I read the transcript. I heard what he said. He said, it`s not too important when the troops come home. He said...
HOLMES: What matters are casualties.
BOYKIN: Yes, let`s focus on the casualties. But that`s still saying, it`s not important when the troops come home. It`s a reflection of the same mistake he made before, about the 100 years. We had to clean that up, too. And I`m sorry. I will not apologize for this.
PAGLIARULO: He was -- listen...
BOYKIN: I`m not going to -- I will not apologize for this, Joe.
PAGLIARULO: I`m not asking you to apologize. You have to understand: I know that you`re smarter than I am. You know that you`re smarter than I am, but you`re acting -- you`re acting not very smart right now. Wait a second.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: May I...
PAGLIARULO: I want you to tell me -- Keith, I want you to tell me how staying in Iraq for 100 or 1,000 years with a presence there like we have in Germany, a presence there like we have in Japan, a presence like we have in South Korea doesn`t resonate with you? How does that not work with you in saying when they come home physically is not as important as how we stop them from getting hurt or killed? How does that resonate with you? How?
BOYKIN: First of all, Joe, we`re spending $3 billion a week on the war in Iraq. Twelve billion dollars...
PAGLIARULO: So no answer then?
BOYKIN: I`m answering your question. It has a huge impact on our society, a huge impact on our economy. The fact that we are spending so much money on the war means we don`t get to spend the money on helping out our economy here.
PAGLIARULO: We went from casualties to money...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGLIARULO: Go ahead, Michael.
REAGAN: It`s really interesting to hear the Democrats` political left talk. That somehow when we go to war, we ought to figure out how much money we`re going to spend on it, and when that budget`s gone, everybody just comes home. I mean, that`s what they`re talking about.
How much would you spend to keep your family safe? How much would you spend to keep your family safe and keep America safe?
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
REAGAN: That`s really the issue. You`re saying, $3 billion is it. Over that, I don`t care if my family dies.
BOYKIN: No, no.
HOLMES: Quick question -- hold on. Quick question for David. We`re going to have to wrap up this segment. Quick question for David. Smart politics, dumb politics to be accusing John McCain of not having a feel for American troops?
KUHN: Well, I mean, I think in the large picture, it`s bad politics for the Democrats, because again, they`re playing on McCain`s terms.
I think that there is an academic and intelligent argument to contrast a long-term presence in Iraq with a long-term presence in Japan. Of course, Japan was a clear surrender. Germany was a clear surrender.
Iraq, even under the best, most optimistic terms, will not be a definitive, clear surrender. And so obviously, occupation is more difficult or even a large troop presence.
But that -- I think there`s a valid debate there. But it`s also important to note that McCain`s primary point is that what matters is stopping the casualties.
PAGLIARULO: Right. And very good. Listen, we appreciate it. Michael, Keith, David, we appreciate you taking the time. You know this thing -- and we don`t have much time here at all. But this thing, I mean, it does come down to is it about money, is it about lives, is it about casualties, is it about holding out and just having a date? That`s what`s interesting.
We`ll keep on following this. That`s for sure.
All right. Coming up right here, at least one Congressional Democrat says he`s not going to endorse his party`s candidate for president. Is this the opening John McCain needs now to steal a few centrist votes?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: Coming up, politics is a dirty business, and sometimes it`s hard to separate fact from fiction. That`s why Barack Obama is launching a new Internet offensive to fight smear tactics. Seems as though there are more than a just a few rumors floating around that he`d like to clear up. Details on that in just a bit.
But right now, throughout this election season, we`ve seen endorsements. We`ve seen rejections of endorsements. We`ve -- now we`re seeing non-endorsements. Yes, centrist Democrats, mostly from conservative regions, have not endorsed Senator Barack Obama, because most of them are just too busy. Busy? Come on. You`re Congress. You get more vacation days than Paris Hilton.
One, Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma, went so far as to say that he would not endorse the party`s presumptive nominee and called him the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate. Obama`s liberal? Who knew?
Well, just how bad will these non-endorsements from conservative Democrats hurt the Illinois senator in his campaign for the presidency? And will this become a race to the middle for the two candidates?
Joining us now to help figure all this out is Jonathan Allen of "Congressional Quarterly."
And Jonathan, we appreciate you taking the time today. All right. What`s the deal? I mean, we knew that those middle -- middle-of-the- country red states, even the Democrats there are sort of, kind of conservative. We knew that they weren`t going to jump on the Obama bandwagon, right?
