Return to Transcripts main page
Glenn Beck
Don Imus Explains Controversial Comment; James Dobson Calls Obama Remark into Question; NASA Scientist Calls for Action Against Big Oil
Aired June 24, 2008 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MICHAEL GRAHAM, HOST (voice-over): Hello, America. I am Michael Graham, filling in for Glenn Beck.
Well, Don Imus is in hot water again, this time for comments he made on his radio show yesterday. Take a listen to this exchange with sportscaster Warner Wolf about Dallas quarterback Adam "Pacman" Jones.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARNER WOLF, SPORTSCASTER: Defensive back Adam "Pacman" Jones, recently signed by the Cowboys. Here`s a guy suspended all of 2007, following a shooting in a Vegas nightclub.
DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, stuff happens. You`re in a nightclub for God`s sake. What do you think is going to happen in a nightclub? People are drinking and doing drugs. There are women there, and people have guns. Go ahead.
WOLF: He`s also been arrested six times since being drafted by Tennessee in 2005.
IMUS: What color is he?
WOLF: He`s African-American.
IMUS: Oh, well, there you go. Now we know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: Today Imus defended the comments, saying that the latest controversy is fueled by people who are out to get him and he was simply making a sarcastic point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IMUS: Obviously, I already knew what color he was. The point was, in order to make a sarcastic point, I asked what color he was. Warner told me. I said, "Well, there you go. That`s the point."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly.
IMUS: What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: So are the PC police trying to silence Don Imus out of spite, or is there really something here?
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House." Amy Holmes is a former speech writer for Bill Frist and current CNN political contributor.
Let me start by saying I`ve been on Imus`s show many, many times. And lately he has really, it seems to me, been very aggressive in trying to talk about what he says are injustices against black Americans. The premise (ph) is against him. He has prominent black guests on all the time now in this new invention of Don Imus.
Are we really supposed to suspect that there is a secret racist lurking in this show?
EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON, AUTHOR, "THE ETHNIC PRESIDENCY": Well, you know, Michael, if that`s the case, and if you just stop right there, by saying, "You know, really, our concern about how blacks are discriminated against in the criminal justice system. Pacman Jones is a good example of that. I`m really outraged about that." No issue, no problem. Hey, Imus, you know, you did a great job on that.
Unfortunately, even by Imus`s own admission, of course after there`s been some heat and some controversy and an outcry, he said, "Well, wait a minute. I got really misinterpreted. It`s misconstrued. I was really only being sarcastic to make the point."
Don, look, you can`t have it both ways. Make the point, move on, no issue. But remember, given that history there, and remember there is a history of making racial cracks, very insensitive gender cracks. What is one to believe? I mean, I don`t know which Don Imus we can believe.
GRAHAM: You say he`s making a point. He should have just made a point. He did make a point. Are you saying that we`re not allowed to use sarcasm if the "R" word, race, is ever involved? Is sarcasm off the table?
HUTCHINSON: The only thing about that, Michael is yes, the short answer is sarcasm has a place. Yes, even lampooning someone or an issue, that has a place.
I guess what we`re saying is, just given that sensitivity about the history of Don Imus makes one suspect only in this case about Don Imus. If it was Michael or Earl or anybody else saying that, we probably wouldn`t be discussing it now. But Imus has a history so we have to be wary.
GRAHAM: Amy, do you agree that the history here, that the context -- I mean, you think of the context of Don Imus. How about of the context of the comments, trying to make a point?
AMY HOLMES, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: What he had to say was left very ambiguous. He said, "Well, there you go." What does that mean, that if you`re an African-American, then there you go, that you`re a criminal?
I mean, I don`t know what this guy`s problem is. It seems like he has some kind of racial Tourette`s. I just don`t understand. He`s like a little kid. He`s got to poke, poke, poke, poke. He needs no get away from this issue. This is something that has already caused some problems in his career. Does he have a career death wish?
He`s already proven that, when it comes to race, he`s not the most funny, in the first instance, when he talked about the Rutgers team. That wasn`t funny. And when he`s saying that this is sarcastic, it`s sarcastic about what?
GRAHAM: Can we admit right now that, if Al Sharpton doesn`t talk about this story, it just goes away? Doesn`t that lend credence to the idea that this is PC-driven? People in America are not outraged: "Oh, my gosh. Don Imus said, `There you go`."
Isn`t this all, Earl, driven by Al Sharpton in his race agenda (ph) machine?
HUTCHINSON: I think it might be an arguable case to say that, if it wasn`t Don Imus. Because remember, I have to go back to the history that Don Imus has. And certainly, it got him canned at CBS and MSNBC.
