Return to Transcripts main page

In the Arena

The Push for Rep. Weiner to Resign; Arab Spring Now a Long, Hot Summer; Thousands of Gadhafi Troops Blitz Misrata

Aired June 08, 2011 - 20:00   ET

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

ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.

Tonight, the chorus of calls for Anthony Weiner to resign grows louder. Even as we learned "The New York Times" is reporting that the congressman's wife Huma Abedin is in the early stages of pregnancy. She is in North Africa doing her job as a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Her position on her husband's troubles is not clear. But tonight, many others have made their feelings plain. The list of names of prominent Republicans and Democrats who have called for Anthony Weiner to resign grows by the hour. That steady drumbeat is getting louder.

For more on the pushback from Capitol Hill, let's bring in our senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash. She's live in Washington.

Dana, that pressure seems to be building almost by the minute. What's the latest?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It certainly is, Eliot. And this is pressure most significantly I think from his fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives.

So far, just even in the last few hours, we've seen now about half a dozen statements publicly calling on Anthony Weiner to resign, including one from a significant person, and her name is Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania. She is the Democrat who is charged with recruiting fellow Democrats to run for office in 2012.

It just shows you what kind of politics is going on here.

I'll read you part of her statement. She said, "Having the respect of your constituents is fundamental for a member of Congress. In light of Anthony Weiner's offensive behavior, he should resign."

Now, Eliot, that's public. I'm told also that there are private phone calls being made to Anthony Weiner this afternoon. The Democratic congressman familiar with these calls says that the resentment is just growing, it is mounting among his colleagues, and that is why there is a concerted effort.

You're seeing it with the public statements, but also privately to say Congressman Weiner, Anthony, it is time for you to go -- Eliot.

SPITZER: You know it's almost as if pincers are closing on him. You have, on one hand, the political pressure. On the other side, the factual developments. Certainly not helping his cause.

But to stay with the political just for a moment. On the Senate side of course Senator Reid, the majority leader, gave him the back of the hand, I suppose. Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi calling for the Ethics Commission.

The list is growing longer. Is there anybody who has said anything supportive of him? Anybody who has even said, let this play out through the Ethics Committee process? Anybody saying, put the brakes on this? Or is it just pure silence on that side of the ledger?

BASH: That's a great question. There has -- there is nobody who has -- who's come out and said explicitly, you know what, give the guy a break or let this play out. But there are some members of Congress who I've spoken to who have spoken to him who say that they are not asking him to resign as well.

I think that's an important point to make. But they're also not -- they're saying it's up to him. But they're also not, you know, coming to his defense publicly or privately.

And he is also making calls, Eliot. He called a lot of his colleagues in the House today and yesterday and the day before to apologize, to make the same statement that really that he made publicly to say he regrets his behavior.

I'm told that he also called the former President Bill Clinton who of course is very close with Anthony Weiner's wife Huma because she works for Hillary Clintons that the Clintons have known her for years and years and years. So that's an example of the kinds of calls that he is making as well.

SPITZER: But, you know what, Dana, it seems to me that in the calls that Congressman Weiner is making to colleagues asking forgiveness, he must also be asking for them to voice some element of support or at least to slow this train down that now seems to be hurdling in only one direction. And as you just said, that clearly -- that piece of the request is clearly not going anywhere.

BASH: You know, I wonder if he is. He must be, you're right. I mean you -- you know, you probably know that the idea of this better than I, but members of Congress that I've talked to who have spoken to him, they have not said that he said, please go out there and support me. That he just said, please, please -- you know, take my forgiveness.

And the one thing I will tell you is that this -- another Democratic congressman I talked to was telling me about this effort to now get him to resign because his colleagues are fed up said that he's not really sure if this is going to work because you've seen his public statement. Anthony Weiner's been very clear, very firm. He does not want to resign. And this congressman told me that he believes that Weiner is truly conflicted and the people around him are conflicted. And this congressman said he just does not know if this effort to get him to step down is going to work.

SPITZER: All right, Dana, this is going to play out in the next -- I think 24 to 48 hours at most. And for better, for worse, I guess we're all going to be covering this.

Dana, thank you as always.

BASH: Thank you.

SPITZER: The X-rated photo of Anthony Weiner the conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart promised he wouldn't release has now gotten out. Breitbart who first broke this story was on the satellite radio show "Opie and Anthony" this morning and passed around a cell phone image of the explicit shot. All the while reiterating he doesn't want this photo to be distributed.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW BREITBART, FOUNDER, BIGGOVERNMENT.COM: By the way, I'm not releasing it, I'm not releasing it, I can't think of any other publication that wouldn't. I could probably get a gazillion hits off my page. I'm not doing that to him and his family. That's my stated position.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're awesome for that. Thank you. Seriously. Yes, it's awesome.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Yet now it is in fact all over the Internet. How did that happen? I'll let Andrew Breitbart explain. He joins me now live from Los Angeles in an exclusive primetime interview.

Andrew, thank you for joining us.

BREITBART: Thank you, Eliot.

SPITZER: Well, let me ask you the question directly, as you can imagine, a lot of people are saying that when you showed the hosts of the radio show that shot on your iPhone or a phone or whatever form it is, you must have known that one of the cameras in the studio would pick it up and then somehow it would get out.

