Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Tempers Flare in Debt Talks; Murdoch Scandal in UK Hits U.S.; British Politicians Cozy up to Media; Moody's to Review U.S. Credit Rating
Aired July 13, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Welcome to the program. I'm Tom Foreman.
Tonight, the scandal that started in London and has squirreled around one of the most powerful men in the world has come to American shores. In the last four hours, four senators have called for investigations into the vast media empire of Rupert Murdoch.
This is the last great media baron, perhaps the most powerful in the United States in terms of money, money and influence. How deep does that run? Take a look.
The television empire, FOX with all of its entertainment and its news programming, is part of his world. The movie empire, 20th Century FOX was huge, hit films. In publishing, the "New York Post," the "Wall Street Journal," what he has in print, along with HarperCollins Publishers Limited, books like Sarah Palin's. All part of the empire of Rupert Murdoch.
We will dig much deeper into the Murdoch scandal including a conversation with one of those U.S. senators calling for an investigation.
But first, here are some of the other stories we're following tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: The other Barack Obama. A new book reveals astonishing information about the father of the president. It opens a new window into the heart and mind of his son.
And -- who is Thaddeus McCotter? He's a conservative who plays an electric guitar, quotes Led Zeppelin on the House floor, and he's running for president in a crowded field. Can he rock out?
Then, think the debt ceiling debate is a joke? So does Paul Provenza.
But you're sounding like a conspiracy theorist right now, sort of like --
(CROSSTALK) PAUL PROVENZA, COMEDIAN: No, no, no.
FOREMAN: I can't understand it, therefore it must be responsible.
PROVENZA: No, no, no. It's not conspiracy, it's culture. It's realities. What life is today.
FOREMAN: With both sides talking at each other, maybe it takes a comedian to get serious.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: We have a lot going on tonight. But we start off with some breaking news. A showdown or a meltdown -- we're not entire sure which at this point -- at the White House in the middle of those talks.
President Obama abruptly walked out of these debt talks with House Republicans saying that he has reached his limit. It happened not long ago.
CNN's chief White House correspondent joins me now from Washington for the latest on the thoughts on tonight's meeting.
Jessica Yellin, tell us what's going on there.
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tom.
That's at least how Republicans are accounting for what happened today in these debt talks. There's certainly a political tit-for-tat going on in these increasingly tense negotiations.
After today's meetings, both sides came out telling very different stories. What we do know is according to Republicans, President Obama in the meeting ended it abruptly after lecturing them and then walking out.
Democratic officials, I'm told, have a very -- I'm told by Democratic officials a very different story. That President Obama got frustrated when Republicans changed their position in these negotiations.
And at the very end of the meeting after hearing the Republicans now endorsing a short term deal, the very kind of deal President Obama has said he will not accept, the kind of deal he has said he would veto, he gave a speech.
Democratic officials say he told the group that this is the kind of political posturing that Americans have a great distaste for. It's the kind of thing that they always expect from Washington, where politicians take political positions and cater to their bases rather than take hard stands on tough issues. And that is when the meeting broke up.
No matter which side of the story you believe, Tom, the one truth we know is that it is certainly the most tension we've heard come from any of these meetings to date. And the bottom line is Republicans are now agreeing openly -- House Republicans, at least -- that they do like this idea of a short term debt extension, which require multiple votes between now and next year's election, which makes it quite a political issue and changes the entire dynamic of these negotiations.
And, tom, I'll tell you, the president again today repeated that he would veto any kind of short term deal, which means if that's what House Republicans are pushing for, there is no deal.
FOREMAN: And Jessica, what about this explosive moment? Does this seem to be true about where the president in particular confronted Republican Eric Cantor?
YELLIN: Well, what I'm told about that moment, and it's a bit of, you know, Rorschach test, everybody sees it in a different light, is this is where the president said to the group, everybody is -- this confirms the worst suspicion everyone has of Washington.
That the president was frustrated, that Eric Cantor had now endorsed the short term deal idea and was frustrated that he had changed off of his prior position where he wanted to go for a real deficit reduction and you know the words of Democratic officials into this short term idea.
Now, Tom, I should point out that, you know, some Republicans would argue at this late stage, that's all some people think can get done. So there's different ways to look at it.
If I can dial out for a minute and give you a big picture perspective, despite this tit-for-tat and all the political spinning that's going on, there is still a meeting scheduled at the White House tomorrow. As far as we all know tonight, all sides are still planning to come here.
And we're told that they will be discussing detailed spending cuts and also for the first time this question of tax changes. Will there be revenue on the table, a major controversial issue. So despite all this, there could still potentially be some progress towards one of these deals tomorrow. We'll see.