But even more than that, it wasn`t Al Sharpton, by the way, Michael, just for the record. I began hearing it from just individuals that said, "Oh, my God. Did you hear what Imus said and did?" So it had nothing to do with Al Sharpton. It had everything to do with Imus.
HOLMES: I would have to agree with it. It was forwarded to me yesterday. I get it on my BlackBerry, and I`m like Imus is at it again? What is wrong with this guy?
If I heard anybody in a conversation about an athlete and his arrest record and then the person says, "Well, what race was he," and then "there you go," I mean, what are you supposed to infer from that?
GRAHAM: Amy is giving us a great understanding (ph) of something. First of all, I want to say to Don Imus, no good deed goes unpunished. By stretching to try to make the point on behalf of a black athlete and that there`s some injustice there, he`s now trapped in this cycle. But let me finish.
HOLMES: He didn`t say there was an injustice. He said, "Well, there you go."
HUTCHINSON: There you go.
GRAHAM: Exactly.
HUTCHINSON: What do you mean by that?
GRAHAM: Let me ask you this. Are we now -- is this now the standard, particularly in the context of a national election where race is tragically, clearly going to be an issue, is it going to be a "there you go" standard that we are going to be stuck with where, if a statement is at all ambiguous, the assumption is going to be you must be a racist.
HOLMES: Sure. Don Imus is on a radio show. It`s a talk show; it`s supposed to generate talk. It`s supposed to generate discussion. So if he makes statements that are -- could be open to a certain interpretation, which he claims is a misinterpretation -- I find that hard to believe -- then we should be able to talk about it.
So I`m not saying that he shouldn`t be on the air. But certainly, I can be on the air and raise questions. What was his meaning here? Because it sounds like one thing. He`s saying it`s another.
GRAHAM: Earl, it`s the standard now: ambiguous equals guilty. That in the era of Barack Obama, if we`re not sure what you meant, you`re probably a Klan member.
HUTCHINSON: So I don`t think so, Michael. I think that there is a standard there of propriety in terms of dealing with racial issues. I think there`s also a standard of sensitivity. And I think people are looking for that.
I don`t think that, when you talk about this election coming up, as we`ve already seen, you can take race off the table. But you know what? You shouldn`t take it off the table, but you shouldn`t put it on the table the way Don Imus does. It`s not sarcasm; this is serious business.
HOLMES: Yes, he`s like dropping it on the table like mashed potatoes.
HUTCHINSON: There you go.
GRAHAM: The conversation was delicious, as good as your mashed potatoes are, Amy and Earl, I`m sure.
Coming up, Barack Obama`s effort to court the religious right hit a speed bump today after Focus on the Family`s James Dobson accused him of distorting the Bible. I`ll have the latest.
And just a reminder: tonight`s show is brought to you by the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort. Sleep Number, it`s the bed that counts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRAHAM: Coming up, the candidates put their spin on the energy crisis. John McCain has his $300 million prize for battery technology, while Barack Obama attacks energy speculators. Are either of these the moon shot we need? Find out in just a bit.
But first, after denouncing Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama probably thought he had saved his credibility with religious voters. Now, Focus on the Family`s James Dobson is once again calling that credibility into question with his latest attack on the likely Democratic nominee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that "I can`t seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial birth abortion, because there are people in the culture who don`t see that as a moral issue. And if I can`t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the scripture."
Now that is a fruit-cake interpretation of the Constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: So will Dobson`s swipe really hurt Obama in his attempt to pick up evangelical voters?
Joining me now, Liz Chadderdon, Democratic strategist and president of the Chadderdon Group; Kevin Madden, GOP strategist and former senior advisor to Mitt Romney; and Eric Pfeiffer, a reporter with "The Congressional Quarterly."
Now Liz, I`ve got to ask, Senator Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, while it may be true that he can roll back the tides, does he have a legitimate shot at picking up significant numbers of Christian voters, regardless of what James Dobson does?
LIZ CHADDERDON, THE CHADDERDON GROUP: You know, Michael, I think he has a really good shot at picking up some of those voters. He did very well in his 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois with downstate white Christian, more evangelical voters. He actually picked up a large percentage.
So do I think that he`s going to win a majority of evangelicals? Of course not. But if he won even 10 percent more or 15 percent more than John Kerry did in 2004, it could be enormous significance for him. I absolutely agree that he can pick up some of those voters.
GRAHAM: That`s interesting, Kevin, because we look at the percentages, and in fact, the numbers are about the same. Bush won 68 percent of the evangelical voters against Al Gore, and that`s about where John McCain is today. Should McCain be worried about Barack Obama seizing on evangelical Christians and pulling them over to the Democratic side?
KEVIN MADDEN, GOP STRATEGIST: Well, Michael, I`ve always been skeptical about Barack Obama`s chances, because he just simply doesn`t line up on the issues the way evangelicals line up.