You know, is that an accurate assessment or no?

BREITBART: Actually -- actually -- no, it's not an accurate assessment. In fact, if you listen to more of the tape that you just played, Jim Norton who works for the show assures me that there are no cameras. I've never said that I wouldn't show it to people. In fact, I was on the "Sean Hannity" radio show and he joked about -- with me about he was the one person that didn't want to look at the photo.

The photo is proof and it's proof of something that people still to this day, including Joan Walsh and Bill Press, who went on MSNBC, doubting that the picture even exists. Right now we find out that there are publishers like Gawker that would take this photo and publish it.

My Web site refuses to publish this photo. They have admitted that they took this photo surreptitiously. They said they did it without my knowledge. They even said that there were no cameras there. So I --

SPITZER: Andrew --

BREITBART: You should talk to Sirius -- you should talk to Sirius XMU and ask why their employees were misrepresenting the truth in that room.

SPITZER: Andrew, this may surprise a lot of people. I'm absolutely willing to take your word for that on this issue right now. No dispute from me. You haven't taken that photo and used it for a whole number of purposes for which you could. And so there it is. Let's put that aside.

Different question for you. Had Congressman Weiner go -- rolled his back almost a week or whenever this saga began. Had he at the very beginning, when he had -- was first confronted with the initial tweets and the few pictures that were there, far less lascivious, far less offensive than so much of what other -- what else has come out.

Had he at that point stood up and said, I sinned in this regard, I apologize, I confess my errors, would you then have continued to distribute the information, the other tweets, the -- all the other stuff, horrific as it is, that has come out?

BREITBART: I highly doubt it. Because the second person that I ended up talking to, Meagan Broussard, didn't come to me finally until last Friday, which was exactly a week after Congressman Weiner started to endorse basically, tacitly endorse the campaign of certain media entities to call me the hacker, to say that I savaged the girl in Seattle, who I never mentioned her name.

And so I was in the process of trying to find information that would exonerate me. And so I don't think I would because I think the story would have died. I mean, if there's no media interest in the story, if he's apologized, what's the point of going any further?

SPITZER: Look, I think it's impossible for us to predict whether or not the media would have continued to be interested at that point. That's pure hypothesis. But interesting that at that point if he had acknowledged that sin, you would have said probably end of story.

So let me fast forward to sort of the bottom-line issue that is dominating the discourse certainly in Washington and into Congressman Weiner's district right now, should he resign, in your mind? And if so, why? Because he lied about what he did or because of the underlying acts? So then I want to pursue that a little bit.

BREITBART: I don't want to be the arbiter. I don't want it to hinge upon what Andrew Breitbart thinks, you know, or what I declare that he should do, because he's certainly not going to listen to me.

But at this point, it's clear that he's more damage to the Democratic Party if he stays. So I think that at the end of the day, he should leave because he's not doing any favors to the American people. He's not doing any favors to the Democratic Party.

And every single day I wake up to find out that there are competing Web sites and competing, you know, media entities that are breaking new sordid details in this thing. And I think that this comes down to whether Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer come up to him and say, come on, guy, you've got to step down.

SPITZER: Well, look, I think it's fair to conclude at this point -- your conclusion is correct. I'm not going to let you off the hook so quickly, because I want to understand your rationale a bit more.

I think it's fair to conclude that there has now been a crystallization of the -- around the conclusion that he is, as you say, doing enormous damage to the Democratic Party and there will be pressure brought to bear to have him resign.

Put that aside. I want to understand your logic because you -- not that you will dictate the outcome but you're becoming a force in the media. That is what you do want to be and hats off to you for succeeding in that against the vicious opposition of many people.

But I want to understand your logic. Is it because of the lies that he denied this behavior that he is so damaging to the Democratic Party? Or is it because sending these tweets, these communications, between consensual adults is so offensive that he nonetheless should not be in the House of Representatives?

BREITBART: I've never been part of the morality police. It's the lies. It's the cover-ups. But let me get back to a 1998 construct called the -- you know, it's just about the sex.

Whether it's John Ensign, Republican, whether it's Mark Foley, Republican, whether it's Mark Sanford, Republican, whenever these elected officials put themselves in a position where a private citizen that they're sending these images to or having an affair with set themselves up to be blackmailed by those people where they could say, you know what, I know you don't want to lose your job and I have these pictures, and I think you should vote this way on the farm bill instead of the other way.

I don't like that these people put themselves into compromising positions. And as far as I can tell, there are more Republicans in the last few years that have been nailed than Democrats. So this is not a bipartisan position. SPITZER: Wait --

(CROSSTALK)

BREITBART: I mean, this is a bipartisan position.

SPITZER: Right. This is not a partisan position you're articulating. But I guess that's the question --

BREITBART: Right.

SPITZER: -- that I then want to ask you because it seems to if you're setting that bar, then you say you're not doing it because you want to be the morality police. You want to do it on the issue of blackmail, which of course used to be what FBI would use as its rationale for investigating every sort of elected official up and down, but put that aside.