FOREMAN: Well, Jessica, you answered my last question. We're going to check back with you later on. They might want to start with decaf in the morning.
(LAUGHTER)
FOREMAN: How it ended tonight. We'll check back in a little bit.
Let's go back to our top story right now because this really is an important thing for all of us to be aware of. This in-depth look at the Rupert Murdoch scandal as it begins to reverberate here in America.
You may recall a few nights ago we said we thought it might and indeed it has. Murdoch withdrew his $12 billion bid for British Satellite broadcaster BSkyB today amid the most disturbing allegations that have emerged now.
According to a British paper, journalists from the "News of the World" approached a New York private investigator to buy phone records of victims from the 9/11 attacks. Families of the victims are outraged by these allegations and four senators have now requested a Justice Department investigation of Murdoch's company.
I spoke with one of them, Senator Frank Lautenberg, moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: Senator Lautenberg, thanks for joining me here. Let me start with the most important question in all of this. Do you have reason to believe that some sort of criminal activity has taken place in this country connected to Rupert Murdoch's enterprises?
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: Well, the one thing that I know -- not that I just believe -- and that is a corporation -- an American corporation cannot use bribery. It's a felony. It's against the law and should not be used.
FOREMAN: So at this point, you're not talking about these things happening in this country that you know of, although you're curious about that, you're focusing on what's happening over there and the possible repercussions here.
What are the possible repercussions? Let's say we did find out this. What can happen?
LAUTENBERG: Well, they could be fined. There could be severe punishment if the corporation has directed people to violate the law. It also since we've heard that hacking has been taking place and directed at families who suffered as a result of 9/11, loss of a loved one or injury to a loved one.
And we want to make sure that this practice doesn't escape. We don't know that absolutely, that it has taken place, but it is alleged that it's -- or it's suggested that it's taken place. And we don't want to permit that.
FOREMAN: You and the other folks who have -- in elected office have called for an investigation into this right now are all Democrats. FOX News is widely seen as being very pro-Republican. You know full well many people are going to say, hey, this is just politics, you guys are going after them because they're a Republican vehicle and they're in trouble right now.
LAUTENBERG: Well, I think it's fair to say that I view it as a responsibility to investigate. It has nothing to do with politics, I'll tell you that. They have no right to break the law if they're an American corporation. And it wouldn't matter if they were selling tires or selling news or what have you. Those are the rules, those are the laws and we have to obey them. FOREMAN: But one of the thing I have to ask you about in all of this, you know, one of the issues over in Britain was that the politicians were very much involved in this, in that they were afraid of making the media very angry.
Do you fear any of that here? The simple truth is, when you start talking about politicians criticizing the media, you're -- as the old saying goes, you're criticizing people who buy ink by the barrel.
LAUTENBERG: Listen, I'm accustomed to being in the boxing ring here. And I served three years in the army. I'm not afraid of repercussions. I know that I'm on the right side of the question. And it's going to be asked. And I don't think about repercussions. I don't -- if I think I'm on the right track, that's where I'm going to stay.
FOREMAN: How soon do you want this to move? How soon do you expect it to move, if at all, in this investigation?
LAUTENBERG: ASAP. It has to be done in an orderly fashion. And I would urge haste from the Justice Department because this now lingers over us in a very unpleasant unfair way.
FOREMAN: All right. Senator Lautenberg, thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
LAUTENBERG: Glad to be here, thanks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: This, as you can tell, is getting ugly here, it's still uglier over there. Prime Minister David Cameron was grilled on the floor of parliament today on why he hired a former Murdoch editor, a man now under arrest in this hacking scandal despite warnings not to.
Watch this amazing bit of political theater.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED MILIBAND, BRITISH PARLIAMENT: He just doesn't get it.
(CHEERS)
MILIBAND: He just doesn't get it. I say this to the prime minister. He was warned by the deputy prime minister about hiring Andy Coulson. He was warned by Lord Ashdown about hiring Andy Coulson.
He has now admitted in the House of Commons today that his chief of staff was given complete evidence, which contradicted Andy Coulson's previous accounts.
The prime minister must now publish the fullest account of all the information that was provided and what he did and why those warnings went unheeded. DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The decision to employ a tabloid editor meant that there were a number of people who said this was not a good idea, particularly when that tabloid editor had been at the "News of the World" when bad things had happened.
The decision I made was to accept the assurances that he gave me. And I've said, those reassurances given to the police, to a select committee, and to a court of law. But if I was lied to, if others were lied to, that would be a matter of deep regret.
I couldn't be clearer about it than that. But we must make sure that we judge people as innocent until proven guilty.