And I also think that, you know, evangelicals at their core, what they really want is somebody who identifies with them on public policy and also somebody who shows that their faith emanates throughout their public life and at their political core. And I just don`t think Barack Obama has really done that yet.
But Liz is right: if he does even a little bit better, given the climate that the GOP faces right now, we`re going to need as many voters as possible. And if Barack Obama even takes a small percentage of them, then he can do -- he has a lot better chance of winning the general election because of it.
GRAHAM: You know, Eric Pfeiffer, one of the attractions that John McCain presents is he brings in people to consider voting Republican who are sometimes not really that happy with what is perceived as a Republican base, dominated by evangelicals as I`m often told it is.
Is having James Dobson in this fight a winner for Senator John McCain? Or would John McCain prefer just evangelicals to show up and vote and leave everything else alone?
ERIC PFEIFFER, REPORTER, "CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY": In this particular case, I think it`s a victory, because he gets the best of both worlds. He has James Dobson attacking Barack Obama but he doesn`t have to appear on stage with James Dobson and answer question about his relationship with him.
So there will be no pastor problem question in this scenario. He really gets, like I said, the best of both worlds, attacking his opponent without having to cling on to the attack dog.
GRAHAM: You know, one of the things I think is interesting about Barack Obama is that he somehow is able to find a way to make everybody happy, seemingly, and yet walking away from the Clinton reputation of saying whatever it takes to make people happy.
I want to read to you how James Dobson describes his theology. He says, "I think he" -- Barack -- "is deliberately distorting the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology. He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
If that`s the vision of evangelicals, how is Barack Obama going to square that circle?
CHADDERDON: Well, you know, Michael, I`ve got to tell you. I really think James Dobson is the fruit cake here, because I don`t think that`s at all what Barack Obama is saying when he`s talking about religion. Barack Obama is talking about inclusion and fairness.
He brought a whole lot of religious leaders to Chicago, including Christian evangelicals. He met with them. He`s planning parties all over the country to meet with local religious leaders in different communities. I don`t think Barack Obama is talking at all about being exclusive. I think he`s talking about being inclusive.
GRAHAM: What are you saying if you bring your Christian values to the voting booth, that you`re suspect, and wait a minute, you`ve got to leave those and abstract, you know, non-theological -- you know, you have to be all secular about values? Isn`t he basically dissing that?
CHADDERDON: I think he`s saying don`t be so narrow in your scope. I think he`s saying there are a lot of paths to God. There isn`t just one right path to God. There are a lot of different morals that can cover us all. It`s about inclusion. I think he`s saying don`t be so narrow.
GRAHAM: So Kevin, in other words evangelicals need to include the guy who`s in favor of partial birth abortion and refuses to support a bill that says doctors who are aborting babies have to keep them alive if the baby survives the abortion. Is that a new path for evangelicals?
MADDEN: This is exactly -- this is exactly the problems that Democrats have on this, is that they`re always trying to make an appeal to evangelicals and social value voters based on style.
And what these voters care about most is substance. They care about where you stand on the issues like life. And Barack Obama is diametrically opposed to all these issues that they care about.
So that is -- that`s the crux of the Obama problem, and that is where John McCain can seize an opportunity. He`s always had an historical problem or historically been at odds with many of the folks on the right, core conservatives.
But his opportunity now is to identify with a lot of these social conservatives, folks like James Dobson, on issues that they really care about. That`s going to generate the enthusiasm he needs to win in November.
GRAHAM: Eric Pfeiffer, I`ve got to tell you, you`re at "Congressional Quarterly," so you`re covering the day-to-day politics. I don`t even know if this year`s election is going to be solved -- revolved by day-to-day politics.
I think the people want change. "I`m the change guy," the compelling story of Barack Obama is going to blow the issues away. And I think it`s very, very possible. You have people walking and going, "I disagree with Barack Obama on nine out of ten issues. I`m voting for him anyway."
PFEIFFER: I think you might be right about that, because even in a very serious election like this, elections always come down to a personality contest. And he is the candidate who is encapsulating that change argument, whether that`s how he`d actually govern as president or not remains to be seen.
But when you think of who is most likely to bring a certain style and tone to Washington, D.C., Obama does represent that more than McCain.
CHADDERDON: I want...
MADDEN: That`s a good point. If I could make a point on that one, Michael.
Look, ultimately, many campaigns do come down to a war of attributes. But the fact that Barack Obama at least questioned a lot of these voters when he said that a lot of people cling to guns -- guns and God when they face economic turmoil. I mean, that in itself really did poison a lot of his attributes in the face of a lot -- in the minds of a lot of these voters.