Do you think members of Congress want to embrace that bar because my suspicious is they are not just -- it's not just Anthony Weiner who would then begin to feel, you know, a little pressure, a little heat? So is this where the Congress wants to go?

BREITBART: I -- since this thing started, the absence of commentary from the elected class in Washington has been deafening. This has been fought and reported outside of their realm.

Do I think that there are skeletons in many a closet? Do I think that there are other people sexting? I mean my goodness, within the last six months we have two congressmen in peril because they took shirtless photos and put them on the Internet.

So I think these guys just need to be a little bit more careful about what they do in their private live because if they do things that can compromise this country, reporters like me, journalists like me, and organizations like mine, have every right to expose it.

SPITZER: All right. Andrew Breitbart, thank you. And let me just add one voice, you and I, I think most folks know this, disagree on a whole bunch of stuff, but I think the world does need to acknowledge that you having been accused of hacking and all the rest were fairly respondent to that by proving that your case was there.

And so, as I said, I think you did what you needed to do. And so we now march forward.

Andrew, thank you for joining us.

BREITBART: Thank you.

SPITZER: All right, now that an X-rated picture is out and so many are calling for the -- Congressman Weiner to go, is there any way he can survive?

For more, I'm joined by Howard Kurtz, Washington bureau chief for "Newsweek" and "The Daily Beast," and also the host of a show here on CNN. That's what we're most proud of.

Thank you for joining us. Simple question, can he survive? You've heard Dana. You heard Andrew Breitbart. Can he make it?

HOWARD KURTZ, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, NEWSWEEK AND THE DAILY BEAST: It's very difficult, Eliot, to imagine Andrew -- Anthony Weiner serving out the week. It's not just the political pressure from his own party, you understand that better than I do. It's what I would call the yuck factor. When I've talked to several women since the reports that Huma is pregnant and they have physically recoiled. Like how could you do this to your wife? You knew that she was pregnant.

Secondly, we posted on the "Daily Beast" the story that I edited a little while ago by FOX News commentator Kirsten Powers, who used to date Anthony Weiner, he lied to her personally. He made a phone call and said this didn't happen. I was hacked. And she has now called for him to resign and a very personal -- she called him a misogynist of the way he treats some of these women.

Clearly a critical mass is coming that transcends politics to dealing with culture and people's reactions.

SPITZER: Let me pursue -- I think that conclusion is absolutely right and I think that he almost owes it to his party right now to end this. If it had gone away, it had disappeared, it would have been arguable that it was a one-day distraction. So be it, move on with life.

This is not. This is derailing the Democratic Party's effort to do whatever its agenda is. He should at this point resign.

The question I want to ask you as a media consultant, though -- a media maven is, is his crime, was his crime the action or was it the lie to the press that so inflamed the media that it said now we've got you in our pincers, we're not going to let go?

KURTZ: I would say it was the lying. Had there been no lying and somebody found out that Anthony Weiner had texted some photos or had engaged in sex talk with women, somebody would have reported it, it would have made a flap, but you know, it's not exactly like the head of the IMF being accused -- accused, I say, allegedly, you know -- of attacking a hotel maid or Arnold Schwarzenegger fathering a child with a household staff member.

But because Weiner recklessly in my view went on so many television shows and said this didn't happen, and he was outraged, I think it ticked off a lot of journalists. And it also made the story -- made it easy for us. It made a story of credibility and not of the underlying sexual bantering conduct.

SPITZER: Yes. I mean, look, I can tell you, and as the world knows, I've had been in both of these camps. The political world. Resigned. I also am now here as a journalist. What's mystifying to most people is that he sat in front of camera after camera last week, flat-out denying it, when he must have known that this trail of e- mails, texts, tweets, whatever the technology was, was about to pour out.

How do you square that with as smart a guy as Anthony Weiner?

KURTZ: And I saw that with John Edwards who denied having the affair with the campaign videographer, then denied it was his baby. All that fell apart. I think that people in politics, and Weiner is a classic example now, get so full of themselves, so surrounded by people who tell them how great they are, that they come to believe that they can get away with things, the ordinary rules don't apply to them.

And that somehow even if the story starts to unravel, that they can tough it out. Weiner made a spectacular miscalculation. As he would now be the first to admit, the lying opened the door for all of us, even with all the piling on now, to nail this guy and that's what's happening.

SPITZER: Let's switch gears. Switch the lens. To turn the focus back to the media. How has the media handled this?

So there you have Andrew Breitbart who is, by many people, reviled. That what he has done in the past allegedly about taking tapes, cutting and splicing to misrepresent, had made him a pariah within the mainstream media.

And now here he is having led to this, and I think many people are going to say he's rehabilitated himself, whereas the mainstream media was nowhere until he led the mainstream media by the nose. Do you see it this way? Am I wrong?

KURTZ: I don't see Andrew Breitbart as having anything done anything wrong on this story. Indeed he held back the photo although he allowed (INAUDIBLE) take a picture of it. But having ricocheted now, Eliot, from -- to John Edwards, to Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and now this story, each one is legitimate.