JONATHAN ALLEN, "CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY": That`s right. These are sort of minor blips. Obviously, Senator Obama would like to have these members of Congress supporting him, but a lot of them are really acting in their own interests. They didn`t see Senator Obama. Nor did they see Senator Clinton particularly good for them in their district.
HOLMES: Jonathan, this is Amy Holmes speaking. And you know, Claire McCaskill, she was quoted as going so far -- and I quote it -- to say as, they`re scared to death of getting beat by Republicans. Some of these congress people are just up for their second term. They haven`t been in office for long. How big of a problem is it for Democrats to have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket when they`re fighting conservative districts?
ALLEN: It depends in which state; it depends in which district. In some places, Barack Obama will be helpful, of course, if there`s increased African-American turnout. In states and districts with significant African-American populations, that`s pretty helpful for Democrats.
But on the flip side, you`ve got a lot of Democrats right now who are representing districts that George Bush won handily in 2000 and 2004 and that John McCain will probably win in 2008. I think Congressman Boren is a good example of that. There are several others. Heath Shuler of North Carolina comes to mind as somebody whose district is almost sure to go Republican.
PAGLIARULO: I`ve got to ask you this. When Congress people say they`re busy, they`re lying, right? I mean, they`re not busy. They`re going to wait it out until November, and they`re going to sort of see how their constituents are going to vote.
And some of these people -- well, I guess, I`m assuming something here. Maybe you can correct me if I`m wrong. Some of these people are going to, in fact, endorse John McCain, aren`t they? Even these Democrats?
ALLEN: Well, I don`t know if any of the elected members of Congress are going to endorse John McCain at the end of the day, but you may see a lot of them stay off of the Obama bandwagon. It`s probably politically safer for them. And of course, it does not take a very long time to issue an endorsement.
HOLMES: Now, some Democratic strategists, they`re pointing to McCain`s own problems with evangelicals, that like Obama, that there are Republicans who are afraid to associate with John McCain. Is that something that you`re seeing?
ALLEN: Absolutely. One of the biggest problems for Senator McCain as he moves towards the middle and has always tried to court independent votes, and we see that happening this weekend. He`s got a planned town- hall meeting online with independent and Democratic voters.
As he does that, he has problems with his conservative base, particularly among social conservatives, many of whom don`t trust him, despite a down the line record with them on abortion and on a number of other social issues.
HOLMES: So Jonathan, do you think that there`s a real risk that those voters will stay home, particularly if he doesn`t pick a V.P. that really resonates with them?
ALLEN: Actually, it`s interesting. In the 2006 election, I think the bigger problem for Republicans wasn`t that the base stayed home but rather that the independents shifted over to the Democratic side in those congressional elections. I think you`re going to see both bases, the Republican base and the Democratic base, pretty motivated this time around.
PAGLIARULO: I think they`re pretty motivated. But the bottom line is, if their representative or the person that they voted into office doesn`t back somebody, isn`t that representative, or senator, aren`t they taking a chance of not getting voted back in?
Politics is all about running for re-election and campaigning constantly, and it`s about having power and not losing power once you have it. If you don`t endorse somebody in the general election, because the general election is going to get people out to vote, I believe, this time, what do you do? I mean, these people, I think, stand a chance of losing their seat, no?
ALLEN: I think most of them are probably better off not making an endorsement.
PAGLIARULO: Really?
ALLEN: Or at least that`s their political judgment.
Now, look, most folks on both sides will make an endorsement, and it helps them to do that. But there`s a select few on both sides for whom making an endorsement will polarize their constituency and polarize it against them if they endorse with their own party.
There may be an exception or two where you see a member of Congress cross the aisle, as you suggested before, and endorse -- a Democratic Congressman endorsing McCain or a Republican endorsing Obama, but I think that will be very limited.
HOLMES: So Jonathan, quick question. What`s more important here, whether or not Barack Obama gets their endorsement or what that represents for him electorally?
ALLEN: Well, it`s really what it represents for him electorally. I mean, he`s got an issue, obviously. We`ve seen some polling out where he`s got some issues with working-class whites, and particularly white men. And what we`re seeing with this group of conservative Democrats is a continuation of that, where they feel like that their constituency is not going to be with Obama.
And I might also note that that`s not the only constituency that Barack Obama had problems with in the primary that he`s going to be trying to work for -- work on in the general election.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
ALLEN: There are some Latino lawmakers in Congress who were supportive of Hillary Clinton and are upset at him for not having reached out to them and not really reached out to the Hispanic community.