GRAHAM: Yes, I was going to ask you, Liz. My problem with Barack Obama isn`t about theology and secularism. I think he`s a snob. I just think he looks at regular Joe Schmoe people and say, "Well, that`s nice for you, but not for me." Isn`t that how he comes across to a lot of voters?
CHADDERDON: I don`t think that`s how he comes across at all, Michael. I have to tell you, I mean, I think he`s about as far from being a snob as you can get. This is a guy who passed up going to Wall Street after he graduated from college to go work in the streets of Chicago for steelworkers that have been thrown out of their jobs.
I mean, this is a guy who was raised by a single mother who was on welfare and Food Stamps. How in the world is this guy a snob?
GRAHAM: You`ll have to ask -- you`ll have to ask his buddy, Rezko. The multimillion-dollar mansion he lives in as he`s redesigning the presidential seal, but maybe you`re right.
We`ve got to wrap it up there, guys. Thank you, everybody, for explaining it today. I really appreciate it. Liz, Kevin, Eric, thanks.
Coming up, the NASA scientist responsible for sounding the first global warming alarm is now calling for -- get this -- oil executives to stand trial for crimes against humanity. Hey, $5 gas, that`s a crime against humanity. Details in a bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
GRAHAM: NASA scientist James Hansen was among the very first to start the alarm on global warming. That was two decades ago. But just yesterday, he inserted himself into the debate again, this time testifying before a congressional committee that big oil executives should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and nature.
Joining me now is Scott Siegel, an attorney specializing in energy and environmental issues with Bracewell & Giuliani.
Scott, to quote the legal minds of Monty Python, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. What the heck is going on here?
SCOTT SIEGEL, ATTORNEY: Well, that`s right. I mean, you expect when you`re going to have a debate on global climate change. But, you know, both sides, all sides are going to get to speak, say what`s on their mind, something about the Constitution, saying the right to have free speech, right to petition government.
But old Jim Hansen has got another idea in mind. If you don`t agree with his position on climate change policy development, he thinks that, not only are you wrong, but it ought to be illegal.
GRAHAM: But Scott, is there a venue for this? I mean, could you drag these people to the Hague or someplace, debate club at Harvard, really, until they face some legal consequence?
SIEGEL: Well, I think what Jim Hansen is getting at is that, you know, 20 years ago when he said manmade sources of emissions lead to global climate change, that was something new and different. Now there are climatologists all over the place that say the same thing.
And in his struggle to be relevant, I think he was just trying to be outrageous.
GRAHAM: But there is no legal -- I mean, for example, I want to mock this. But a friend of Glenn Beck`s, Mark Steyn, a columnist from Canada, right now is in front of the Human Rights Commission in Canada for writing a book. That`s a liberal, modern democracy, prosecuting someone for a book.
So, you know, free speech, you can say, well, it`s covered, but is there some danger here for people who fight back against Al Gore?
SIEGEL: Well, I tell you, the word that he used, which was a crime against nature and a crime against humanity, that implies that there would be some criminal cause of action. And there I think he`s just speaking metaphorically.
But I`ll tell you what. There are court cases on God`s green earth where they have said, basically, if one side of the case articulates a view that questions the kind of prevailing orthodoxy of global climate change, that that ought to be actionable as a conspiracy in tort law.
But there`s good news on this. One of it is that, even after the Supreme Court decided its case on global climate change last year, a federal district court down in Mississippi heard a case where a bunch of plaintiffs` attorneys were arguing that oil companies and coal companies and others ought to be guilty of some kind of conspiracy, because they didn`t agree with the same deal on global climate change as the plaintiffs` attorneys did.
And the court threw that right out. The court basically said, "Look, that`s not the kind of dispute you go to court for. If you have a disagreement over climate policy or even climate science, you need to go to the U.S. Congress. You need to go to the executive branch."
GRAHAM: Right.
SIEGEL: That`s not the kind of things the court...
GRAHAM: The bad news, Scott, is that apparently Mother Nature has hired Alan Dershowitz, and he`s a heck of an attorney.
Can I point out -- am I allowed to even know this, or am I risking criminal prosecution here -- that temperatures have been flat or falling since 1998, and that 20 years ago when he was testifying, it was 98 degrees in Washington, D.C. The same day it`s 75 degrees 20 years later?
SIEGEL: Well, that`s true. And in fact, Jim Hansen has not always been right on the nose on his scientific predictions. Part of the problem is he was accused of doing what`s called data mining, which is creating a scientific conclusion and then trying to form a model that reaches the conclusion. That`s kind of the opposite of the scientific method.
And he`s also been accused of just being flat wrong on predications about average mean temperature, which is what you`re talking about.
GRAHAM: This -- this does not belong in a court at all, not even the people`s court, I don`t think.
Thanks so much, Scott.