GRAHAM STUART, BRITISH PARLIAMENT: Can the prime minister assure the house that all illegal press activity under the last government will be investigated now and that this will include the criminal conspiracy between the highest levels in that last government with parts of the Murdoch empire to -- including bribing a bank account of Lord Ashcroft in a bid to undermine him and his positions as laid out in dirty politics, dirty times?
(CHEERS)
CAMERON: Look, in public life we all are subject to huge amounts of extra scrutiny. And that's fair. But it's not fair when laws are broken. I mean I -- we've all suffered from this and the fact is we've all been too silent about it. That is part of the problem. Your bins are gone through by some media organization but you hold back from dealing with it because you want good relations with the media. What we need is some honesty about this issue on a cross-party basis so we could take on this problem.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: You can see what an earthquake this is causing in their government over there. That phrase, dirty politics, dirty times. Unbelievable.
So, look, let's consider what this means to the all too cozy relationship between the British government and the press. And think about it in terms of what might happen over here as a follow-up.
Alastair Campbell was the press secretary for the former Prime Minister Tony Blair. I spoke with him earlier today from London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: Thanks so much for joining us. Your contention is that this too cozy relationship between the media and the government has been around for quite some time and a lot of people knew about it.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL, FORMER PRESS SECRETARY FOR TONY BLAIR: Yes. It's not in dispute at all. If you go right back to Margaret Thatcher's time as prime minister. I think I'm right in recalling that Mrs. Thatcher gave five knighthoods in our honor system to serving editors who had supported her. When we came into office in 1997, that was something that we put a stop to by saying that no serving entity should get an honor from the queen.
What I said in a piece I wrote in the "Financial Times" the other day, I think there were points in which we compromised principles, principles that we should have adopted in relation to press regulation which in this country has been a complete joke against the continuing support that we were getting from sections of the media. And I wish that we had done more.
FOREMAN: How do you hit the proper balance here? Well, you're talking about press regulation, you know over here in America, people immediately perk up when they hear that because they say we don't like the media much but we've never liked restrictions on the press. How do you do that?
CAMPBELL: I accept that and I instinctively, despite the kind of criminality and the venality and the amorality that we've seen exposed in recent days, I instinctively am still a believer in self- regulation.
However, I'm not sure that the -- the generation that is running our media in Britain at the moment can be trusted with it. It's not just here about News International which is being exposed, I mean, frankly, for total rottenness, but you know one of the most powerful newspaper groups within the British (INAUDIBLE) is the mail group. I think they're just as bad and in some ways even worse although let me say the criminality element has not been, as it were, proven.
But I do think that the riots since the '80s, the then Culture secretary talked about the British press drinking in the "Last Chance Saloon." Well, they've been drinking in there heavily ever since. And I think -- I do hope that parliament, as once this inquiry is under way and once parliament then debates any proposals that come from it, I hope we do start from the standpoint of thinking actually self-regulation is preferable.
But I think the public are beginning to wonder whether the people who run our newspapers are capable of self-regulation.
And the other thing to point out here, we have -- we have the broadcast media regulated here. And actually I think most of the broadcast media think the system just about works.
FOREMAN: And one of your real concerns here is that the way it's working now. And I think this is going to resonate with a lot of people here, is such that the media makes it almost impossible for the government to govern because they're so worried about public opinion. And then that becomes a convenient excuse for government not doing difficult things because after all we'll get crucified in the media.
CAMPBELL: Well, I reached a point. I mean I worked for Tony Blair from '94 --1994 to 2003, and I went back for the 2005 election and I went back for the 2010 election as well. But I reached a point. This is myself now. Kind of the end of the last millennium really, where I just thought it didn't really matter what they said about you, because what you got to do in government is actually to try to do the right thing, to make the big, long term strategic decisions, and then try to see them through.
So those politicians around the world who do maybe try to -- you know, manage their policy making to suit what they think is going to be a media reaction, I think is a complete waste of time. So I think that what this has done, I hope, is liberated the political class from feeling that they have to worry too much about what the media say about them.
They should worry about the decisions they take, the strategic course they set and they should try to see it through.
FOREMAN: When you look back on the events of that time, do you think you should have been louder and more forceful in saying this is a poisonous, dangerous relationship for the governance of this country?
CAMPBELL: Well, I probably should. But you've got to remember, I was -- I was a spokesman. I wasn't an elected politician who went out there and sort of made big speeches and so forth.
I mean it's really interesting to watch the British press at the moment. The line they're running on us at the moment is, oh, you were so close to Murdoch, the line they're used to run about us at the time is that we showed the media complete contempt. So they kind of want to have it any way which suits them according to the prevailing mood at the moment.