PAGLIARULO: It will be interesting to watch this thing. Jonathan, thanks a lot for your time.
ALLEN: Thank you.
PAGLIARULO: And coming up right here, Barack Obama launches a new fight the smear campaign to combat the rumors. There are numerous rumors out there, circulating around Washington. Sounds like a great idea, right? But will it actually work?
Plus, is it time to celebrate $4 gasoline -- $4 a gallon gasoline? It`s over that now. We`ll explore the silver lining those rising gas prices might have. I hear there`s one. I swear.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: Hey, great news, America. Gas prices are up over $4 a gallon. Woo-hoo! And that`s actually a good thing, some would say, anyway.
No, I haven`t lost my mind, and yes, I still pay more to fill up my SUV than to take my entire family to dinner. But hear me out here.
High gas prices may actually help us out in the long run, forcing Americans to do what Americans do best, you know, become less dependent on gasoline. But really, what we do best is find real useful alternatives. Maybe even go out there and find a now way to get from point "A" to point "B." Right? Doesn`t sound bad, does it?
Liam Denning is a financial columnist for the "Financial Times."
Liam, tell America why I`m not insane for thinking sticker shock at the gas pump might be a good thing.
LIAM DENNING, FINANCIAL COLUMNIST, "FINANCIAL TIMES": Well, the reason is that, in a market economies the like the U.S., it`s prices that help us change our behavior.
And when it comes to using oil, that`s one area where America definitely needs to change the way it uses oil and the way it thinks about its energy use overall.
We`ve had a couple of decades now of pretty cheep oil. And one of the side effects of that has been to go out and buy big, heavy cars, less fuel- efficient cars, to build big, sprawling cities where we drive everywhere. And that`s basically got to change over the long-term.
HOLMES: Liam, now environmentalists have been trying to get to us to ride our bicycles to work for, you know, decades. Isn`t it really the profit incentive that gets automakers to change the way they make cars?
DENNING: Absolutely. And if you look at the state of the U.S. car industry now, it`s pretty obvious that they`re in a crisis. Now, that isn`t just to do with the changing pace in cars, but certainly, you know, recent noises out of General Motors and Ford show that Americans are already starting to back away from things like Hummers, big SUVs, and wanting to get more fuel-efficient cars.
PAGLIARULO: Well, why does the argument continue, then, in Congress about getting OPEC to give us more production? Why does the argument continue between people like me and environmentalists that we should drill in ANWR, we should drill off the coast of California, we should drill off the coast of California? If truly our future is innovation and finding the car that runs on water, why don`t we just focus on that and stop all this oil business?
DENNING: It may be that we have to revisit our thoughts on where we drill in North America. One thing that`s worth pointing out is that it ill behooves us to ask other countries to drill more oil when we are unwilling to drill some of our own areas.
PAGLIARULO: Yes, right.
HOLMES: So do you think you`re going to hear Democrats actually saying that $4 per gallon is actually a good thing?
DENNING: I don`t think you`re going to hear many politicians actually say that. And indeed, you know, sadly, we`ve already had some presidential candidates running around, saying we should take a holiday from the gas tax, which would be totally counterproductive.
But I think possibly once the election is out of the way, you might start to see a better approach to a more holistic way of looking at energy policy. Not just asking other countries to supply us with more, but to also ask me and you to look at other ways of using it.
PAGLIARULO: I love that you`re a financial expert. I`ve got to ask you about this. The housing market had the bubble. I mean, everything was way, way, way up, out of range. Isn`t there a bubble here with a barrel of oil? Isn`t there a bubble that $135, $140, $150 a barrel really is going to get back to where it should be, $60, $70, $80 soon?
DENNING: You would hope so. I think there is certainly an element of a bubble to the commodities market in general at the moment. Certainly, there`s a lot of money which is frightened (ph) off of equities and bonds which has found its way into commodities.
But I think the way to think about is that it`s not so much the main element, but is more like an accelerator.
PAGLIARULO: All right. Liam, thank you so much for your time and your knowledge today. We appreciate it.
Coming up right up right here, Barack Obama launches a new Internet offensive devoted to combating false rumors. Will it work? Find out next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: Life just got a little better for all 270 terror suspects cooling their heels in Guantanamo Bay. After two previous decisions, the Supreme Court has reversed its stance and ruled that detainees do have constitutional rights.
