Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
New Polls Shows Increases in Bush's Popularity; Pentagon Officials: No New Intelligence on Saddam
Aired October 13, 2003 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Monday, October 13. Here now -- Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Good evening. For the first time in weeks, the Bush administration has something to smile about. The newest opinion poll shows a dramatic increase in President Bush's approval rating. The CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll was conducted from Friday through yesterday. This new poll also has good news for the president on the economy. Nearly half of those surveyed say the economy is in good shape. White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux, has the report -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, this was really a day of both business and pleasure for President Bush on the holiday. Earlier today, he was playing golf, but before that, a very critical day for this administration, the president kicking off week two of this aggressive public relations campaign to convince Americans that, yes, it was worth it to go to war. It comes at a time when Secretary Powell, again, will make one last push for U.N. Security Council resolution for international support. It also comes at a week when the full House and Senate will take up the $87 billion request for post war funding. Now, President Bush, in what he calls the getting around the national media filter, today sat down with five reporters from regional television outlets to talk about the progress made inside of Iraq. Even earlier today, in his Columbus Day speech, he invoked the memories of 9/11, saying now that is the time Americans must make sacrifices.
BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People are willing to sacrifice for the country they love. They remember the lessons of September the 11th, 2001, and so do I. It's something we should never forget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: Now, Lou, I also spoke with some of my colleagues from those regional affiliates to get kind of a read-in on their interviews. They said that what he said was that he defended Vice President Cheney, as well as CIA Director Tenet for a good job that they were doing. He also said he was not disappointed that France, Germany and Russia were not contributing troops inside Iraq, that there are other ways to contribute to the Iraqi effort. He also defended his position, saying that, yes, he was in charge. There were some calls over the weekend that the president step up to the plate and take charge over an administration that seems to be rather divided over this issue. And finally, he did reassert that there is progress being made inside of that country -- Lou.
DOBBS: Suzanne, thank you very much -- Suzanne Malveaux reporting from the White House. The U.S. Army today said Saddam Hussein is behind recent attacks against American forces and continues to organize terrorist attacks against coalition forces six months after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. But Pentagon officials say there has been no substantial new intelligence about Hussein's location, nor his activities. Senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, reports -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, just to be clear, the Pentagon is not disputing what U.S. military spokespersons are saying in Iraq, but they are downplaying the significance, insisting that they don't have new intelligence, just the same old intelligence that Saddam Hussein is believed to be in the area of Tikrit, his ancestral hometown. Now, that intelligence includes tips and the even alleged sightings of Saddam Hussein in the area by people working with U.S. intelligence, some of the local Iraqis there.
And the United States says -- has believed for weeks that it is -- that it has Saddam Hussein on the run and that it is, in fact, only a matter of time before he's captured. But, again, Pentagon officials stress that they don't see anything imminent, nor has there been any dramatic new sighting of Saddam Hussein. This comes on the day when the pace of attacks against U.S. troops is continuing to escalate. The U.S. military today said that attacks on U.S. forces are coming on the average of 22 a day in the past week. That's higher than it has been recently, three separate attacks in the last 24 hours.
On Sunday, a division soldier from the 1st Infantry Division -- I'm sorry, the 4th Infantry Division was killed, another wounded when their Bradley armored vehicle struck a mine. Today, a convoy was ambushed with a makeshift roadside bomb. One soldier was killed, two were wounded there. And then just a couple of hours later, about 90 miles north of Baghdad, attackers struck a Bradley on patrol with a rocket propelled grenade, again, killing one soldier, wounding two others -- Lou.
DOBBS: Jamie, I'd like to deal with two issues very quickly, if we may, first, the Pentagon arguing over whether this is recent intelligence or not. These sightings of Saddam Hussein are recent, are they not?
MCINTYRE: Well, they are, but they're not significantly different from other sightings. For instance, Lou, when I was in Tikrit in July, we were experiencing exactly the same situation, intelligence indicating Saddam might be in the area, reports that he might be moving every two to four hours. And what the Pentagon, I think, is trying to do is just dampen the expectations a little bit that something might be imminent, because this is very much the same situation they have been for the last several months.
DOBBS: And turning to what appears to have been a coordinated letter writing campaign by soldiers in Iraq supporting their mission, but those letters -- many of them appear to be either fakes or form letters. What is going on here?
MCINTYRE: Well, there's no evidence that it's fake. They are form letters. That is to say that there are at least 11 letters that went to U.S. newspapers that were identical, and they did come all from one unit in northern Iraq in the Kirkuk area, writing to papers saying that things weren't as bad as the news media said. What the Pentagon believes, at this point, is that is was somebody in that unit who circulated the letter and had them send it home. The Pentagon insists that it was not an orchestrated P.R. campaign on the part of the Pentagon. However, officials here do admit that they're very frustrated by the news coverage, insisting that they believe it focuses far too much on the negative.
DOBBS: And the frustration level, with the number of American casualties and death there?
MCINTYRE: Well, that is a source of continuing frustration, but the United States -- the Pentagon believes that it's a matter of time before they're able to get a handle on that as well.
DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, senior Pentagon correspondent. Well, as Jamie just reported, the death toll in Iraq continues to rise. The U.S. military says terrorists killed three U.S. troopers over the past 24 hours. The latest deaths mean that 331 Americans have now been killed in the war against Saddam Hussein; 211 killed in combat, 120 more killed in accidents. Another 1,831 Americans have been wounded or injured, nearly 1,500 of them by hostile fire. Tonight's poll numbers suggest that the war in Iraq is, however, not damaging the president's support as much as many politicians, some analysts and columnists had predicted. Joining me now is our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, and the Gallup organization's Frank Newport.
Let me turn first to you, Frank. These numbers are significant, are they not, in showing such a dramatic increase in only three weeks for the president?
FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP POLL: That's right. I mean dramatic may be a little strong, Lou. But indeed, the key is that Bush's job approval rating had been coming down and coming down and coming down since the Iraq war, and this reverses the trend. And I think that's what's significant. It had dropped to 50 percent, which was the low point of his administration several weeks ago, and also had come from 52 right before that. Then we're up to 55 percent in a poll that we conducted last week, and now, 56 percent over the weekend. So in terms of the trajectory, I would say, of Bush approval, these are significant, particularly to those people in the White House.
DOBBS: Well, to all of us, Frank, because these poll numbers suggest which way the country is looking. Bill Schneider, give us your best assessment as to why the rebound.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think a lot has to do with hopeful economic signs. What we're finding is that the rebound was concentrated among higher income Americans, those earning more than $75,000 a year. Those are people who keep a close eye on the stock market. And as you report every night, the stock market has been doing well. Look at that, the over $75,000 earners, it went up 19 points just in the last couple of weeks. Again, those people look at the stock market. And I think a lot of that is response to the fact that they feel better off; they're very optimistic about the economy; they think things are going to be better a year from now. And the gains are really concentrated in that income level.
DOBBS: Frank, as you look at the numbers, as you have been analyzing them, what is driving this? Are Democrats, are Republicans being surveyed in your poll? Is it men? Is it women? Where is the strength?
NEWPORT: Well, those are good questions. Bill just pointed out higher income Americans more likely to have gone up, Democrats more likely than Republicans or independents. It's been quite significant, when we look back across the last several polls, Democrats aren't overwhelmingly positive about Bush by any means, but clearly, they've moved up more than have Republicans or independents. And also men, back when Bush's overall approval, Lou, was 50/50, 50 percent men, 50 percent women, when it was overall 50 percent.
Now we've got men up to 60 percent approval and women have just gone up a few points to 53 percent, as I think you see there. So there has been some change in those specific groups, and there has been a little more change -- and I think this is significant out on the West Coast. People who live in the west part of the United States a little more likely to have jumped up. And that could be -- could be -- a Schwarzenegger effect of some sort, although it is very hard for us to try to disentangle the impact of what happened in California.
DOBBS: But it's worth, at least, some rumination and speculation, Frank, is it not? Bill Schneider, as you look at these numbers, is there anything in this for the Democratic party? Is there some suggestion that people are perhaps returning to the -- to a more positive view of the president and his party?
SCHNEIDER: Well, there is not a lot here for Democrats, but there is one thing. That is opposition to the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq has continued to grow. When the president made that speech to the country in early September and said he wanted $87 billion for Iraq, Americans were opposed to it, 51 percent. That opposition has grown now to 57 percent opposed to that authorization. So there is no indication here that the president's gains have very much to do with Iraq. In fact, Americans are more worried about Iraq. They don't think we're making progress in that war. It looks like the economy, although, as Frank suggested, the terminator effect may also be interesting because so many people on the West Coast gave the president higher ratings. Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger distracted their attention from President Bush and they forgot they were mad at him.
DOBBS: Even with nine Democrats last week in our debate reminding everybody?
SCHNEIDER: Yes, well, that's right. I don't know -- I mean it was a CNN debate. One hates to say this, but I'm not sure the country was as fixated on the Democrats as they were on Arnold Schwarzenegger, which was totally separate from Bush and the presidential contest. The Democrats are going to have their day, because do you know that only in 100 days, the first primary votes are going to be cast? So that's coming up real fast. DOBBS: And I know I shouldn't remind this of either you or Frank, but they might have also been distracted by something called the league championship series. I know I was.
Gentlemen, I thank you very much for being with us -- Bill Schneider, Frank Newport. Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination are struggling to distinguish themselves in what is a crowded field of nine. Today, Congressman Dennis Kucinich formally launched his campaign, although he has been campaigning since February. Congressman Kucinich told supporters at Cleveland, Ohio, it is time to bring American troops home from Iraq.
Meanwhile, Senator Joe Lieberman tried to jump start his campaign with a new attack on White House economic policy. Lieberman also called for higher taxes. He said upper income Americans should be paying more taxes than they did before the president's tax cuts. Senator Lieberman also said middle class families should be paying lower taxes. Turning now to our poll, tonight on the economy, do you believe this economy next year will be stronger, weaker, much stronger or much weaker? Please cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show.
Still ahead, we begin our series of special reports tonight on "a Crowded Nation." Rapid population increases are not only straining this country's resources; they're also changing the way we live. Kitty Pilgrim will report. The "Los Angeles Times" defends its coverage of the California recall election. Was it's reporting irresponsible? Rem Reider of the "American Journalism Review," syndicated columnist Jill Stuart joins. And in "Exporting America," the United States has lost its dominance in the global satellite business, and the federal government is certainly partly to blame. Casey Wian will have the report. All of that an a great deal more still ahead. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: As we've been reporting extensively here, illegal immigration has reached crisis proportions in this country. But neither Congress nor the administration is willing to take action to establish a national immigration policy. Instead, legislation is being introduced that would allow hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of illegal aliens to stay in the United States. Peter Viles has our report -- Peter.
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, this is an example of a piecemeal approach to what is a huge national problem, essentially singling out select groups of illegal aliens and granting them the right to stay in this country legally.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VILES (voice-over): Who goes to bat for illegal aliens? Not just protesters, but this fall, members of Congress, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, along with 35 of his colleagues, pushing the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, the DREAM Act -- get it? It provides permanent resident status, college aid to illegal aliens who came to this country when they were 16 or younger, have been here at least five years and graduated high school.
Meantime, liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy, with some Republican support pushing the Agriculture Jobs Opportunity Benefits and Security Act, AG JOBS -- get it? It would grant guest worker status to illegal aliens who have worked on farms over the past 18 months and agree to continue for the next six years. They could then apply for permanent resident status. Both bills raise the same concerns. First, that there they're a form of amnesty that will only encourage more illegal immigration.