But I can remember used to have discussions with President Clinton and his team and also with George Bush and his team about what I think elected politicians around the world now see is a real problem of a combination of a -- a driving culture of negativity, which is most dominant, I think, in our newspapers. And if you like, the frenzy driven reality of news reporting 24/7 on a proliferation of channels and the online revolution and so forth.
It is making it more difficult to govern. And I think the media has to accept some responsibility, not just for getting viewers, not just for selling papers but actually for the role it plays within that.
And again I hope that we can have a sensible debate about that where the politicians have said that they've got to change their ways but the journalists accept they've got to change, too.
FOREMAN: All right. Alastair Campbell, thanks so much for joining us.
CAMPBELL: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE) FOREMAN: This may all sound like something that's happening over there. But you can bet your house we're getting more of it coming here to debate. We're going to stay with on this show.
Coming up, Washington as we said at the top is playing hot potato with the debt ceiling. You've got it, no, you've got it, back and forth they go. Robert Reich says enough already. Let's make a deal. Stay with us. We'll figure out how he might pull it off.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: Tonight's tension at the White House with Republicans and the president apparently storming away from the bargaining table comes as there is new pressure on both sides to reach a deal.
The credit rating agency Moody now says it's thinking of downgrading the U.S. credit rating. This means there's a possibility that even if Congress raises the debt ceiling, they may not do it in time.
Joining me now to talk about it, former secretary of Labor under President Clinton, Robert Reich.
Robert, first of all, give us a 10-second explanation here. Why does it matter to the government if the credit rating is downgraded and why does it matter to me?
ROBERT REICH, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it matters to you and everybody else, Tom, for a very simple reason, and that is if the credit rating of the United States is downgraded, that means all of the borrowing that the United States needs to do and wants to do in the future is going to cost more.
Everybody who lends money to the government is going to demand higher interest rates. Those higher interest rates are going to make the budget deficit even worse. And so the downgrading is very, very serious. A potential downgrading is very serious. What this amounts to, and I'm going beyond my seven seconds, but I just want to put the politics into this.
What this amounts to is essentially more political pressure on Democrats and Republicans to come up with a deal.
FOREMAN: You've actually opened the door to the next question here. When you look at what's going on right now, you've written a column that has suggested that one of the problems here is politically everyone wants to just move this down the road and not deal with it because they have painted themselves into corners that they can't get out of, but practically, we shouldn't let that happen. Explain that.
REICH: Well, it's a giant game of chicken. Obviously, Republicans are saying if you do not go along with our plan, and we refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy, we are going to vote against the -- raising the debt limit. Democrats are saying you have to raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy, with regard to a budget agreement or there's no deal at all. Both sides in Washington right now are at complete loggerheads. Now in Washington -- now it's a very strange place. I've worked there for many years, I can tell you, it's its own planet.
In Washington, if you have that kind of situation, the only way out that provides kind of face-saving device for both sides is something like Mitch McConnell suggested yesterday. That is, give an opportunity for the Republicans to vote against raising the debt ceiling but allow the president to do it nonetheless, and put all the onus on the president and all the responsibility on the president, and essentially, make the election about that decision.
FOREMAN: I find it really surprising that you talk about the McConnell solution as being something that actually might be taken up because it was so roundly beaten up in Washington immediately as a ridiculous plan that can't possibly work. But you think that it actually may be the only avenue left, something like that?
REICH: Something like it is going to be the only avenue, Tom. I think it was roundly criticized particularly by Republicans who have Tea Party constituents, heavily Tea Party influence, because they wanted to show that they didn't want to compromise at all and would not compromise.
But you see the McConnell solution or compromise itself gives everybody in the Republican Party an opportunity to vote squarely against raising the debt ceiling. And that's the bottom line, that what they want. They don't want to go into an election having voted to raise the debt ceiling. At the same time, the debt ceiling has to be raised.
The Moody's decision today reflecting a possible downgrading of the United States treasury bills, that's -- would be a disaster, and pressure is building. Financial pressure from Wall Street, from big business, from the -- basically the sources of campaign money for the Republican Party. That's the issue.
FOREMAN: Do you think that anybody comes out a winner in this whole thing? Because -- I mean it feels like everybody is triangulating some kind of weird political advantage in next year's race. And I'm not sure that either side can bet on this playing for them.
REICH: No, I don't think anybody comes out a winner. I think the American public is disgusted, frankly, with all this political maneuvering, they want the debt ceiling raised to the extent that most people are looking at the debt ceiling at all. They want the budget deficit dealt with. But most people in the United States are really not paying attention to any of this. They're paying attention to jobs and wages.