I can sit here and defend to you each one of those stories. But the degree of piling on, the way it takes away, hijacks cable news away, it hijacks the morning shows away, it is all over the Internet, says to me that we are more interested in covering salacious topics than the matters of the economy, war and peace.

That's not a novel statement on my part. I've just never seen it spin at this velocity, this out of control.

SPITZER: I guess, Howard, that comes to the question I've asked myself. As I said having lived in many different camps over the course of my life, does the media reflect the public's desires and the underlying need or desire of the public to hear these stories or does the media lead the public to this?

Maybe it's an irrelevant sort of existential question. It doesn't matter. But it is one that's out there.

KURTZ: If this story didn't get ratings, it didn't get online traffic, you probably wouldn't be leaning it with tonight. SPITZER: Right.

KURTZ: But I'm not saying that you're chasing ratings --

SPITZER: Right.

KURTZ: -- as it's an important story here involving an important member of Congress.

SPITZER: All right, Howard Kurtz, thank you for being with us.

KURTZ: Thank you.

SPITZER: Coming up, Syria. As the world awakes to the true brutality of the regime, I'll ask Fouad Ajami how the U.S. should respond.

But first, E.D. Hill is with us.

E.D., you're talking with one of the most admired -- about one of the most admired women in Washington, Anthony Weiner's wife.

E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: That's right. We've talked about him so much, but what is she all about? You know James Carville last night when you were talking to him said she's one of the most popular Democrats in D.C.

She is the right-hand person to Hillary Clinton. She has been with Hillary Clinton through Lewinsky, through it all. And apparently, she is the person that Anthony Weiner's wife called when all this happened.

Instead of going to a therapist, the couple gets together and reportedly goes to a hotel to strategize on how they can politically handle this. So what is her background? What is her next move? That's what we'll discuss this evening.

SPITZER: All right. Fascinating stuff, E.D., thanks so much. We'll have that and so much more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: The hope of the Arab Spring is giving way to a long brutal hot summer. Everywhere you turn another powder keg situation. What should or can America do in Syria, Libya and Yemen?

The best person to ask, the man who just won the Braun Del Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, Professor Fouad Ajami, director of Middle Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

As always, a huge pleasure to have you here. And congratulations on the award.

FOUAD AJAMI, PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Thank you very much, Governor Spitzer. Thank you, Eliot. SPITZER: Professor, let's begin here. A report just came out from Humans Right Watch, which crystallizes makes clear what we all suspected, the brutality, the degree of heinous torture and other misbehavior by Assad in Syria.

What does this do to the opposition? And what does this do to U.S. options in terms of getting rid of Assad?

AJAMI: Well, I think the masks have fallen in Damascus. Because in fact this regime in Syria has almost always managed to fly under the radar. We never could believe that this regime was the terrible regime it was. We always believed, and indeed Senator Kerry, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when he opined Assad was a reformer, he said, oh, he was very good on foreign policy.

So you had this regime which was Janus like. It showed a face to the outside world and a face to its own people. And now we see the Syrian people are fleeing to Turkey, crossing the border, trying as best they can to flee the terror of this regime.

And we see the ruler himself, Bashar al-Assad, for what he is. And in a way, history repeats itself. Look at it this way. Go back to the '80s. Hafez Assad was the man and his younger brother was the killer. You now have the same cast of characters. You have Bashar Assad at the head of the state and his younger brother as the killer.

SPITZER: And the interesting thing is you make such a salient point. We fall prey to the veneer of good public relations. Assad who lived in London, he listened in Western music. The superficialities deceived us into believing that somehow the terror that he used and invoked at home had dissipated but it never had.

AJAMI: Absolutely. And remember, "Vogue" magazine did a piece on Bashar al-Assad's wife and called her a "rose in the desert." I mean this is the kind of -- this regime the practice the art of concealment and the art of deception. That sold the world on the idea of this moderation.

And it always had one thing going for it. It's always said we're a secular autocracy and we are the alternative to Muslim Brotherhood and to Muslim fundamentalism.

SPITZER: Again such a hugely important point. Anybody who stood in opposition to the theocracies we were terrified of was given carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. And as we said, as long as you're not -- as long as you're not Khomeini --

AJAMI: Right.

SPITZER: -- we will let you govern however you wish.

Now, did we, do you believe, know what was going on internal to Syria and just turn a blind eye? Or did our intelligence agencies really not know?

AJAMI: No, we were not really very well informed. Nor was there -- I mean there was a terror in Syria. There was a repressive state. But there was not a war between the Syrian regime and its people. And then, on a certain day in March, some kids, some poor kids, under 15 years of age, went out in the southern town of Daraa and wrote some graffiti on the walls, and the regime was so depressed and so afraid, so brittle it couldn't tolerate this.

And it went to war against its own people. And every act of repression, every act of repression on the part of the regime, strengthened the will of the Syrian people and their defiance.

SPITZER: Which is actually a remarkable turn of events. Because usually acts of terror like that will lead to a dissipation of opposition.

AJAMI: Exactly. And that's why, in my opinion anyway, I mean it's not a very original thought, that's why the Syrian regime returned the body of this young poor boy, Hamza Khateeb, to his people, to his family, tortured and mutilated, because the idea was you will reinstate the state of fear, and so you will frighten the people. They will scurry to their homes and they will leave power to the Assads.