I`ll have all the ridiculous details in just a bit.
But first, if you`re a candidate like Barack Obama and there`s a nasty rumor about you circulating on the Internet, the widely accepted wisdom has always been to ignore that rumor. Well, now Barack Obama is taking a new tact. His campaign has built the Web site fightthesmears.com, where they hope all the scurrilous stories about Obama will go to die.
The Obama camp says the Fight The Smears Web site makes it easier to combat the lies behind the rumor, adding, "We will not allow Barack to be defined by rumors."
Amy Holmes is here today. She is a former speechwriter for Bill Frist while he was Senate majority leader, and current CNN political contributor.
You know, my knee-jerk reaction on this, Amy, is do it the old way. Ignore the rumor.
Somebody says I`m a horrible television or radio talk show host, if I ignore it, I can go about my business and try my best to do as well as I can.
AMY HOLMES, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Right.
PAGLIARULO: In this political campaign, in 2008 America, Barack Obama has more horrible things being said about him, more lies being said about him than anybody else I can think of in my lifetime. I`m 41 years old.
What do you think about his tactic here?
HOLMES: Well, you know, this isn`t sticks and stones there anymore.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: I mean, we are in 24/7 Internet, cable, it`s all out there. And I know in the Democratic primary, a lot of this stuff that was being put out by, let`s remember, Democratic operatives...
PAGLIARULO: That`s right. That`s right.
HOLMES: ... a lot of pro-Hillary people, some of the worst stuffs was on pro-Hillary Web sites. And it was really gaining credence among some of those voters, that they believed some of the stuff that they were getting on the Internet.
PAGLIARULO: Let`s bring up some of this stuff.
Barack Obama took his oath on the Koran. Not true.
HOLMES: Not true.
PAGLIARULO: Barack Obama went to a madrassa when he was a kid in Jakarta, Indonesia. Not true.
HOLMES: Not true.
PAGLIARULO: Barack Obama is a Muslim and he`s going to change over as soon as he becomes the president and make us all follow Sharia law.
HOLMES: Not true.
PAGLIARULO: And, you know, you hear about these, and then you hear about the flag pin. Half true. You hear about not doing the Pledge of Allegiance, put your hand over -- half true.
So, he makes this Web site. People like me, even though I`m against his policies, I feel for the guy. I field questions like this all the time.
HOLMES: Absolutely.
PAGLIARULO: So do you in Washington.
HOLMES: Sure.
PAGLIARULO: You must hear this all the time.
HOLMES: Sure. With the Internet, anybody can say anything. They have the power to do that. And you know what? Legally, you can`t even stop them.
PAGLIARULO: And they`re blogging anonymously.
HOLMES: And they`re blogging anonymously, so they don`t even have to take responsibility, what they`re saying about public people or public officials. I think it`s a smart idea, but, you know, I do wonder if it might not be so great to draw attention to them.
PAGLIARULO: Yes, right.
HOLMES: You know, that whole -- there`s a balancing act. Do you ignore it and maybe it goes away, or do you draw attention to it and then more people see the rumor and then you increase the chances of people believing it?
PAGLIARULO: It seems that the one that was the impetus for the Web site is that his wife said the word "Whitey" from behind the pulpit at a church, which never happened either.
HOLMES: Yes.
PAGLIARULO: So they`re out there, they`re trying to knock these down.
We want to bring in our panel now.
Michael Reagan is a radio talk show host, a GOP strategist. Keith Boykin is the editor of "The Daily Voice" and former aide to the Clinton administration. Keith is a very, very good friend of mine. And David Paul Kuhn is a senior political reporter with Politico and author of "The Neglected Voter."
All right, Keith. I`m going to give you a chance to defend Barack Obama in this decision. Are you -- first of all, are you surprised that you and I agree on this?
KEITH BOYKIN, EDITOR, "THE DAILY VOICE": No, I`m not at all surprised. You know, I worked in the `88 campaign for Mike Dukakis, which was a failure, and I worked in the `92 campaign for Bill Clinton. And what we learned from those two campaigns, `88 was a failure in part because Mike Dukakis did not respond to attacks.
He was 17 points ahead in August of `88. He lost the lead and lost to George Bush.
In `92, we created a war room so we could respond to attacks in the same news cycle and get back into the fight. And I think we need that even more in 2008, when we have a viral campaign, because everything could happen before you even pay attention to it. So it`s a really smart move.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: But, Michael, is there a danger that by addressing these rumors you actually draw attention to them? You circulate it even further?