They're worried about their personal finances. They want the president and Congress to come up with some sort of plan to create, you know, more jobs in the United States.
FOREMAN: And I want to ask you about that. We're running a little bit short on time here, but you had a pretty sharp response to the president's response to the latest jobs report. Basically saying you're right, this is the issue for Americans. I want to be secure in my job, secure in my home. I want to have some sense I can grow and the sense that the White House at this point seems to be shrugging and these reports come out and saying, it's tough, we don't know what to do.
REICH: I think it's dangerous. Now again we're more than a year away from the next election. But when we get into the gravitational pull of the 2012 elections, it's going to be very soon that we get into that gravitational pull, Tom.
The president has got to have a jobs plan. He's got to say to the public, even if I can't get this through the Republican House, I am going to fight for it because I am fighting for jobs and wages. I know that this is what you Americans care most about.
FOREMAN: All right. Robert Reich, it's always good to have you with us to talk about things. We look forward to your insights.
REICH: Thanks, Tom.
FOREMAN: Up next, dramatic footage out of Libya. You're going to want to see this. CNN's Ben Wedeman and his camera crew were caught in the crossfire today. It's really quite astounding and a reminder of how our troubles and difficulties stretch all around the globe right now. Stick with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: The civil war in Libya flared up with a dramatic five hour gun battle today near Tripoli. For several harrowing minutes senior international correspondent, Ben Wedeman and his team were caught in the crossfire in this small town.
It's the kind of danger journalists live through all the time to bring stories from the war zone. I want you to take a look at this extraordinary footage.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our driver --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get in the car, Mary.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You guys, wait!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get in there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wait! Wait!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait! You in, Mary?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I'm in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Just calm down. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get down!
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We're leaving this area. There's gunfire all around us and we believe that Gadhafi's forces are doing a roundabout movement. So we are rushing out of this area.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you all right, guys?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody is fine.
WEDEMAN: We're going as fast as we can. We can't tell who -- wait. OK. Is the other car behind us?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
WEDEMAN: That's a lot of gunfire. Gadhafi's forces, apparently have entered the town we were in the other day that the rebels took on the 6th of July and there's been talk they might be building up forces to make a counterattack. It looks like the counterattack has begun right now. We're driving fast. See the other one?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're still behind us!
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: That was CNN's Ben Wedeman. The woman you heard yelling out there trapped outside the car for a moment. That was camera woman Mary Rogers. She's the one who brought you all those pictures. Our whole team made it out safely, but a stark, stark reminder how troubled that part of the world remains even up until now.
Up next, a very different change of tune. A conservative who can whale on an electric guitar and may score points at the high school reunion, but can it help this next man become your president? Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: My next guest is running for president. Well, come to think of it, who isn't? He's Congressman Thaddeus McCotter. He's a Republican from Michigan. Who is he?
He's a populist, a policy walk in and he's conservative, but the thing that Thad McCotter may be most known for is quoting Led Zeppelin lyrics on the floor of the House. That sounds like something I ought play for you, but trust me it takes way too long.
What I will show instead though is this. That's him rocking out on the electric guitar at his own presidential campaign announcement earlier this month. I talked to him this evening.
Congressman, welcome. I like the guitar better than Huckabee's base.
REPRESENTATIVE THADDEUS MCCOTTER (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I like to tease the governor he only plays four strings.
FOREMAN: Exactly. How do you get a base player off the porch? Pay him for the pizza.
You know what you're hearing everywhere, you're too little known, too late into the game and you don't have nearly enough money to pull this off. What makes you think you can become president?
MCCOTTER: It's the first social networking election to elect a president. We have seen already in this process is people that you haven't heard of getting traction through the social networking, through the 24 hours news cycle, through the fact their message resonated for a period of time.
FOREMAN: Why is your message going to resonate?
MCCOTTER: I'm not presumptuous enough to say it will, but I believe that if you get in the race and you can put it in front of people, you have the opportunity for them to consider and get behind and unite. If they don't then you won't get anywhere.
FOREMAN: OK, so what's the message you want to get out there. I'll agree. There's a lot of dissatisfaction in the population. You could argue the reason President Obama became president at that time, is there was already the early wave of dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Why are you different? What are you going to bring to the table?
MCCOTTER: I think what we're going to bring to the table is the things a lot of people aren't talking about. We're seeing in the Republican field talking about limited government. We're not talking about fundamentally restructuring government to match the challenges of our time.
As we touched on earlier, you're living in a communications revolution on a Blackberry. You can purchase a service around the world. There's your laptop at home. You have more access to information, the ability to implement your decisions or your opinions into the community than any time in human history.