ROY BECK, NUMBERSUSA.COM: Senator Hatch's DREAM Act rewards possibly 40,000, 50,000 illegal aliens a year with permanent residency, as well as access to federal funding, without doing anything to stop the flow of new illegal aliens coming in.
VILES: The bigger complaint: that Congress and the administration are dodging the larger issue, what to do about the millions of other illegal aliens and the forces that bring them to this country.
STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: There is a fundamental divide in America, and it is not left/right on illegal immigration. It's the elites in the United States, whether you look at journalists and academics and politicians all think there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration. And public opinion shows -- show that the public is outraged and wants the law enforced.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: Perhaps because of that last thought, to date, the Bush administration has not stated a position on either piece of immigration legislation -- Lou.
DOBBS: It's remarkable. One of the things that one takes away from your report and obviously all of the reporting is you have a situation in which illegal aliens in this country, in some cases, have better representation than the middle class, working Americans that one would expect to have that representation.
VILES: And we're expected to believe that it is wonderful and remarkable that the growers and the farm unions have come together on this bill. Well, guess what? They both want the status quo to continue. They both want the illegal aliens to continue working on the farms. So, of course they've come together.
DOBBS: Low-cost labor and, of course the consumer presumably wanting low-cost produce. I don't know that that's entirely, though, the truth. Pete, thanks a lot -- Peter Viles. Tonight, we begin a series of special reports on another very important issue, the rapid population growth in this country and the impact on both our nation's resources and our society. We call it "A Crowded Nation." In fact, the United States now has the fastest growing population of all industrialized countries in the world. The United States is growing by more than 3 million people each year. To put that in some context, it's the same as adding a city the size of Chicago every 12 months. That growth is straining this country's resources and changing the way we live. Kitty Pilgrim is here now and has the report -- Kitty.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, some see this as just a quality of life issue because, frankly, in some places, it's becoming unbearable to get around. But the real issue is that important resources are being stretched. We'll look at the future growth. It holds some serious risks.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM (voice-over): One-hundred-twenty million more people are living in the country than 40 years ago. And if you think it is crowded now, just wait.
CARL HAUB, POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU: In about two to three years, we will hit that 300 million mark. That is phenomenally rapid growth for a developed country. It will keep the U.S. in the lead, certainly, for many, many, many decades to come.
PILGRIM: Cities have overflowed into suburbs, and urban sprawl has made some idyllic suburbs a congestion nightmare. Suburban workers are now commuting 20 to 25 miles to their jobs, and commutes are getting even longer.
HAUB: I think many people move to the suburbs because they're perceived as green, a little less hurried, but say five or 10 years after moving there, we often find that everybody else followed us. And so what we really have is just the same congestion that we were trying to get away from. So what do we do? We move further out.
PILGRIM: Cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas and Portland lead the list of fastest growing metropolitan areas since 1990, stretched beyond what was once unimaginable. Some of the suburbs of cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami, for example, have doubled or tripled, putting stresses on local community schools and hospitals. Infrastructure is already in decline, our schools filled to capacity. Three out of four urban hospital emergency rooms are at or over capacity. And there are more than 53 million students in k-12 today, more than ever in the history of the country. More than half of the new growth since 2000 has been to five states: California, Texas, New York, Illinois and Florida. California alone contributed to one-fifth of the U.S. population growth in 2000, 2001. About half the population growth is from immigration, and the rest because the United States has the highest birth rate of most industrialized countries.
(END VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM: Now, the impact on land use is alarming. For each person added to our population, we require one acre of farm land. Experts say, by 2030, this country will be using all its agriculture to feed Americans, and there will be no exports to the world -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kitty, alarming to say the very least. Thank you very much -- Kitty Pilgrim. Later I'll be talking about our staggering population growth in this country with University of Michigan demographer, William Fry, who says it's already hurting this country's middle class. That is still ahead here tonight. Coming up next, the "Los Angeles Times" defends itself against criticism that its coverage of the California recall was slanted. We'll be joined by people on either side of the debate, syndicated columnist, Jill Stewart. She says the "L.A. Times" simply got it wrong. Rem Reider, of the "American Journalism Review," says the "L.A. Times" was simply doing its job. That and a great deal more still ahead here. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The "Los Angeles Times" is defending its decision to publish sexual harassment allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger five days before the recall election in California. In the newspaper's Sunday edition, Editor John Carroll denied that the story and its timing were politically motivated. He wrote: "Our role is to serve citizens of varying views by examining the behavior and the policies of political leaders and publishing our findings. And when we publish, we do it in a timely fashion... Better... to be surprised by your newspaper in October than to learn in November that your newspaper has betrayed you by withholding the truth."
Joining me now is Rem Reider, of the "American Journalism Review," who says the "L.A. Times" was simply doing its job. He joins us tonight from Washington. Syndicated columnist, Jill Stewart, joins us tonight from Los Angeles. She's called the "L.A. Times" coverage irresponsible. Thank you both for being here.
REM REIDER, EDITOR, "AMERICAN JOURNALISM REVIEW": A pleasure to be here.
JILL STEWART, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Thank you.
DOBBS: Let me turn first to you, Jill, if I may. The irresponsibility you see simply because of the timing that is five days before election day to come out with this rather extensive report?
STEWART: Well, it's not just the timing; it's the fact that they consciously made decisions that delayed the story a number of times. They could have gotten it in much, much earlier. I've been really pummeled with phone calls from "L.A. Times" reporters and editors who disagree with how it was handled, who felt that it should have and could have run much, much earlier and are very, very disappointed. They feel that carol himself became so personally involved that he lost his judgment. The second big issue, besides the timing, is that they could have and should have created a similar team to look at the personal behavior of Governor Gray Davis. I've been told now, by an editor who was close to this project and another reporter who was close to this project, that more than 20 reporters were working on getting Arnold Schwarzenegger and his personal life, every tidbit, and that there was no such team on Gray Davis, that the "Los Angeles Times," in fact, has information about Gray Davis that it is sitting on that I don't know about. So there is a bias built in to what they did.