Coming up, will American innovation solve our energy crisis? John McCain thinks so, and he`s betting $300 million on it. I`ll explain next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRAHAM: Welcome back. I`m Michael Graham sitting in for Glenn Beck tonight.
Coming up, more controversy over the alleged pregnancy pact at Gloucester high school, we`ll the details next.
But first, there`s no question our next president will need a comprehensive, innovative energy plan. But who exactly is the man for the job? John McCain has announced that he`ll offer a $300 million prize to anybody who can build a next generation car battery.
Barack Obama for his part has vowed to strengthen government oversight on energy traders and speculators who he blames for sky-rocketing oil prices.
I`m happy to hear our nominees are talking about the energy crisis and taking it seriously. But are any of these plans the moon shot ideas that we need from our next president?
Joining me once again to help answer these questions are Liz Chadderdon, Democratic strategist and president of the Chadderdon group; Kevin Madden, GOP strategist and a former senior advisor to Mitt Romney and Eric Pfeiffer, a reporter with Congressional quarterly.
Now Eric, I asked earlier, is any issue going to break through, or people are just going to vote based on how they feel about Barack Obama? I think the one issue that can break through, gas -- the price of gas at the pump. Where are the two candidates on this issue and how seriously are they taking it?
ERIC PFEIFFER, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY: They`re both on the same spot in terms of wanting to curb and add regulations to these so called energy speculators. McCain`s critics have called his $300 million prize for someone that could create a new car battery a gimmick.
But in all fairness even if it is a gimmick it`s a pretty good one. After all to consider the FBI is still only offering $25 million for information that leads to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.
GRAHAM: By the way, do we think that Osama Bin Laden in fact has the car battery plans with him at this time, is that part of the plan here?
PFEIFFER: That may be why it`s been so hard to come up with one over the past decade.
GRAHAM: Liz, I have to tell you, you know people can mock the $300 million, but you only get the money by doing it. We have been blowing billions on this goofy ethanol plan that Senator Obama supports and what do we have for it? More pollution, higher food prices and no solutions, what`s wrong with the McCain approach?
LIZ CHADDERDON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Because I think that our government shouldn`t be like reality TV. I mean what is this, it`s going to be survivor gas prices? I mean with all due respect, it is a gimmick, $300 million to the person who can solve our energy prices?
Isn`t that what a presidential election is all about? I mean that -- to me, this is not going to get us out of the hole that we are at.
GRAHAM: So then let me ask you, Senator Obama`s plan is to solve the energy crisis, $300 million on the line. Liz let`s hear it.
CHADDERDON: Well, I think it`s a balanced approach. It`s a little bit more drilling, it`s a little bit more alternative energy, it`s a little bit of conservation.
And frankly, it`s shedding a little bit of light on this mysterious thing that we`re all hearing about which is speculation and maybe the deregulation of that industry back in the 80`s and 90`s, under the Republicans was a bad idea.
GRAHAM: Mysterious.
CHADDERDON: So it`s a balance.
GRAHAM: It`s mysterious, is that it? You know --
CHADDERDON: I think it`s a little mysterious.
GRAHAM: Kevin -- you and I live and have lived in Massachusetts and I pay a fee every month on my energy price, I fix a price for the whole year where the rates go up or down. I`m speculating that 12 months later that electricity would have cost me more. Should I go in the hoosegow with Liz with all these evil speculators?
KEVIN MADDEN, FMR. SR. ADVISER TO MITT ROWNEY: Yes, I mean like a -- you know Liz and maybe some of the older folks like Maxine Waters. They want the government to take over oil refineries and take over the oil industry.
Look, the free market is at work here. I think with speculators, if you were to over-regulate them you would take a lot of liquidity out of the market and then it would again hurt the market. And when you hurt the market, people pay more for gas prices.
That`s the one thing that the Democrats have always been afraid of. They have never been able to really harness the free market and let consumers and let the market drive the prices down. And that`s going to be the big difference that a lot of the voters are going to be voting on in November.
They`re going to be deciding do they want a big government approach or do they want what John McCain is imposing which is a more free market approach where you have a lot more incentives for technology to bring gas prices down.
GRAHAM: You know Eric, I`m listening to this conversation and I`m thinking myself normal voters are go -- all they hear is blah, blah, blah they hear free market, blah, blah, blah. They hear alternative energy; we`re going my car off for belly button lint blah, blah, blah.
What`s going to happen when either of these guys become president, and in fact your physics haven`t changed, it still takes energy to move cars, you still got to get it from somewhere and because of demand around the world, gas is still $4 or $5 bucks a gallon?
PFEIFFER: Yes, you`re exactly right. Neither one of these plans no matter how successful they are going to change gas prices overnight and it`s unlikely they`ll really affect gas prices at all. Unless the plans fail and have the reverse effect and cause fuel prices to rise.