And yet, what we see opposite our consumer-driven self governance society is still the remnants of the welfare state, which is imploding around us, that's number one. Number two, what you also have is the failure of the bailed out banks to actually be fixed.
We have to restructure them to get credit flowing down to help the 14 million unemployed get back to work, to help the 30 million people that can't find better jobs be able to. These are the types of things we need to talk about.
In foreign affairs, we all understand challenges we face in the Middle East, but no one is talking about the long time threat of our strategic rival, Communist China.
FOREMAN: You have had no hesitation about attacking other Republican, which is something that Republicans often don't do. You've heard about the Obama-Romney economy going after Mitt Romney saying they're less rivals than running mates. That's not normal Republican talk.
MCCOTTER: Well, it's talk and it's true. When you look at the underlying premises of three - the major initiatives Mr. Romney refuses to say that he was mistaken on. The Wall Street bailout too big to fail principle, the Obama care Romney care comparative effectiveness research, cap and trade's underlying fund and premise climate change, he still believes that those were proper principles on which to implement decisions. This is very disconcerting to those who spent our time in the U.S. House fighting against those.
FOREMAN: You know, you make a point there. You've been in the House for quite some time now.
MCCOTTER: Well, now I point out that this is my ninth year. My neighbors are John Dingle and John Conyers, who have been in congress longer than I've been alive. Great guys.
FOREMAN: Fair enough. But you know what the argument is against anybody who's been in Washington for five years, six years, nine years, if you were going to change things, what have you changed?
MCCOTTER: Well, I measure the legislative process not by simply putting your name on a bill and hoping it gets passed. My first four years, I spent with the GOP and majority that was in decline and not particularly productive in trying to do the restructuring of the government as necessary, but alone deal with Communist China or obviously the bailed out banks.
I spent a lot of time trying to fight against very things like the Wall Street bailout, which we thought were wrong, held a majority of House Republicans against it. Unfortunately, it still passed with a Democratic Congress and Republican president.
FOREMAN: You voted for the auto bailouts.
MCCOTTER: No, which were not synonymous. We voted to utilize existing loans to help manufacturers survive, to get to a point where they could restructure. The Wall Street bailout was when the TARP money was spent, there are $700 billion parked on Wall Street that came out of Main Street's pocket.
You either took part of that when the other bill failed to go back to Main Street to have a manufacturing base or you don't. Now as a social construct to say to the Wall Street bankers that are too big to fail and evidently according to the "New York Times" too big to jail as well.
If you take that money from working people and tell them you're important enough to keep, but you who are blue collar, you who work in the factories, you aren't. You're not only gutting your manufacturing base at a time China is ready to pass us, but you're also saying to them some citizens are more important than others and I fundamentally reject that. FOREMAN: Let me ask you two other things quickly here before we run out of time. Let's do real world play acting here. You're the president right now. You're facing this holding on the debt ceiling right now. What would you do differently than this president or anybody else to solve this problem?
MCCOTTER: First, the hypothetical doesn't work because I didn't go on a two year spending binge when I controlled everything. Secondly I support cap and balance, which is the House Republicans alternative to this.
And I would also add that we have to have a balanced budget amendment submitted to the states. Those are the things that we need to do because if you listen to the American public, they're very concerned about this and rightly so.
But they also never want to be in this position again, I would argue cut cap balance and long term, you have to have balanced budget amendment, which puts the sovereign people in the room with the appropriators because as you know absent any other higher authority we keep spending money.
FOREMAN: And your favorite guitar player is Jimi Hendrix?
MCCOTTER: No, I said he was number one.
FOREMAN: Number one, Clapton and Stevie Ray.
MCCOTTER: Remember the story, Jimi Hendrix is in London and Towns and Clapton go in to watch him and said, who is the new kid in town? They said they watched him and they both went home and didn't play guitar for weeks. If I have to play, I'll play like Townsend or I play like Keith Richards a little more.
FOREMAN: Well, I got to tell you. You're going to have to do a lot of that because, you know, it's hard to break out of this pack right now. The biggest criticism is you're kind of a quiet guy, kind of a thoughtful guy and you have to break out somehow.
MCCOTTER: I've heard worse, but I'll take that.
FOREMAN: All right. Thad McCotter, good luck with your run. Thanks for coming in. If you win, come back and see us again.
MCCOTTER: I will.
FOREMAN: Excuse me while I run for president. Up next, Barack Obama senior, a fascinating new book sheds light on the man who gave his son his name and the complicated legacy that goes with it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: Well, it looks like President Obama has finally put the birther controversy to rest, but even though his autobiography was called "Dreams from My Father." Until now there has not been much public knowledge about his African dad, Barack Obama Senior. Now a new book, "The Other Barack" portrays a complicated, brilliant man who spent time in Hawaii and Harvard, had many wives, fathered many children, drank a lot and died in obscurity in 1982.