SPITZER: OK. Quickly, last question on Syria because I want to move over to -- in our geography tour around the Middle East. What can and should the United States do right now? Are we helpless? Do we have leverage?

AJAMI: Well, we have -- we have imposed sanctions on Syria. They don't mean much. And I think fundamentally, we were always late. We were behind the curve on Syria. I mean we just couldn't do it.

Go back to President Obama. On May 19, he was still saying, Bashar has a choice. He can either lead the process of change or get out of the way.

Go back to Secretary of State Clinton. As late as June 1, she was saying the Bashar Assad regime has nearly run out of legitimacy. There was no room and no need for the word nearly.

So we never really were very much -- we didn't really understand the stakes in Syria and we were not into the game.

SPITZER: Let's move just a little bit west to Libya where the notable event in the last few days, even though attention has been elsewhere, is that the magnitude of NATO bombing on Tripoli seems to have expanded almost exponentially.

Why is there unity within the NATO alliance? And will this lead finally to Gadhafi's departure?

AJAMI: Well, there's no unity within the NATO alliance. Indeed something remarkable happened recently, and that's -- Defense Secretary Gates preparing to leave, he could afford great honesty and he ended up saying several members within NATO are not committed to this war. He singled out Poland, he singled out Turkey, he singled out Germany, he singled out the Netherlands. And then we are witnessing that you have small countries like Denmark and Norway that are carrying more of a load. And you have President Obama giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Angela Merkel but Merkel said she will help only when the war comes to an end so there is division -- there is division on the war in Libya.

SPITZER: But President Sarkozy of France -- and I don't want to impugn his rationale for this, certainly he's up facing a tough reelection, he looks like Charles de Gaulle these days, he has been driving this forward from the very beginning.

Are the French determined, maybe because of historic relations with Libya, to continue this bombing until Gadhafi is gone?

AJAMI: I think Cameron and Britain and Sarkozy are committed to this war, but we are seeing their military limitations. And I think President Obama really is half in. He's really half-hearted in pursuit of this war. He has willed the end, which is the end of Gadhafi, but he has not willed the means.

And then there was a congressional rebellion against President Obama where you have Dennis Kucinich on the left and some Republicans on the right coming out against the endeavor in Libya so we are not really fully into this Libya venture.

SPITZER: All right, Professor Fouad Ajami, always great to have you here. This story will continue. I hope you will come back.

AJAMI: Thank you.

SPITZER: All right.

Up next, the Tent City. It's a symbol of economic crisis. It happened in the Great Depression, it's happening again in Wisconsin. We'll take a closer look when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: It's been months since opponents of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker flooded the state capitol to protest his anti-union budget bill. But their fight goes on.

Democrats succeeded in triggering recall elections against six Republican senators in July and protesters are settling in for the long term, erecting a tent city in the shadow of the capitol building.

They called their tent city is Walkerville in a backhanded tribute to the governor and a reference to Hoovervilles. Those makeshift shanty towns from the Great Depression.

Joining me now are two Walkerville regulars. Peter Rickman is a union organizer and a law student in Madison and Kim Sprecher is a teacher and a nurse, and a state employee.

Peter, Kim, welcome.

Now Peter, let me start with you. You have been called the unofficial mayor of the tent city that you've helped create. Why don't you show it to us quickly and also most importantly explain why you created it, what you hope to accomplish here.

PETER RICKMAN, WISCONSIN PROTEST ORGANIZER: Well, where we're standing right now is kind of right at the heart of tent city, Walkerville. We've got tents set up on a few blocks around the state capitol.

We've got -- down over here, a number of people who have been set up here for the long term. You can see the tents over my shoulder. This is where people have been living for the last five days. This is where we have to be to make sure that we can keep a watch on these politicians and the bad choices that they're making so we can hold them accountable.

You know if they'd let us in the people's house, you know, I'm sure we'd be happy to be back there, but these Republican politicians don't want to give us a chance to be able to watch everything that they're doing because they know that we oppose this agenda.

SPITZER: Now, Kim, what is the agenda that so bothers and troubles you?

KIM SPRECHER, WISCONSIN PROTESTER: Well, basically, the entire agenda. It feels like things are being done underhandedly. The public isn't informed. Things are rushed through. And I'm here to stay in the front lines so that I can be informed and inform other people.

SPITZER: Well, Peter, let me get more specific. Certainly, what drew national attention was the passage of a bill that appeared and I think it's fair to say does in fact significantly limit union bargaining power, but give us a sense of the broader agenda.

What are the other elements of Governor Walker's agenda that you find so problematic?

RICKMAN: I think we all know that for the last few decades working folks have been under attack and this is just the most virulent and intense form of that. They went from attacking our unions to attacking public education and health care. There is almost $1 billion in cuts in public education that's going to hurt kids, it's going to hurt teacher.

I'm a product of our public schools in Wisconsin. It's part of what makes me who I am. So, you know, that's one of the reasons I had to stand up and fight. But I think health care and education, the fight for good jobs, these are places we all have to be on the front lines.