MICHAEL REAGAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: May I say something? There`s no way any war room can respond to the picture of Dukakis on the tank.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s true. That`s true.
REAGAN: All by himself.
(CROSSTALK)
HOLMES: A picture that speaks a thousand words.
REAGAN: Susan Estrich and Michael Dukakis, thank you very much.
You know, I think what he`s doing is absolutely right. I`ve seen the rumors. I got one yesterday from a Christian ministry in Kenya about Barack Obama.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
REAGAN: These are rampant all over the Internet. People somehow read the Internet and believe all this stuff. I have to deal with it on my radio show.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
REAGAN: I get yelled at by conservatives for telling them to go to truthorfiction.com or (INAUDIBLE), whatever it is, to find out about these rumors. No, you`re having to do this in this day and age of the media, the day and age of the Internet, where all these lies go out there, and in fact so many of them stick, you`ve got to respond to them.
PAGLIARULO: Hey, David, how does he decide which ones to respond to and which ones to not respond to? Because there are some horrible ones out there that are obvious. The whole "Whitey" comment, I mean, that`s obvious.
How do you respond to his background? He would have to go through eight pages. His father was from Kenya, he has a Muslim, but then he wasn`t a Muslim. His mother was an -- I mean, can`t you at some point serve to confuse people?
DAVID PAUL KUHN, POLITICO: To be honest, I think they should do what other Web sites have done and say, "lie number one, two, three four; truth number one, two, three, four," and take...
PAGLIARULO: Just list them all. OK.
KUHN: Take every rumor and offer the truth in an unbiased and unpolitical way. Just simply fact-check. And in doing that -- and if they do that, I think it can be successful.
I do believe, though, a concern both of you raised is also true. That if Obama himself directly responded to some of these rumors, as ugly as they are, he would then dignify them and it would force the media to cover his response.
So he has to be very careful in pulling his punches until necessary. And obviously, if it made its way into television ads, he of course must respond. Look at what happened in 2004 with Kerry.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
KUHN: Kerry actually wanted to respond. He was advised by his top team not to. They thought they would dignify the rumors. The lesson from that is, it`s better to respond...
PAGLIARULO: He couldn`t respond. It was true, David.
HOLMES: Right.
PAGLIARULO: Sorry.
HOLMES: So, Keith, how do you measure whether or not it`s working? That, you k now, this war room tactic to try to knock down these rumors, how do you know if it`s even effective?
BOYKIN: That`s a very good question, Amy. It`s hard to say. You know, the polls might give you some indication, but that doesn`t tell you everything.
There`s still a significant number of people out there who still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim, according to the latest polls. And that`s not true. And I think what you have to do is you just have to be very aggressive.
Barack Obama`s big problem is he`s an unknown quantity to a lot of people. Now, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, they`ve been around for a long, long time, for decades. And they have a record and people know who they are, to a certain extent.
Barack Obama, they don`t really know as much about him. So when they hear a rumor, they`re more likely to believe it. So he has to be more aggressive in responding to those.
PAGLIARULO: Hey, Michael, would it be smart for the John McCain camp to jump on this and say, well we`ll put out a bunch more rumors. He`s going to keep on countering them, we`ll keep his busy countering rumors and we`ll talk about issues.
REAGAN: Yes. I mean, it`s smart for John McCain to talk about issues. Let Barack Obama deal with all the innuendoes and rumors out there on the Internet.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
REAGAN: And the reality is, you know that, in fact, it`s working. Why? Because he`s formed a committee to deal with it. If it wasn`t working, he wouldn`t be talking about it.
HOLMES: So what you`re saying, if the rumors were not actually planting seeds of doubt into the voters, he wouldn`t be doing this whole war room business?
REAGAN: Absolutely right. Where`s he going to reach out to? He wants to reach across the aisle, and I think a lot of these things are coming from the political right, from the Christian community, and what have you. They`ve had a problem with it. And I think he`s trying to reach into those areas and say, wait, I`m not a Muslim, I`m a Christian, and this is where I`m going.
Of course, it doesn`t help with the Reverend Wrights, it doesn`t help with the Michael Pflegers, it doesn`t help with the church he belonged to in Chicago.
HOLMES: So, David, isn`t it also important who he puts out there, the surrogates, the people who attach their names to the truth, that they`re credible with the voters? So, for example, if there`s an e-mail that`s false that`s being sent around, that the next e-mail they get is from someone that they trust?