DOBBS: Jill, return. Rem, your thoughts? Jill is making some rather strong charges there.
REIDER: Yes, she is. As far as the Schwarzenegger piece and reporters inside the paper complaining, on any very sensitive story, if you're the top editor of the paper, you ought to be very careful with it and look at it very closely. And there are going to be people impatient to get it in, and there are going to be people on the fringe who might, without total knowledge of what's going on, who might be breaking. That's kind of the way the newspaper business works. The reality is the paper came out with what reads -- something that reads to me like a very solid piece of journalism. Yes, it would have been nicer if it could have come in earlier, but you publish it when it is ready. And, in fact, it apparently is accurate. Schwarzenegger basically pleaded no lo contender. And, in fact, 10 more people came forward afterwards. And also, as far as the timing, it clearly didn't have any major effect on the results. People waited and apparently decided that they wanted to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger anyway. But I think this looks like a pretty strong piece of journalism.
DOBBS: Jill, when you say 20 reporters, this business, for those of our viewers who do not know, does not always work in a linear fashion. When you say 20, those are 20 reporters who have been working part of their day over a number of weeks on. They wouldn't have been all contemporaneously working on it full-time. Is that correct?
STEWART: I believe that's correct. I believe they were pulled in as it grew and grew. And I'm told that Carol himself left his executive office and became the strategist, the assignment editor, the project editor on this. He really stepped over the line and became involved, on a daily basis, and the feeling in the newsroom was openly get Schwarzenegger. I'm hearing this from a number of people, from respected people at the "L.A. Times." The people who feel this way, who were saying this to me don't feel comfortable talking about it at the "L.A. Times" because it's not their city editor or their assignment editor who did this, it's Carroll himself, and you can't argue with somebody who controls your career. And so I think there is a real problem with Carroll, and I think that's why he wrote this. He got very involved...
DOBBS: Well, Carroll...
STEWART: And he wanted to stop Schwarzenegger.
DOBBS: Well, John Carroll has a very good reputation, Jill, as both a forthright, hard-working and typically a balanced editor. Don't you agree that assessment, Rem? REIDER: Yes, he's actually -- I think he's one of the best editors in the country. And you look at his track record, he's always been the kind of editor who, on big projects, big investigative projects, is involved in the editing. That's been his pattern. And I think, with a major story of this kind of sensitivity, that's a good thing. We've had stories in the past that it's come out that -- very controversial stories, that a top editor hadn't even read the thing. And to me, that's the problem. The having a very active and involved editor is a plus.
DOBBS: Yes, I was going to say to both of you, if this story, with the dynamite that it represented for the readers of the "Times" and because, as you noted, Jill, this is going to be highly charged, almost irrespective of the time, but certainly more so because of the timing, he had better know what's going on with this story. I would certainly have expected at least that. The hands-on issue is quite a different one. I think we should also point out to our viewers who are not acquainted with this craft and its various forms, whether electronic or print, newsrooms are often, shall we say, heterogeneous and sometimes spontaneous in their difference of views that can be expressed in them.
The idea that the "Los Angeles Times" is regarded as a liberal paper, Rem, do you think this would have been as combustible if this had been -- if this had come out, for example, this investigative piece, five days before the election on Governor Gray Davis?
REIDER: No, probably not. And actually they may have had people on the other side complaining. But I would say, given the fact that if a paper has -- some schools it is thought to be liberal, obviously that's going add to the combustibility of the issue.
In this case though, the editor, the person who we have been talking about who was so personally involved, has no history at all as far as I know of having a political agenda. In fact, he's kind of more out of the sort of straight up the middle, very tough, investigative tradition.
DOBBS: There are certain news organizations that talk about the tenets of this craft and amongst those is fairness. And the issue of fairness in this case, Jill raises an interesting point. Is it fair to investigate one candidate or another, for all I know, perhaps they did investigate Governor Gray Davis, I would like to hear both your thoughts? Should this piece come out side by side of a piece critical of Gray Davis and one critical of Arnold Schwarzenegger? Would that have provided the fairness that you both obviously think is a requisite?
(CROSSTALK)
REIDER: Fairness only if they both have equally strong cases to be made against them. I'm not familiar with everything the "L.A. Times" looked at as far as Gray Davis is concerned. Carroll says that -- he had one of his top reporters, among others, investigated and didn't find any information to support a strong enough story to run. Balance doesn't mean writing the same thing about both people if they've acted differently. But, of course, if -- they would be in a weak position if they, in fact, didn't pursue allegations against Davis. I just don't know that that's the case.
DOBBS: Jill, you work for the "Times" for some years. Your thoughts?
STEWART: Well, they in fact have information about Gray Davis that they should have pursued. What Carroll is talking in his op-ed piece this weekend is ancient history about work they didn't do I think properly and didn't look into deeply enough.
They have some information on Gray Davis, some very damaging information on him that they have not investigated. And I'm told they made a conscious decision not to create a S.W.A.T. team on Davis. And a very conscious decision to create this huge effort on Schwarzenegger. And he launched this effort with the words, I want Schwarzenegger scoured clean.
Now, this is a real emotional thing to say to a news room of people. They're going to go out and they're going get him. And I think there was bias built in from the beginning. And I think they did protect Gray Davis and now, of course, the "Los Angeles Weekly" and Bill Bradley who is also attacked this weekend by John Carroll, though not named in this op-ed piece.