This is a fascinating look at a really unknown character. The author, Sally Jacobs joins me now. What fascinated you about this man?
SALLY JACOBS, AUTHOR, "THE OTHER BARACK": Well, clearly, there was very little known about Barack Obama Senior. As we headed towards the nomination, quite a bit was known about the president, would be president's mother, but the father was quite unknown. In "Dreams from My Father" he writes a bit about him, but clearly there was a lot more to be learned about him.
FOREMAN: In a nutshell, what kind of man was he?
JACOBS: Well, he was as the title suggest, bold and reckless. He was a very courageous person who spoke out against the administration at a time it was dangerous to do so and he was also extremely reckless. He was a heavy drinker and had a rather loose relationship with the truth at times.
FOREMAN: This was a man who was born in poverty in Kenya, in many ways was a very unlikely candidate to wind up over here in Hawaii impressing people with his intellect being good at math, good at thought, all this, very unlikely character.
JACOBS: Certainly, his journey was a really rather extraordinary one. He did grow up in a very poor situation at a time when children had no shoes. If you had shoes, you certainly didn't wear them. You save them for special occasion.
He wound up in his mid-20s at Harvard University not just there, but he succeeded there to some extent, passed all his exams and had only his dissertation left to write. He was very brilliant.
FOREMAN: He like his father before him had a streak of kind of wildness and cruelty to him to a degree.
JACOBS: He himself was cruel, you mean?
FOREMAN: Less so than his father before him, but there was still a sense of that.
JACOBS: He was somewhat abusive. Certainly one of his wives, some of his children experienced that. I think he had experienced that himself as a child. That was what he knew.
FOREMAN: Yes, but this was not a man that Barack Obama, our president, knew really at all in his life?
JACOBS: No, he did not. They lived together or were in the same city the first nine months of the president's life. He saw his father again for about a month in 1971, when Obama Senior came to Honolulu to visit. It was not a terrific visit. By the end as the president writes himself, he was ready for his father to go.
FOREMAN: What was going on during that time, during that brief visit? At 10 years old, we are so vulnerable and reliant to adults to have a character like this come back into your life.
JACOBS: Sure, remember his mother had spoken barely highly of his father. She was presented as a very positive figure and described him as a talented economist, which he was. When the real thing appears, I think Obama Junior was, you know, taken with him and watching him closely as he describes in his book.
But I think his father telling him what to do towards the end began to wear on him in the end, Obama Junior was raving to watch a favorite television program and his father said, no, no, no, you need to go do your homework.
And this erupted into all the adults arguing and Obama Junior admits he was ready for his father to leave and that was the last time he saw him.
FOREMAN: One last question, one of the things you're exploring here briefly, which is the other side of the coin, which is his father could have stayed, he did not. There was at least some - apparently some talk of putting up our president, when he was a boy, for adoption, a baby.
JACOBS: Yes.
FOREMAN: Basically, the mother and father saying we have to put him off somewhere else.
JACOBS: Well, the father said that. The mother did not as far as we know. What I found was a document, a memo in his immigration file in which Obama Senior says to the foreign student advisor at the University of Hawaii that Ann Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to put the baby up for adoption.
Did they do that? We don't really know. Obama Senior could have made it up. It made his own portrait look better before immigration officials. He was up for visa renewal. It seems unlikely that Ann Dunham would have done that kind of thing. But he did say it so it's an interesting reflection that his father would have gone that far.
FOREMAN: How different things would have been. Sally Jacobs, it's really a very interesting book. It's called "The Other Barack." Make sure you check it out. Thanks for being here. We appreciate it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: You look at all the things that are in the news in weeks like this and you have to ask yourself if the country has lost its mind. We're careening toward debt default. The only thing from Washington is a desperate call for more grown-ups. So there's no answer from the so-called leaders in the Capitol. We decide to turn to someone who has real experience losing his mind. Paul Provenza is a comedian actor and producer, host of the show "The Green Room". So let me ask you this great big philosophical question --
PAUL PROVENZA, HOST, "THE GREEN ROOM WITH PAUL PROVENZA": I was just going to say, it's the greatest intro I've ever had.
FOREMAN: You're welcome.
PROVENZA: I appreciate that.
FOREMAN: I try to help when I can. I've always thought one of the things comedians really can give to us is a step backed look at our culture.
PROVENZA: Well put.
FOREMAN: Right now, what do you think, when you look at us right now? I have people I have known for years and years who are saying, I think we've lost our mind as a country.