KUHN: Yes, I agree, and I think they have to be very careful what surrogates they put out there. Obviously, you might want to put out Jim Webb over John Kerry on this subject, because Webb is controversial, but his war record is less debated than John Kerry`s.
And to the last point, I think it`s interesting, what was just raised. And that is that as Obama denies the lies, the ugly rumors here, but then he`s forced into sort of a cultural framework, and the problem is, is when he`s in that framework, he has said things directly that really allow Republicans and conservatives so say, is he truly mainstream?
In other words, Republicans have to successfully won elections in positioning Democrats as not mainstream. As, in fact, culturally extreme. And if Obama makes more mistakes on that front, then the ugly rumors won`t help his...
PAGLIARULO: Well, I`ve got to put this out. And Keith, I`ll throw this at you.
Barack Obama`s got all sorts of people endorsing him. Maybe some Muslims will endorse him. Hamas certainly thought it would be a good thing if he became the president, and Barack Obama didn`t ask for that.
Does he need to respond to those on this Web site or out there on the campaign stump, or does he say, hey, I can`t people stop from endorsing me, if they do, they do?
BOYKIN: I don`t know if he needs to get into the whole question of who`s endorsing him. I honestly don`t think that really matters.
I mentioned this in the earlier segment. You know, the whole thing about Hamas endorsing him, I think it`s an ugly story. I don`t think the John McCain campaign should be trading in those types of stories. And I think if we really want to have an elevated campaign, then it`s going to be incumbent upon both John McCain and Barack Obama to make that happen. They both have to bring that together.
KUHN: But let`s be frank here.
REAGAN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. On the Hamas issue...
PAGLIARULO: Quickly, guys. Go ahead.
REAGAN: On the Hamas issue, no, it is an issue. Hamas, enemy of Israel, therefore an enemy of the United States, endorses Barack Obama. I think John McCain should bring that up. Why? There`s a hell of a big Jewish vote in the United States of America, and, my god, John McCain would want it.
PAGLIARULO: Guys, we`ve got to stop it there. We`ve got to stop it there.
HOLMES: Oh, boy oh boy. That`s a whole other segment, but we`ve got to wrap it up here.
Michael, Keith, David, thanks so much for joining us.
KUHN: Thank you.
BOYKIN: Thank you.
REAGAN: Thank you.
PAGLIARULO: All right. And we`re coming right back here.
Listen, when you hear them talk about it, I again still stand firm on the fact that I like the fact that he`s doing this. He should do this. But I do think that he has some problems when he gets an endorsement from Hamas.
I do think he has a problem if he gets an endorsement from CAIR, not that he has, or from any other Islamic group, for the simple fact that the rumor out there is so heavy, my listeners -- I`ll bet you 30, 40 percent of my listeners in Houston and San Antonio believe he`s a Muslim, believe he took his oath on the Koran. He`s going to run away from that, but if he gets endorsements from people who are from that faith, it`s going to open up new questions.
I think he probably has to react to it.
HOLMES: I think that he has to react to it, because it is out there. And we do have the Internet, that can make things travel faster, further than ever before.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: But I still think that there`s a risk of the rubbernecking. You know, when you ignore something, then you`re minimizing the number of people who look at it.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
HOLMES: When you start to address it, then people are going to say, what is that you`re talking about? And I think David brought up a really good point, which it opens the door for discussion. So just how true is this? Is there an element, is there a kernel? Does that now become a new debate, a new problem for Barack Obama?
PAGLIARULO: It might be how you handle it, too. I mean, Ronald Reagan, when he was attacked with the age question, he said to Walter Mondale, "I will never, ever make age an issue. I won`t hold it against my competitor that he`s so young."
HOLMES: Sure. That was a really clever way of turning it around.
PAGLIARULO: Right. He diffused it beautifully.
Barack Obama is diffusing it in a very standoffish way. It`s on the Internet. You can stop by the Web site, you can go and see it, but he`s not saying it. John Kerry didn`t do anything, so he was battered over Swift Boat.
Ronald Reagan, the right way. John Kerry, the wrong way. Barack Obama doing it a different way, but I`m not certain that...
HOLMES: Well, and Barack -- he also confused the issue a little bit.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: Because if you remember, he used to say that having a middle name "Hussein" would help him with the Middle East and would help him with Arabs and Muslims. But now he`s saying, no, no, no, don`t call me a Muslim. Well, it`s not true that he is, so nobody should believe that he is, but I think he`s even (ph) confused and sort of made it a gray area himself.