The "L.A. Weekly" reported in this last week a bombshell that someone at the "Los Angeles Times" leaked this story and leaked some of the really key information on Schwarzenegger to the Democratic camp before the piece was published in the "Los Angeles Times."
And "The Times" is just ignoring the "L.A. Weekly's" piece on this. They need to get on this and find out who leaked it to the Democratic camp. This is a firing offense if this is indeed true.
DOBBS: You have an association with the -- that news organization, do you not?
STEWART: Who?
DOBBS: "The L.A. Weekly?"
STEWART: No, I freelanced for them many years ago, ten years ago perhaps.
DOBBS: Okay, I just wanted to get it clear out there.
STEWART: No. No I don't. In fact, Bill Bradley are rivals in Sacramento. We don't even get along. But we agree on this issue.
DOBBS: Well, I just wanted to get -- as you would say, the facts straight on that. And, Rem, the -- what Jill is saying here really -- we're talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's obviously been elected. He was elected by a sizable percentage of women voters in this case. So apparently the charges didn't make much of a difference. But it did change the relationship one would think particularly after John Carroll's editorial for the relationship between the paper and its readers, many of the readers, and perhaps with the incoming administration.
REIDER: That's very true. Sometimes, unfortunately to do the right thing in journalism you have to do something your readers aren't going to like. In this case they were investigating widespread reports that have been around for quite some time that are the governor-elect has a history of mistreating women.
And given than kind of buzz out there, and the talk of the past, it seems to me it made sense to investigate it. And if they came up with the story strong enough to publish, in this case they did, you go it. Unfortunately that will not make you the most popular person in town. Do your job and put the information out there. And the voters will do what they want with it.
DOBBS: We all understand that -- that part of it. But the idea that there should not have been, if you will, a countervailing work against or upon Governor Gray Davis, that's your point, is it not, Jill, not that you had a particular problem with the piece that was actually reported by the "Times" on Schwarzenegger.
STEWART: That's right. They should have looked much harder at Gray Davis' history of staff bashing, attacking members of his staff who work for him, throwing things, throwing objects, his violent personality, his dual personality, the times always barely looked into it.
DOBBS: Gray Davis has a violent personality?
STEWART: He's -- I call him a closet wacko in a column I did. The "L.A. Times" has done some look at this and walked away from this story in the past.
DOBBS: I thank you both very much. Jill Stewart, Rem Reider, thank you for analyzing this from your perspectives. We appreciate it.
Coming up next year, our next guest says the rising population of immigrants in this country is changing the very makeup of our society. We talk with University of Michigan demography William Frey right after this. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: My next guest says our fast growing population, coupled with the influx of immigrants of this country is changing the make-up of our cities and our society.
William Frey is a University of Michigan demographer. He's a visiting fellow with the Brookings Institution. And joins us tonight from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Good to have you with us.
WILLIAM FREY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Good to be with you, Lou. DOBBS: The population growth in this country, most people do not recognize just how quickly this country is growing, the fastest among all industrialized nations. What percentage of that is natural birth rate? What percentage immigration.
FREY: Somewhere between half and three-quarters of our population growth can be attributed to the combined effects of immigration and natural increase. And of course, immigration contributes to that natural increase, because immigrants have higher than average fertility. Immigration is a fair component of our growth these days.
DOBBS: As you look at the patterns of our population growth, the states that one would expect that is, in the sun belt, they are the principle beneficiaries or victims of this population growth is that correct?
FREY: Well, the states with the highest population growth typically are the ones that don't have the most immigrants. If you look at the state of Nevada which grew by 66 percent over the 1990s and Las Vegas which grew by 85 percent, over the 1990s, it is not immigrants that are contributing to their growth, but people coming there from other parts of the U.S.
So the immigration and what I call domestic migration, which is people moving around the United States, they contribute differently to different places. The really fast growing places are not the big immigrant ports of entry. They're places sort of further in and further in the sun belt.
DOBBS: And when you say further in, in the sun belt, we know that the overall population growth, for example, in Texas, in Florida, in California, leads the nation in absolute terms of population growth, they are the most populous states in point of fact along with New York.
How concern ready you about what is happening as a result of our population growth, of our immigration, both legal and illegal and our migration and the strain it is putting upon our infrastructure, our resources, our natural resources?
FREY: I think that it is important to make this distinction that I started to before between the impact of immigration and then other people moving around the United States. The four biggest metropolitan areas that are gaining the most immigrants in the U.S. which are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York are each losing the biggest number of domestic migrants, that is people moving to other parts of the United States. So there is a spill-out effect that distributes the population to these other places.
You're right, those big immigrant magnet states of California, Texas and Florida gain the most people. But the fastest growth rates are the more internal states like Georgia and the Carolinas and Nevada and Arizona. So this is this kind of dynamic where the immigrants with coming in one door and the domestic migrants are going out the other. DOBBS: Any implication for the middle class, for working Americans in this country?
FREY: Well, what I think what we're finding in greater Los Angeles and greater New York, where you do have this big swell of immigrants and also an in immigration of people with college degrees and professionals and so forth is that the middle class, people with only -- with less than Bachelor's degrees and middle incomes are leading the way to these interior states, Nevada and Arizona or the Carolinas and Georgia. They find these other states more affordable, less congested, and the jobs are moving there, too, which is attracting them.
DOBBS Bill Frey, we thank you very much for being with us. William Frey of the University of Michigan.
Tomorrow our special, "A Crowded Nation," we focus on the impact of too many people and dangerous pollution. Protecting the air we breathe tomorrow night. Please join us.
Still ahead here, China is preparing to launch its first manned spacecraft possibly within the next 48 hours. China entering the space race, we'll have a report for you from Beijing next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: This week, perhaps as soon as within 48 hours, China hopes to become the third country ever to launch a human being into space. The Shin Dao 5 (ph) space capsule is expected to circle the planet 14 times before re-entry. Dozens of Chinese astronauts competed to take part in the mission. Jaime FlorCruz reports from Beijing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAIME FLORCRUZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Chinese astronauts training for zero gravity. Part of the long and rigorous preparation for China's first mad space flight.