So what`s likely to happen is you`re going to have to see a shift in public demand. That`s what a lot of Conservatives have argued in terms of opposing regulation and saying it`s only when gas prices gets so high that it will force a change in demand, that`s when you`ll see new technology is pushing forward.
GRAHAM: I`m sorry I didn`t mean to interrupt. I want to get Liz in on this because I think it`s an honest statement of Senator Barack Obama`s position, as he said it several times to informs us again, that he`ll take a little pain that is we ought to pay higher gas prices today, to drive down demand for what he says will be a long-term solution.
He really want to run for president in 2008 with $5 gas on the a little more pain at the pump platform?
CHADDERDON: Well, I got to be honest with you, no. I really don`t want a message on a campaign that`s out there running on $5 a gallon a gas is great. It`s going to change the way we all work and play, it already has. Gas prices are a huge problem for small businesses and for families. They`re a huge problem for all of us, we all know that.
So now that it will a terrible message but I don`t think that`s what he`s saying is, I think what he`s saying is look, 30 years ago in the 1970s, we had these same problems, we had what we thought at the time were very high gas prices and that led to a huge crisis, lines at the pump. We drilled more. We got more addicted to oil and 30 years later here we are again.
There`s got to be a point at which this madness ends. And I think what he`s simply saying is, look, we need to do something to help families and small businesses, but we also need to realize that it may be time to end our addiction to oil in certain measures.
GRAHAM: Liz, I love you but you`re driving me crazy. Kevin, tell her there is no shortage of oil, we know where the oil is now. There`s tons of this stuff here in America.
Did you know that our production has gone down 22 percent, since 1980 while all the other countries, Canada, Mexico, Russia; their production has gone up through the roof. If we`re not making it, Kevin how can we have it?
MADDEN: Well, what the Democrats also never mention is that they have done nothing to help expand more domestic production and that they have done nothing to expand refinery capacity. Instead we are forced to keep refining in places like Venezuela, where the prices keep going up and we`re feeding more money into these rogue dictators like Chavez.
We have to have a more comprehensive approach I think, McCain`s $300 million that what everybody calls a gimmick I think it`s a very good way to incentivize new technologies to have a more comprehensive approach to bring down gas prices.
GRAHAM: I don`t like this all three of you why there isn`t more pandering on this issue. We are all driving our cars, we are all voting and I`ll start with you --
PFEIFFER: I take the metro every day in Washington, D.C.
GRAHAM: I drive and I`m going to keep driving. I have four kids I got to put them in something.
I`m serious Eric, I`m surprised somebody has not come out with the dump on the Newt Gingrich, drill now, drill everywhere let`s find kids with zits on their face get that oil and we`ll just going to get it everywhere, why not pandering?
PFEIFFER: We have seen some pandering, and the question is how well does that work? If you remember, it was only a few months ago that Hillary Clinton showed up to a gas station to pump some gas and had a little trouble figuring out how to make the gas station cappuccino machine work. So efforts like that sometimes backfires.
GRAHAM: She didn`t realize the cappuccino didn`t go in the gas tank apparently.
Liz seriously, why -- if I was Senator Obama`s team I`ve be going on ok. Free gas for everybody, we`re going to hand it out, I mean whatever you got to do drivers voters are angry about this. And I am surprised on both sides there isn`t more straight up pandering.
CHADDERDON: Well, and let`s give both candidates actually a little bit of credit to realize that this is a serious problem that we have to deal with and not just pander to. But I got to tell you, one of the reasons that the Democrats are not talking about drill, drill, drill, is because all more drilling means is more profits for big oil companies.
The people who profit from more drilling are Exxon and Shell and BP and the Republicans know it. And I think actually that`s why they`re not really talking about more drilling, more drilling, more drilling, because it doesn`t mean more assistance for people, for drivers, it means more profits for big oil.
GRAHAM: Kevin.
MADDEN: Well, without oil companies, is Liz going to go overseas, drill oil out of the ground, refine it and bring it back and put it in her car? How else are you going to do that? Every time you try to punish big oil companies you end up hurting families because the cost goes up on consumers.
GRAHAM: Well, I also want to point out this notion of the prize that people have been mocking. The reason why Lindbergh crossed the ocean wasn`t just the attractive women in Paris waiting for him with champagne, there was a prize. And several people tried it. We just flew two men into the atmosphere a man in the atmosphere flew twice in one week and won a $10 million extra prize.
That inspired $100 million in investment because people were trying to win that prize. So innovative ideas can work, and since Liz want us drill, we`re going to have to do something.
So thanks to all of you for joining us and trying to figure out what that is, we do need a moon shot on energy. Thank you.
CHADDERDON: Thank you.
MADDEN: Thank you.