PAGLIARULO: As good a speaker as he is, he would do well for himself in this campaign to have the Web site, sure, for dorks like me who float around the Internet, right?
HOLMES: Right.
PAGLIARULO: But also say it. He`s got to say it like Ronald Reagan said it. Ronald Reagan won by a landslide because people hung on every word he said, yes.
HOLMES: Figure out a clever way to put this to rest.
PAGLIARULO: Absolutely right.
OK. Coming up right here, the Supreme Court says prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their imprisonment. Not quite the ruling the Bush administration was hoping for. We will have the ridiculous details coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: The Supreme Court ruled today that terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right -- that`s right, you heard me, the constitutional right -- to challenge their detention in U.S. civil courts. The nation`s highest court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the detainees` rights.
Let me remind you that the roughly 270 men who remain there at Guantanamo are classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al Qaeda and the Taliban. So wanting to blow up American citizens affords you the same rights as those citizens.
It`s a great country, isn`t it?
Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch.
And Tom, listen, we appreciate you taking the time.
Here`s the way I look at it. In World War II, when we were battling Germany and we took some prisoners of war, they were wearing Germany soldiers uniforms. They were obviously on the other side. To us they were the bad guy. There was no question about their innocence or guilt or our right to take them as our war prisoners.
How is this any different? Is this not a defined war? And aren`t these people who actually if we let them out today would try to kill you and me?
TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, that`s exactly right. And that`s what Justice Scalia is speaking, for four of the dissenting justices in this decision said, that this decision, this extreme act of judicial activism is likely to result in more terrorists being released who will then go on to kill Americans.
And your history is correct. I mean, there was a decision related to capturing Germans in China who were later tried in Europe, and the Supreme Court just threw all of that out. And this is the first time in our nation`s history that these rights, these constitutional rights, have been afforded to enemy combatants captured abroad and held abroad.
HOLMES: Tom, this is Amy here. Let me play the devil`s advocate, though.
There`s some people who say that we can`t be sure that these were terrorists. Maybe they were handed over by tribal chieftains that saw them as political rivals, or were getting paid off. How do we know that those people at Gitmo are actually terrorists?
FITTON: Well, I think we should defer to the military on that, frankly, Amy. But nevertheless, there already was also a procedure in place, a military commission.
The detainee could already go to the military commission and say, you know what? I have a right to challenge my detention. And if they didn`t like the ruling of that military commission, they would get a lawyer and go straight to the appellate court here in the District of Columbia.
And the Supreme Court said, no, that`s not enough. Those are extraordinary rights we have already granted to these enemy combatants which has resulted in the release of enemy combatants, that have gone on to commit terrorism, isn`t enough. We needed to do more.
And now they`re going to have full access to our courts, it seems, and be able to bring in all sorts of evidence, call witnesses, maybe gain access to intelligence. It`s an outrage and it`s going to create a circus atmosphere, I fear.
PAGLIARULO: I`ve got to jump on that, because, look, the bottom line is if the access to the intelligence is real -- because if they get to really face their accuser, they get to find out what the accuser has on them, and that`s going to give out a lot of secrets here. But I have to go back to the whole German war prisoner thing again.
Is this not the Supreme Court somehow playing politics, saying, you know what, Bush administration? This isn`t a real war, this isn`t a war on terrorism. Iraq is different than Afghanistan is different than anywhere else in the world.
Aren`t they jumping into the fray here politically where they shouldn`t be?
FITTON: That`s right. They`re exercising their will over the political powers in Congress and the president.
They got together, figured out a way to deal with these enemy combatants that left the Supreme Court, in large measure, out of the occasion. And the Supreme Court got angry.
And they want to be the politicians here, lording over the other branches of government in terms of determining policy and how to deal with these enemy combatants in a time of war. Frankly, I trust the generals more than the judges in times of war. But the Supreme Court doesn`t see it that way.
PAGLIARULO: Yes, me too.
FITTON: Or at least five justices don`t see it that way.
HOLMES: Right. But can`t we sit here and we can complain all day long? We can use this whole segment complaining. But this is the Supreme Court. This is the final court to decide these things.
How do you change this policy-wise? Do you change this legislatively? I mean, what would be the next course, course of action?
FITTON: Well, you know, it`s a 5-4 decision. Maybe you can appoint new justices that will overturn it. In the meantime, we have to hope that the judges here in the District of Columbia that will hear these habeas corpus challenges have some sense about them and really subject them to strict scrutiny.