CHEAH KOK WAI, HONG KING BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: I think they are actually doing the final touch of it, getting everything ready. Really the first launch cannot fail in that sense.
FLORCRUZ: The Chinese are sharing few details in advance. The rocket, an updated version of the Long March (ph, originally designed to carry nuclear weapons. This time it will take between one to three astronauts into orbit. They will ride inside a fifth generation Sheng Go (ph) space capsule, previously tested without human passengers.
RICHARD HU, UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG: We only know that the capsule will be a little bigger than Russia's first one and then probably more technically more advanced.
FLORCRUZ: Certainly much more sophisticated than the first satellite China launched 33 years ago. While in orbit, the capsule transmitted a revolutionary tune. That flight's success had patriotic fervor.
In recent years, China has released pictures of perfect satellite launches and one or two failures. A glitch-free manned flight would give good publicity and credibility to its commercial satellite launch industry, which is competing with the Europeans, Russians and Americans for customers. Manned space launches, experts say, also bring military payoffs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, for future space-based system for reconnaissance, civilians and also maybe military security commander functions.
FLORCRUZ: But Beijing officials are quick to calm fears that China is building any star wars type weapons system for space.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): China will not in any way take part in an arms race in outer space.
FLORCRUZ (on camera): China's space program is shrouded in secrecy, in part because of its links with the military. Launch dates and other details were never revealed in advance.
But this time provisional dates have been announced. And live television coverage is planned. It is an unusual move which experts say indicate China's confidence of success. Jaime FlorCruz, CNN, Beijing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: As China prepares to enter the space race, this country has lost an important part of that race. The United States is no longer the leader in the construction and launch of satellites. And the U.S. government is part of the reason U.S. satellites are part of "Exporting America." Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): U.S. satellite manufacturers continue to lose business to foreign competitors. In part because of the U.S. government's own regulations.
RICHARD DALBELLO, SATELLITE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: Laws put into place a couple of years ago which reclassified satellites as a munition have made it harder for U.S. sellers of satellites to compete internationally.
WIAN: In 1998, Congress passed restrictions on U.S. commercial satellite exports.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R) CALIFORNIA: They're losing customers overseas that they should have. However, they also have to remember you have these heavy regulatory restrictions because there were people in the satellite industry, top executives, who betrayed America, who gave satellite technology and rocket technology to the Communist Chinese after swearing they would never do this if we lessened the controls. WIAN: Still, Rohrabacher, says the restrictions have gone too far. He supports easing some of the controls, because now even small benign communications satellites must pass through a tangle of congressional and state department red tape before they can be sold to foreign customers.
PHILIP MCALISTER, DIR. FUTRON CORP.: That made it more difficult to exchange information about your satellite with your potential customer. And that's very -- makes it very difficult for you to sell that product.
WIAN: The U.S. satellite manufacturing business had two-thirds of the global market in the late '90s. But just 36 percent last year. Europeans invested heavily in satellite manufacturing during the '90s.
(on camera): New competitors are emerging in China and India, vying for business that is expected to accelerate over the next decade. That's when more than half of the world's satellite fleet will need replacing, Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Still ahead, tens of thousands of supermarket employees all across the country have walked out on the job. There's word tonight the that strike may spread. We'll have the story. Christine Romans will have the market.
That and more still ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of tonight's poll. The question, do you believe the economy next year will be stronger, weaker, much stronger or much weaker? Twenty-three percent of you said stronger, 41 percent weaker, 8 percent much stronger, 28 percent much weaker.
Thousands of grocery workers at Kroger's stores across the country voted to strike tonight at midnight. That comes only two days after 70,000 grocery workers walked away from their jobs in a number of supermarket chains in Southern California. At issue, the rising cost of health care benefits. Miguel Marquez has the report for us from Los Angeles -- Miguel.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Wolf (sic). It is about 70,000 workers from San Diego to Santa Barbara at Bond's (ph), Ralph's and Albertson's stores here in Southern California. The union struck against one store, and the other two chains locked their employees out. In St. Louis, about 10,000 grocery workers on the picket line, and in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, the union there has OKayed a strike against 44 Kroger's stores, and company officials there have decided to simply close all of them until the strike ends.
Why all the striking, you ask? Health care. There were other issues like pension plans and salaries for new employees on the table, but it is the cost of health care that is driving all three strikes. The problem, in a nutshell, the companies say in a world of rapidly rising health care costs and cutthroat competition from the likes of retail giants like Wal-Mart, Costco and Target, they can no longer afford to offer the health care plans they once did. They want employees to pay a piece of their coverage. Of course, the unions say the companies want to cap spending, effectively cutting their benefits by 50 percent -- Lou.
DOBBS: Miguel, thank you very much.
On Wall Street today, stock prices climbed to the highest levels in more than a year. The Dow Jones Industrials up nearly 90 points. The Nasdaq up more than 18, closing at its highest level in more than a year and a half, in fact. The S&P 500 added more than 7 points. Christine Romans is here now with what is a rally to talk about.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It was. Almost 400 stocks hit new 52-week highs today, Lou. And a number of them were Dow stocks, and all of this stoked by earnings optimism, and Motorola's early earnings report. Now, Motorola raised its fourth quarter sales target, reported a five cent profit, that's slightly ahead of a year ago.
But Lou, that early stock gains faded, and the focus sharpened on the bigger picture. The stock is down 77 percent since its 2000 peak, down 47 percent since its current CEO took over in 1997. Revenue has fallen as the pay of the CEO has soared. Christopher Galvin earned $70.8 million in salary, bonus, long-term incentive and options since 1997.