SPITZER: Was the agenda that is now being passed not part of Governor Walker's very stated agenda when he ran for office and was swept into power with the Republican legislature behind him? Is there anything that you're seeing that is a surprise to you?

Let me -- Kim, why don't you take a shot at it? Anything here you did not expect based upon what Scott Walker said when he was running for governor?

SPRECHER: Well, I think almost everything, to be quite honest. Specifically, you know, clean air, clean water, the voter ID bill. Just, you know, he kind of guised it as under the budget for the unions and it just spiraled since then.

SPITZER: When he was running in the national Republican agenda very much embraces the notion that if you cut taxes and you cut spending in the public schools, then somehow the economy will bounce back, so why are you surprised at the steps that Governor Walker has taken?

And what do you think has evoked this sort of very significant pushback in the folks in Madison and elsewhere in your state?

SPRECHER: Well, because for me it's very apparent that the agenda is to kind of squash the middle class. And, you know, it's just not right. And the voices of us are not being heard. And people are frustrated. And he's doing things that he didn't run on.

SPITZER: What are the things he's done that you did not expect him to do?

RICHMAN: I didn't expect him to go after and eviscerate collective bargaining. I didn't expect him to go after unions so strongly. You know, I thought there would be some combativeness. But I didn't think he'd try to, you know, put a boot on the neck of working folks in the state.

I didn't expect him to propose an unprecedented almost $1 billion cut in public schools. I didn't expect that he was going to try to gut Medicare and Medicaid in the state -- excuse me, Medicaid.

I didn't expect that they were going to push this agenda because what I heard on the campaign trail was that they were about creating good jobs. Now it's readily apparent from even before he took office that Scott Walker has no interest in creating good jobs in the state.

He's got an interest in putting money in the pockets of corporations and the rich. That's what, you know, he's doing now, which is very different from the good jobs mantra that we heard on the campaign trail.

SPITZER: All right, Peter and Kim, thank you so much for joining us.

SPRECHER: Thank you.

RICHMAN: Thank you, Eliot, it's a pleasure.

SPITZER: Now let's turn to Republican Glenn Grothman who is a leader in the Wisconsin Senate overseeing passage of the state's controversial budget plan. I think it's safe to say that he is persona non grata in Walkerville.

Senator, welcome back to the show.

GLENN GROTHMAN (R), WISCONSIN STATE SENATE: Glad to be on the show.

SPITZER: Well, thank you for joining us. Look, let me ask you. What is your reaction to what I think you just heard, the protesters, the Walkerville that's been erected around the capitol there in Madison? Does that affect you, your agenda, or what the Republican leadership in the state intends to do going forward?

GROTHMAN: No, I just view it as part of that Madison ambience. You know it's like the lakes and the co-eds and the ethnic restaurants. The permanent protester class here again. They're kind of lovable. And I enjoy waving to them. But it doesn't affect how we're going to vote.

SPITZER: Well, look, I'm impressed that you find them lovable. You know, you perhaps have a greater tolerance than I might have or that I did at different stages in my electoral career.

But let me get serious for a moment. There was when you passed the bill that changed bargaining right of union members in Wisconsin significant public protest and the argument at the time was, look, we want union members to contribute and they did by giving back significant financially to balance the budget, but taking away the rights, people thought was wrong.

Have you overstepped? Have you gone beyond what Scott Walker pledged to do when he ran for governor?

GROTHMAN: I don't think we've taken away rights. We're basically putting the public employee in the same position as the vast majority of private sector employees in Wisconsin have been all along.

I don't think anybody's rights have been trampled. We are going to make government more efficient, which is going to mean the average working man will not have to put up with the tax increase.

SPITZER: Well, look, let's go back to that bill just for a moment. As you know, obviously, a court has stayed the implementation of the statue for really I think what could be called process reasons. And it's unclear how that litigation will turn out.

Why have you not passed the bill again? You still have the votes in the Republican-controlled legislature, both Houses, Republican governor. Why haven't you just passed the bill again to overcome this litigation so you can put the bill in place?

GROTHMAN: Well, we'd like to have the precedent set by the state Supreme Court. But honestly if in the next 10 days the state's Supreme Court does not rule, and we believe they are going to rule imminently, we'll pass the bill again.

SPITZER: So you will just go back to the legislature and you would essentially mood out -- I hate to use the lawyering term, you make that litigation irrelevant and you would pass the bill again over the objections of apparently a significant piece of the Wisconsin public.

GROTHMAN: Well, I don't know it's a majority of the Wisconsin public. A lot of the public employees don't like that part of the bill. But we've got a tough budget to balance. And just like somebody in a business if your sales income is down, you can't give everybody the same-sized check they had last year.

SPITZER: Look, Senator, I don't want to revisit the conversations. It's a good conversation we had a couple of weeks ago where, you know, I don't think the changing the negotiating power affects the budget in the next year or two but put that aside for the moment.

There are --

GROTHMAN: Oh, it unquestionably does, it's very fiscal in nature.

SPITZER: But not -- anyway, we had that conversation a few weeks ago. I don't want to repeat it. What I do want to raise is the issue now of the six Republican senators who are going to be subjected to a recall vote on July the 12th, if I'm correct.