PFEIFFER: Thank you.
GRAHAM: Coming up, a follow-up on the alleged pregnancy pact between 17 teenage girls from Gloucester, Massachusetts. I`ll have all the latest details.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRAHAM: Gloucester High School and the 17 pregnancies reported there are still kicking up controversy after the shocking revelation that some of the 17 teens might have entered a pact to get pregnant. A contradiction to that story came from the city mayor just yesterday. So what is going on in Gloucester?
Joining me now by phone is Patrick Anderson, a reporter for the Gloucester Daily Times who has been working on this story. Patrick, we have got the principal saying there was a pregnancy pact, and the mayor came out, the principal is apparently locked in a trunk somewhere in a ship off the coast. What is really going on?
PATRICK ANDERSON, REPORTER GLOUCESTER DAILY TIMES: Still no confirmation of a pregnancy pact in Gloucester and from everyone that we have talked to, it seems more and more likely that there will not be any evidence of a pregnancy pact. At least that`s how it sounds right now. We have talked to many people at the high school, including students, and including some of the moms there; and so far no confirmation of a pact.
GRAHAM: But, you know, Patrick, "Time" magazine insists that there were girls who were intentionally trying to get pregnant and there was some, if not collusion, at least some knowledge of the other girls. In fact can we confirm that girls were bummed out when the school clinic said they weren`t pregnant and thrilled when the school clinic said they were?
People at the clinic, the medical director and staff at the clinic have confirmed that they did see some girls who were requesting pregnancy tests really express a desire to get pregnant. But there`s been no real quantity attached to that. So we don`t know if that was one girl, two, or more.
And they seem to have even backed off of those statements a little bit more in recent days. So I think it is definitely possible that there were a few girls who really did want to get pregnant. But not on the scale that people have reported before. And not in a communal fashion, it seems.
Thanks so much Patrick for that report. I appreciate it.
Well, pact or no pact, the circumstances at Gloucester high school have called attention to the fact that for the first time in 15 years, teen pregnancies are on the rise.
Elizabeth Snyder is a sex educator of Healthy Futures at an abstinence based program in Massachusetts.
Elizabeth, good to talk to you again. I think what`s interesting is that for the past 15 years we have had some impact on the sexual behavior of teens. And this notion from some people that was just hopeless are going to have sex anyway, turns out not to be true, doesn`t it?
ELIZABETH SNYDER, SEX EDUCATOR, HEALTHY FUTURES: Yes, absolutely, I think there`s a lot of conversation about what studies are out there and what they`re saying about abstinence education.
And what we have found is that of 15 studies that were done that four of them actually said that abstinence education was just as good as comprehensive. And the other 11 actually said that there were behavioral changes.
GRAHAM: My question is -- can you really count on change in behaviors of 15 and 16-year-olds. By definition, when you`re a teenager, you`re a clueless dope, at least I was. So how can you modify their behavior particularly when their hormones are fighting for time inside their brain?
SNYDER: I think it`s an interesting point that you bring up, that they are not developed in a way yet, their brains aren`t that they can actually make these decisions by themselves. That`s why it`s so important that the community and their schools and their parents come around them and help them make these decisions, ultimately they are still an individual, so they are going to have to make decisions on their own. But it`s our job as a community to be around them helping them figure those out.
GRAHAM: I`m told that there was an anti-abstinence attitude in the educational system in Massachusetts. I wasn`t sure then. Is it true Governor Patrick actually turned down a $700,000 federal grant that would have gone to abstinence education; turned away free money because it involved abstinence?
SNYDER: Yes, he actually turned it around. We were receiving those funds, so having him cut them actually meant that our program couldn`t expand and that other programs couldn`t reach students all across the state of Massachusetts including these students in Gloucester.
That money would have gone to expanding into Worcester and other areas of the state. And having that taken away just really sends a message that that money was earmarked for our middle schoolers and it`s illegal for them to be getting involved in these things in any case. So we`re sending a really mixed message about what our state, our commonwealth values when it comes to our young people and sexuality.
GRAHAM: Elizabeth, what do you know about in Gloucester? Did they have an abstinence-based or abstinence approach at either middle school or high school there?
SNYDER: You know, I don`t know what sex ed they had available to them. I do know that in their middle school they had some kind programming and that in ninth grade they were required to take a course. But this subject matter you really need to be in there every year; year after year and it`s providing all kinds of dynamic programming that`s going to help bring them and then help them cast a vision for their future and think about their lives outside of pregnancy and STD`s but talking about what does their future have for them.
GRAHAM: All right, here`s what blows me away. I`m a dad, they did 150 pregnancy tests at that clinic last year and no parents were called ever. And then yesterday the mayor blamed the parents. Hey, could you give me a head`s up, maybe, my daughter`s in there 10 or 12 times getting pregnancy tests?