PROVENZA: It is unbelievable. You know what's hard to separate is the actual issues and how the issues are conveyed to us and how we process them. It's become completely unrecognizable.
FOREMAN: So when you look at things like, for example, our judicial system, people very upset this week at the judicial system. Do you think the problem is the judicial system or the way we report on and talk about the judicial system?
PROVENZA: Both simultaneously and neither simultaneously. That's why it's crazy because we can't -- it's like multiple universes simultaneously. When I look at what just happened with the Casey Anthony trial, I think to myself, I believe a person is innocent until they're proven guilty.
I had no idea they could be innocent after they're proven guilty. It has to say something. The resonance with the O.J. trial, it has to say there is something definitely wrong --
FOREMAN: You see that beyond the judicial system. See that in the political system. I know plenty of politicians who actually are very dedicated caring public servants who really want to do the right thing. And somehow you put them all together in the capital in Washington and it can't get done.
PROVENZA: Right, because we have one centralized government trying to come up with blanket laws and ways of living together for 300 million people over 3,000 miles in diameter. It's a crazy idea. I subscribe to the old adage he who governs closest governs best. You try to get 300 million people happy with the same decision. You will end up with 300 million people upset with the same decision.
FOREMAN: Do you think that's fundamentally one of the problems? I have wondered about the size of the country. We're the third largest country in the world by land mass and by population behind India and China. China is not a democracy. India is not a democracy like we are. Do you think we've reached a tipping point where it's just not really feasible to use the systems we have?
PROVENZA: I do believe -- keep in mind, I'm a comic. I don't know anything.
FOREMAN: So you're not to be trusted.
PROVENZA: It is my opinion, but I do have that stepback you talked about. To me this country was founded with states having real identities and real power of their own because this country really -- the people are different.
And especially since it's a nation of immigrants, the idea one central government can determine what's best for and policies that serve everybody in this country is a bad idea going in. You would never have any power structure starting out with that in mind.
FOREMAN: I've always said there's a gap between the real world and official world. The official world says all sorts of things. They say productivity is up and so the economy is better. In the real world, people say I'm paying higher bills, more afraid for my job and it's not better.
PROVENZA: Everything that goes on all these shows really is all a distraction because it's a power structure that we never address that is so powerful and globally so, that's this corporate accuracy and everything else gets lost in the shuffle.
We don't - nobody in this country, but experts. People who devoted their lives to understanding it, understand global finance and understand technology and understand media, how it's affecting us, understand any of that. None of us can understand. We can't participate.
FOREMAN: You sound like a conspiracy theorist right now.
PROVENZA: No, no.
FOREMAN: I can't understand it therefore --
PROVENZA: It's not a conspiracy. It's culture. It's reality. It's what life is today. You cannot fix anything in your house anymore.
FOREMAN: Well, that's true.
PROVENZA: We've gotten to the point really we hear people on TV all the time talking about their opinions, man on the street, what happened to Casey Anthony? Nobody knows anything. We have no idea. The reality has gotten so complicated that we can't actually participate in the process.
FOREMAN: We have a new presidential election coming up. Do you see any hope we're moving toward any sort of conclusion, because frankly, we're all getting tired of the chaos.
PROVENZA: Well, I'll tell you something, this is really interesting - first of all, I think one of the big problems we have in this country is the two-party system. As far as I'm concerned that's only one party more than a totalitarian state. Not enough margin of error. I do believe that the man cannot change the system, too unwieldy? It's become too overwhelming.
FOREMAN: You're saying President Obama can't change --
PROVENZA: Can't change the system. I believe Obama is sincere. I believe that he is generally progressive. I believe that he cares very much. I believe that he is very intelligent. Look what we're asking him to do. We're asking him to do all the things that he promised and all values he espouses in what is essentially a Turkish bizarre because that's what politics is.
FOREMAN: Frankly, to be honest, Democrats and Republicans having spent time in Washington, they don't really want anything to change anyway.
PROVENZA: Thank you.
FOREMAN: That's the way it works.
PROVENZA: I agree.
FOREMAN: You already said we can't fix it on this show. How are we going to fix it on your show?
PROVENZA: On my show, we're not going to fix it, but we're going to tell you a lot more places where it's broken than you have thought of.
FOREMAN: That's just what I need. All right.
PROVENZA: That's our job. As comedians, we don't pretend to be able to fix anything, but we could tell you a lot of places it's broken.
FOREMAN: Fat lot of help you are, then.
PROVENZA: Yes, I agree.
FOREMAN: But thanks for being here anyway.
PROVENZA: Thanks for having me.
FOREMAN: And thank you as well for joining us "In the Arena." "Piers Morgan Tonight" starts right now.