You have a margin of three in the Wisconsin Senate. How do you handicap those outcomes? What I'm being told is that there's a decent shot the Democrats take back control of the Senate based upon these recalls.

GROTHMAN: I see no way that's going to happen. First of all, in addition to having six Republicans facing recall, we have three Democrats facing recall. And quite frankly, some of those Democrats are in pretty Republican districts. So there is no way that I can see the Democrats picking up three seats in the next two months. Even on my darkest, blackest day, I wouldn't see more than one or two.

SPITZER: All right, well, look, I'm not sure it's such a dark moment when the other side wins a few races. Even I have come to that conclusion. But, you know, look, with a total of nine, I think the six Republicans races have been set for a date, July 12th, have the three Democratic recall votes actually been pegged so there's an election date that's been set yet?

GROTHMAN: There has not been a date set yet at this time.

SPITZER: So -- since the Republican recall votes could come first, there could be a swing based upon that.

Let me ask you quickly because time runs short unfortunately, the argument that I do hear being made is that the public wanted fiscal conservatism from Governor Walker but what he has done is become much more dogmatic on issues such as immigrant rights, such as gun rights, such as defunding Planned Parenthood and -- I apologize, I don't think we're setting off those alarms back there. But that somehow there's a dogmatism now and a rigidity to his ideology that doesn't sit that well with the Wisconsin voter. Is there any truth to that argument?

GROTHMAN: No, I don't feel Governor Walker has been too dogmatic at all. Like I said, what he has done is primarily fiscal in nature. And if our school systems, our counties and our cities are going to make it through this budget without cutting services, it's important they have more flexibility with regard to their unions.

SPITZER: All right, Senator, thank you so much for joining us. I don't know what those alarms are in the background. I don't know if the folks in Walkerville perhaps set it off. Anyway, thank you for joining us on the show as always.

Up next, a tug-of-war in Libya. Government forces loyal to Gadhafi responded to a NATO airstrike on Tripoli by launching a new attack on Misrata. The latest on the ground when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: In Libya tonight, 13 reported dead as Gadhafi forces launch a massive attack on the rebel-held city of Misrata. Meanwhile NATO has dramatically increased its airstrikes on Tripoli. They've been bombing relentlessly.

CNN's Sara Sidner is live in Misrata, Libya tonight.

Sara, what do you have for us?

SARA SIDNER, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we can tell you is that there were extremely fierce fights going on on the front lines outside of Misrata.

As you know the rebels have held this city for some time now, for several weeks, but about 25 to 30 kilometers outside the city on three separate fronts there was intense fighting today, to the east, to the west and to the south.

And as you said, there were 13 people killed, about 24 people injured, the last time we checked with the hospital. What we're seeing on the front lines is that Gadhafi forces have pushed in, they've tried to make a push in, again, towards the city.

This is the second time this week they've done it. They tried that on Monday as well according to rebel fighters who were on the front lines with them on Monday.

What happened at that point is that the rebels were able to hold their ground and then push Gadhafi forces even further back about three kilometers. So there is quite a bit of celebrating, as you might imagine, that they will be able not only to hold their positions but also push Gadhafi forces back a bit. Even to the west, a little bit closer to Tripoli.

SPITZER: I can certainly understand why there would be celebration based upon the fact that Gadhafi has not been able to defeat the rebels in Misrata. On the other hand, is Gadhafi sending a message that even after the relentless NATO bombing of Tripoli and other -- any other assets he may still have, he is still able to mount a counteroffensive and clearly saying to the world, I'm here, continuing to fight. And how do the rebels understand his response at this moment?

SIDNER: Yes, and Eliot, you're seeing this, because NATO is also saying, look, we're going to spend another 90 days in Libya. What does that tell you? It tells you that Moammar Gadhafi at this point is holding his ground. He said he's not going anywhere. He came out on the radio after dozens of bombs hit Tripoli and was very defiant, saying he's not going anywhere, he's going to be here in the country, he's going to fight the fight.

And so what you're seeing is a reaction to that in some ways. The rebels also feel the same. They're not going anywhere. They're going to hold their ground. They've been told, though, by their commanders, to hold their ground, not to push too far forward which has gotten them a little bit frustrated.

They've been told not to use tanks by NATO because they think it's very difficult for them to differentiate because they're using most of the weapons they're getting are from the Gadhafi forces when they end up defeating them one way or another.

But you're certainly not seeing any movement by Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, movement out of the country, or any indication he's planning on going anywhere anytime soon -- Eliot.

SPITZER: You know, Sara, if I'm correct, you've been in Misrata for about two weeks and you've also been in Benghazi for about four, Benghazi being the headquarters of the opposition forces.

Do you sense from the opposition leadership any growing sense of confidence, any sense that time is now on their side as they get more organized, as NATO demonstrates its commitment to persevere in this battle?

SIDNER: Absolutely. The answer to that is yes. They've had another nation sign on, saying that they are the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people. They have been pressing for that and pressing for that and pressing for that from the nations like the United States and the UK.