Now, scoop out the theoretical value of those options, those earnings still top $30 million. And Lou, the value of the options awarded just last year was $7 million a year when the company posted a $1.8 billion loss, saw sales sharply below the levels from five years ago. Galvin retiring early because of strategy disagreements with the board.
Meanwhile, come Thursday, AOL Time Warner abandons the AOL ticker symbol and comes full circle. The old TWX ticker comes back.
DOBBS: Welcome back.
ROMANS: Since AOL became AOL Time Warner and AOL became the ticker symbol, the stock is down more than 60 some percent. We get the old ticker, Lou, but not the old stock price.
DOBBS: Can't we work on that somehow?
ROMANS: I'm afraid we can't.
DOBBS: We can call up Jerry Levin and see if there can be some adjustment.
Christine, thanks. Christine Romans.
Well, as I've said here numerous times, our audience is the smartest in television. We wanted to share a few examples of why.
From Niwot, Colorado on illegal aliens: "Lou, I've finally figured it out. Eventually, all of America's jobs will be in Mexico, and all the Mexico's illegal aliens will be here. At that point, all the illegal immigrants will return to Mexico, to get a good job. And all of America's corporations will move their facilities back to the States, to take advantage of the cheap labor here. Go figure." That from Marv Luse.
From Los Angeles on exporting America: "I thought in the 21st century robotics and automation would render the U.S. worker obsolete. It seems that outsourcing is doing it at a faster rate. Corporate greed is going to be the downfall of the great United States of America." E.J. Cerna.
Well, we haven't lost the battle yet.
And while we do get critical e-mail from time to time, OK, it's rare, I'll admit, we do want to hear your criticisms and your thoughts about how we can improve the show, and your suggestions of issues that you want us to critically examine.
Continuing with your thoughts. From Everett, Washington: "I would very much like to thank you for the way you doggedly argue for the American worker. I'm an electronic technician in experimental flight tests for the Boeing Company. I've watched so very many jobs disappear to Russia, to Chile, and Mexico. Thank you for sticking up with the regular guy worker, trying to live the ever more elusive American dream." That from Mike Bowman. A regular guy worker and gal worker as well.
And from Stevenson, Maryland: "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT is the best thing that's happened to television news broadcasts in a long, long time. Thank you very much for providing such an intelligent approach to the news." Ralph Cohen.
Well, we thank you very much. And we thank everyone associated with this broadcast for bringing that intelligence to you.
Please send us your thoughts. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com. That's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us. Tomorrow, our special report, "A Crowded Nation," we look at how rapid population growth and pollution endanger the very air we breathe in this country. And we'll be joined by Michael Moore -- yes, that Michael Moore -- author of the new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" He'll be here.
For all of us, thanks for joining us. Good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Officials: No New Intelligence on Saddam>
Aired October 13, 2003 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Monday, October 13. Here now -- Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Good evening. For the first time in weeks, the Bush administration has something to smile about. The newest opinion poll shows a dramatic increase in President Bush's approval rating. The CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll was conducted from Friday through yesterday. This new poll also has good news for the president on the economy. Nearly half of those surveyed say the economy is in good shape. White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux, has the report -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, this was really a day of both business and pleasure for President Bush on the holiday. Earlier today, he was playing golf, but before that, a very critical day for this administration, the president kicking off week two of this aggressive public relations campaign to convince Americans that, yes, it was worth it to go to war. It comes at a time when Secretary Powell, again, will make one last push for U.N. Security Council resolution for international support. It also comes at a week when the full House and Senate will take up the $87 billion request for post war funding. Now, President Bush, in what he calls the getting around the national media filter, today sat down with five reporters from regional television outlets to talk about the progress made inside of Iraq. Even earlier today, in his Columbus Day speech, he invoked the memories of 9/11, saying now that is the time Americans must make sacrifices.
BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People are willing to sacrifice for the country they love. They remember the lessons of September the 11th, 2001, and so do I. It's something we should never forget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: Now, Lou, I also spoke with some of my colleagues from those regional affiliates to get kind of a read-in on their interviews. They said that what he said was that he defended Vice President Cheney, as well as CIA Director Tenet for a good job that they were doing. He also said he was not disappointed that France, Germany and Russia were not contributing troops inside Iraq, that there are other ways to contribute to the Iraqi effort. He also defended his position, saying that, yes, he was in charge. There were some calls over the weekend that the president step up to the plate and take charge over an administration that seems to be rather divided over this issue. And finally, he did reassert that there is progress being made inside of that country -- Lou.
DOBBS: Suzanne, thank you very much -- Suzanne Malveaux reporting from the White House. The U.S. Army today said Saddam Hussein is behind recent attacks against American forces and continues to organize terrorist attacks against coalition forces six months after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. But Pentagon officials say there has been no substantial new intelligence about Hussein's location, nor his activities. Senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, reports -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, just to be clear, the Pentagon is not disputing what U.S. military spokespersons are saying in Iraq, but they are downplaying the significance, insisting that they don't have new intelligence, just the same old intelligence that Saddam Hussein is believed to be in the area of Tikrit, his ancestral hometown. Now, that intelligence includes tips and the even alleged sightings of Saddam Hussein in the area by people working with U.S. intelligence, some of the local Iraqis there.
And the United States says -- has believed for weeks that it is -- that it has Saddam Hussein on the run and that it is, in fact, only a matter of time before he's captured. But, again, Pentagon officials stress that they don't see anything imminent, nor has there been any dramatic new sighting of Saddam Hussein. This comes on the day when the pace of attacks against U.S. troops is continuing to escalate. The U.S. military today said that attacks on U.S. forces are coming on the average of 22 a day in the past week. That's higher than it has been recently, three separate attacks in the last 24 hours.