PAGLIARULO: All right, Tom. Well, we appreciate your time.
You know, it seems to me, Amy, that these Supreme Court justices used to be lawyers. This is getting more work for lawyers. That`s the whole thing!
HOLMES: Oh, to get people in front of them asking questions.
PAGLIARULO: Thanks again, Tom. We appreciate that.
All right. We`re going to be right back, right here, in just a minute.
Stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: And finally tonight, the chief judge of the nation`s largest appellate court was suspended after a newspaper reported he had posted sexually explicit photos and videos on his own Web site. It included pictures of naked women painted to look like cows, and those were the tame ones.
Judge Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said he thought most of the content was funny.
And I`m here with Amy Holmes.
Amy, you are in such big trouble. I`m walking around the newsroom yesterday, and who`s going, "Look at this story!"
Thank you.
HOLMES: I admit it, I love a sex scandal. And let`s face it, anybody who says they that don`t, they`re lying.
This is an amazing story.
PAGLIARULO: It is.
HOLMES: But there is a political angle to this. This is...
PAGLIARULO: I thought that it was going to be a very liberal judge. I thought it was going to be a very liberal judge...
HOLMES: Oh, no.
PAGLIARULO: ... probably appointed by Bill Clinton.
HOLMES: This is a Reagan appointee.
PAGLIARULO: It kills me to hear that.
HOLMES: He is considered a brilliant conservative mind. Sometimes I wonder if these, like, geniuses are so socially inept that they wouldn`t know that posting this on a Web site might cause them problems.
PAGLIARULO: A Web site that he owns.
HOLMES: Particularly if they are a chief judge of the Ninth Circuit.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: So there is a real question here. And even Dianne Feinstein, she raised it. Isn`t it unbecoming of an officer of the court to be posting this?
First he said, well, maybe some was in poor taste, but I thought it was funny.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: And now...
PAGLIARULO: And now he`s changing his tone.
HOLMES: And now he`s blaming some of it on his son. You know, way to go to take responsibility when you`re a judge asking other people to take responsibility.
PAGLIARULO: Clearly -- and here comes the big fat talk show opinion. Clearly the guy needs to step down. If he doesn`t stepped down, he needs to be launched out of office. The president needs to unappoint him. Something needs to happen.
HOLMES: Well, but, Joe, there is -- you know, there`s some caveats to that.
PAGLIARULO: He`s got to go.
HOLMES: That the Web site, while it was personal -- the public part - - the photos could be accessed publicly, but it was a personal site. But here`s an odd little detail.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
HOLMES: That he shared some of this stuff with his friends. So there`s some sort of like...
PAGLIARULO: What kinds of friends does he have?
HOLMES: Well, yes. I mean, he`s running in different circles than I am, clearly.
PAGLIARULO: And me too. But I`ve got to tell you, listen, I`ve got a MySpace site, I`ve got a personal Web site, I`ve got a radio station Web site. If I post any of that stuff...
HOLMES: Right.
PAGLIARULO: ... knowing -- and I`m not a celebrity by any means, I`m not trying to say that. But somebody who`s known to the public on some level...
HOLMES: Right.
PAGLIARULO: And I`m not even a judge.
HOLMES: It comes back to you.
PAGLIARULO: I would be fired.
HOLMES: Right.
PAGLIARULO: And there`s a morality clause in my job and your job, there`s not one for a judge?
HOLMES: Well, and this was is not stuff that was posted without his knowing or approval. This was stuff on his Web site.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
HOLMES: And then what`s also strange is that now that he`s blaming his son, he`s sort of like talking about it as if was like a family activity.
PAGLIARULO: Oh, that`s nice.
HOLMES: I mean, that`s pretty...
PAGLIARULO: Is there a recourse here? Can he be launched out of office?
HOLMES: When we got together, we just watched "The Cosby Show." We didn`t watch...
(LAUGHTER)
PAGLIARULO: That`s right.
All right. That`s going to do it for us for tonight.
We really appreciate you taking the time.
Glenn, thank you for allowing me to sit here for this week, along with Amy Holmes.
Joe Pags here. We`ve got to get out of here.
From New York...
HOLMES: It`s Amy Holmes.
PAGLIARULO: It is.
HOLMES: Thanks for having us.
PAGLIARULO: Have a good night.
Right there.
HOLMES: Fist bump.
END