SNYDER: Yes I think it`s a shame. It`s really easy to point the finger at parents and I think we do that on a regular basis as a society. Unfortunately the parents aren`t even equipped, we really need good parent programming which we provide. Getting out there in the community and helping them as well.
I`m actually alarmed that 150 tests were administered before anybody spoke up and said, I would think after maybe 20 tests you would say there are a lot of girls coming in and having pregnancy tests, what are we teaching them? Why are we testing so many young girls?
GRAHAM: As they say in Massachusetts, who are we to judge. Hey, they`re 14 or 15, let them do what they want.
Thanks Elizabeth so much for joining us. I appreciate it.
Time now for tonight`s real America brought to you by CSX. Ordinary Americans do extraordinary things every day. But sometimes just a little time and a lot of heart is all you need to make a big impact.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GRAHAM: Kevin Collins isn`t your typical role model. He`s not famous, he didn`t go to college, and he doesn`t make a ton of money. But you would never know it. Here in the basement of the Westbury Village recreation center gym, Kevin Collins is a hero.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was the first one to teach me how to throw punches. He taught me how to box. If it wasn`t for him, I probably wouldn`t even learn.
GRAHAM: Every single day, Collins comes to the gym after work and volunteers his times and his boxing skills to help kids at risk learn the fundamentals of the sport. It`s a skill set he hopes will help these kids succeed out of the ring, just as much as it does during a boxing match.
KEVIN COLLINS, BOXER: Boxing is a lot like life, it`s hard, it`s tough. Unpredictable, it`s not fair. You get your breath taken away just with one shot.
GRAHAM: Most of the kids here now know about Collin`s boxing career. As an amateur prize fighter competing in the Empire State Games, Golden Gloves and on the United States regional team, he`s got plenty of wins under his belt. What they don`t know is that he`s a recovering alcoholic.
It`s boxing that provided the inspiration to Collins to move beyond his troubled past. It`s a message he hopes will reach these kids too so they can stay out of future trouble.
COLLINS: Unfortunately, I would be sitting in a bar, if I was lucky, I wasn`t lucky I would be dead or be incarcerated still.
GRAHAM: It may just be a few hours after school every day. But for the kids here, it`s just what they need, slugging it out in the ring gives them the confidence and the discipline to stay on the right path. A life lesson Kevin Collins hopes all of his young boxers can retain.
COLLINS: I would definitely want them to work on it and if they want to accomplish something, they`re like if you can get into the ring, if you can train for a fight, step into the ring. And even if you lose, you can accomplish anything in life.
And that is quite a one-two punch.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GRAHAM: That`s great. If you would like to se more stories just like this one, click on cnn.com/glenn and look for the Real America section. Tonight`s real America is sponsored by CSX, how tomorrow moves.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRAHAM: An American hiker stranded and injured in the Bavarian Alps used an unusual method to get the attention of her rescuers, she uses her bra. Talk about a miracle bra.
KWGN`s Matt Garcia has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALANA BRUI: I guess it was mine and I had left it here. And she was like, Jessica, you know, I`m not going to get that one back.
MATT GARCIA, KWGN CORRESPONDENT: Alana Brui was referring to the sports bra like this one she lent her 24-year-old sister that ultimately saved Jessica life. While it`s funny now, there were no laughs last week.
A. BRUI: I just went off the deep end. I was just crying.
GARCIA: The emotional roller coaster started last Wednesday when Alana and Jack got the call that their older sister was missing. Jessica went to Germany to work in a hostel in the Bavarian Alps that houses experienced hikers. She had been skiing with a friend, but instead of taking one final run, she took a walk.
JACK BRUI: When she was out, some bad weather rolled in and I think it got cloudy and I think she became disoriented and she couldn`t find the trail that she had left on.
GARCIA: The walk led down a steep rocky side of the mountain. Her brother and sister say she fell 20 feet and landed on a ledge.
A. BRUI: She has a pretty badly hurt leg, she has a dislocated shoulder and then four broken ribs and a pretty big gash on her forehead from what we have heard and I think she`s just bruised from head to toe.
GARCIA: It was Jessica`s hiking experience and training as an EMT that kept her alive. This is a picture of her hiking a few years ago in Costa Rica. The family says that Jessica would sleep in a cave at night and in the day think of what next to do.
Her break came Thursday afternoon when a cable line to send supplies up the mountain started moving.
A. BRUI: As soon as it started moving, she got over there and connected her sports bra to the line and it brought it up and a workman saw it a little while later and he knew someone was missing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know how I would react to that situation. I`m deeply impressed that she was smart enough to stay calm.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GRAHAM: I`m Michael Graham, filling in for Glenn Beck, from New York, good night.
END