They are still hoping they're going to get that because with that, I think what they will get are funds. They have constantly said they are desperately in need of funds. They are hoping to get some of the funds from the United States in particular that were frozen. Some of that $34 billion in frozen Gadhafi assets, hoping to get their hands on some of that because they have to do things like pay government workers.

Make sure they have money for those to help fuel the front lines. The front lines are very low on guns. And so you're seeing a lot of this. But you're also seeing nations come forward. Russia came into the country to speak with them. Someone who sort of switched positions and is now supporting the opposition and trying to have conversations with the opposition as opposed to going to Tripoli and speaking with Moammar Gadhafi.

So you're seeing some of these actions from other nations. That is certainly bolstering the National Transitional Council as they call themselves, which is the opposition formed group. Hoping to be the interim government, trying to usher in a -- for example, a free and fair elections and you know a constitution for the people, by the people -- Eliot.

SIDNER: All right, Sara Sidner, thank you so much for that report.

When we come back, E.D. Hill and a portrait of the remarkable woman who is married to Congressman Anthony Weiner. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: If you think you couldn't be more shocked by Congressman Weiner's scandal, get this, his wife, Huma Abedin, is reportedly pregnant. That according to "The New York Times." So if some people wondered why she was staying with him, now some wonder, how could she leave?

For more on Abedin, I'm joined by Alan Duke in our L.A. bureau.

Thanks for being with us.

ALAN DUKE, CNN PRODUCER: Certainly.

HILL: I'm trying to understand what she's all about. Clearly, remarkable woman. She starts out at 19 as an intern for the first lady at that point. Makes it through her campaign. Now she's -- her right-hand person at the Secretary of State's Office.

What's she all about?

DUKE: Well, she's an interesting combination. In an interview about four years ago, Hillary Clinton, while she was campaigning, described her as an unmatched combination of style, kindness and intelligence.

And that comes from a background where her father is an Islamic scholar from India. Her mom, a sociologist from Pakistan. She's born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Raised in Saudi Arabia. And moved back to the U.S. to go to college and then worked for First Lady Hillary Clinton.

HILL: So why this guy? I mean, apparently, according to James Carville, she's one of the most popular people in the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C. Anthony Weiner, even talking to follow Democrats who want to like him, say he's a tough guy to really get, -- you know, warm up to.

So why him? She apparently had George Clooney at her -- you know, beck and call, she had John Cusack, and she ends up with Anthony Weiner.

DUKE: Well, you know, you would know better than me what women look for. But I think a sense of humor. He's noted for that. And his intelligence. Not evident lately but of course over the years.

And he's courted her actively. When he met her in the 2008 presidential campaign when she was by Hillary Clinton's side so long, he met her there and actively pursued her and obviously was victorious because 11 months ago, Bill Clinton performed the vows, officiating at their wedding.

HILL: And that is what was so interesting to me. What happens when all of this breaks? She's not by his side but we hear that she calls Hillary Clinton. He calls Bill Clinton. And, you know, this is a woman who has been with Hillary Clinton through the Lewinsky scandal.

Hillary Clinton goes from, you know, first lady of Arkansas to the secretary of state of the United States.

Is she a person do you think that has political aspirations of her own?

DUKE: Well, one would think. Actually, she told the "Vogue" interviewer four years ago that her aspirations were to be the next Christiane Amanpour, a journalist. She wanted to work in the White House press room, ended up working for the first lady. And now here she is.

But apparently she did have aspirations. She married an ambitious man who planned to perhaps be governor of New York some day. And who knows what from then. So one would think that they were becoming a power couple.

HILL: One person in Washington said anybody who is able to make the transition from the first lady's office, make it through all of it into the secretary of state's office --

DUKE: Yes.

HILL: -- had to have sharp elbows. So you know I'm wondering, is this a person who is really looking at the much bigger, farther long-term picture? Instead of calling a therapist, this couple, when all this broke, when he reportedly told her on Monday, that, you know, this has been going on, and he tells, you know, reporters that she knew about some of it before they got married, they don't go to a therapist, they go to a hotel and figure out how to handle the political fallout together.

DUKE: She had a mentor in Hillary Clinton. Someone who -- well, history will show you experienced far more than she's experiencing now. And obviously could mentor her through this. And -- well, look where it got both of them.

(LAUGHTER) HILL: My first reaction to this was how can she stay with him? And after finding out that, according to "The Times" at least, she's pregnant, you wonder, OK, well, now she's sort of stuck with this.

However, is this a type of woman who is strong enough, popular enough, has enough support in D.C., that she could simply walk and do this on her own?

DUKE: Well, maybe some day she'll be secretary of state. She's certainly becoming a name that a lot of people know. Beyond the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party and the beltway press. So we know who she is. And we know a lot about her. We're talking about her now. So perhaps she could win from this. At least in a very -- I guess an odd way.

HILL: Well, she certainly seems to be remarkable although I do not envy her position right now.

Alan Duke, thanks so much for joining us.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Tomorrow, I'll be broadcasting live from Washington, D.C. with an important interview with Senator Mark Warner, one of the leading voices on raising the debt limit or not, and confronting the huge deficits that are confronting our economy.

Hope you'll join us tomorrow night. Thanks for joining us IN THE AREA tonight. Good night from New York. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.