On Sunday, a division soldier from the 1st Infantry Division -- I'm sorry, the 4th Infantry Division was killed, another wounded when their Bradley armored vehicle struck a mine. Today, a convoy was ambushed with a makeshift roadside bomb. One soldier was killed, two were wounded there. And then just a couple of hours later, about 90 miles north of Baghdad, attackers struck a Bradley on patrol with a rocket propelled grenade, again, killing one soldier, wounding two others -- Lou.
DOBBS: Jamie, I'd like to deal with two issues very quickly, if we may, first, the Pentagon arguing over whether this is recent intelligence or not. These sightings of Saddam Hussein are recent, are they not?
MCINTYRE: Well, they are, but they're not significantly different from other sightings. For instance, Lou, when I was in Tikrit in July, we were experiencing exactly the same situation, intelligence indicating Saddam might be in the area, reports that he might be moving every two to four hours. And what the Pentagon, I think, is trying to do is just dampen the expectations a little bit that something might be imminent, because this is very much the same situation they have been for the last several months.
DOBBS: And turning to what appears to have been a coordinated letter writing campaign by soldiers in Iraq supporting their mission, but those letters -- many of them appear to be either fakes or form letters. What is going on here?
MCINTYRE: Well, there's no evidence that it's fake. They are form letters. That is to say that there are at least 11 letters that went to U.S. newspapers that were identical, and they did come all from one unit in northern Iraq in the Kirkuk area, writing to papers saying that things weren't as bad as the news media said. What the Pentagon believes, at this point, is that is was somebody in that unit who circulated the letter and had them send it home. The Pentagon insists that it was not an orchestrated P.R. campaign on the part of the Pentagon. However, officials here do admit that they're very frustrated by the news coverage, insisting that they believe it focuses far too much on the negative.
DOBBS: And the frustration level, with the number of American casualties and death there?
MCINTYRE: Well, that is a source of continuing frustration, but the United States -- the Pentagon believes that it's a matter of time before they're able to get a handle on that as well.
DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, senior Pentagon correspondent. Well, as Jamie just reported, the death toll in Iraq continues to rise. The U.S. military says terrorists killed three U.S. troopers over the past 24 hours. The latest deaths mean that 331 Americans have now been killed in the war against Saddam Hussein; 211 killed in combat, 120 more killed in accidents. Another 1,831 Americans have been wounded or injured, nearly 1,500 of them by hostile fire. Tonight's poll numbers suggest that the war in Iraq is, however, not damaging the president's support as much as many politicians, some analysts and columnists had predicted. Joining me now is our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, and the Gallup organization's Frank Newport.
Let me turn first to you, Frank. These numbers are significant, are they not, in showing such a dramatic increase in only three weeks for the president?
FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP POLL: That's right. I mean dramatic may be a little strong, Lou. But indeed, the key is that Bush's job approval rating had been coming down and coming down and coming down since the Iraq war, and this reverses the trend. And I think that's what's significant. It had dropped to 50 percent, which was the low point of his administration several weeks ago, and also had come from 52 right before that. Then we're up to 55 percent in a poll that we conducted last week, and now, 56 percent over the weekend. So in terms of the trajectory, I would say, of Bush approval, these are significant, particularly to those people in the White House.
DOBBS: Well, to all of us, Frank, because these poll numbers suggest which way the country is looking. Bill Schneider, give us your best assessment as to why the rebound.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think a lot has to do with hopeful economic signs. What we're finding is that the rebound was concentrated among higher income Americans, those earning more than $75,000 a year. Those are people who keep a close eye on the stock market. And as you report every night, the stock market has been doing well. Look at that, the over $75,000 earners, it went up 19 points just in the last couple of weeks. Again, those people look at the stock market. And I think a lot of that is response to the fact that they feel better off; they're very optimistic about the economy; they think things are going to be better a year from now. And the gains are really concentrated in that income level.
DOBBS: Frank, as you look at the numbers, as you have been analyzing them, what is driving this? Are Democrats, are Republicans being surveyed in your poll? Is it men? Is it women? Where is the strength?
NEWPORT: Well, those are good questions. Bill just pointed out higher income Americans more likely to have gone up, Democrats more likely than Republicans or independents. It's been quite significant, when we look back across the last several polls, Democrats aren't overwhelmingly positive about Bush by any means, but clearly, they've moved up more than have Republicans or independents. And also men, back when Bush's overall approval, Lou, was 50/50, 50 percent men, 50 percent women, when it was overall 50 percent.
Now we've got men up to 60 percent approval and women have just gone up a few points to 53 percent, as I think you see there. So there has been some change in those specific groups, and there has been a little more change -- and I think this is significant out on the West Coast. People who live in the west part of the United States a little more likely to have jumped up. And that could be -- could be -- a Schwarzenegger effect of some sort, although it is very hard for us to try to disentangle the impact of what happened in California.
DOBBS: But it's worth, at least, some rumination and speculation, Frank, is it not? Bill Schneider, as you look at these numbers, is there anything in this for the Democratic party? Is there some suggestion that people are perhaps returning to the -- to a more positive view of the president and his party?
SCHNEIDER: Well, there is not a lot here for Democrats, but there is one thing. That is opposition to the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq has continued to grow. When the president made that speech to the country in early September and said he wanted $87 billion for Iraq, Americans were opposed to it, 51 percent. That opposition has grown now to 57 percent opposed to that authorization. So there is no indication here that the president's gains have very much to do with Iraq. In fact, Americans are more worried about Iraq. They don't think we're making progress in that war. It looks like the economy, although, as Frank suggested, the terminator effect may also be interesting because so many people on the West Coast gave the president higher ratings. Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger distracted their attention from President Bush and they forgot they were mad at him.
DOBBS: Even with nine Democrats last week in our debate reminding everybody?
SCHNEIDER: Yes, well, that's right. I don't know -- I mean it was a CNN debate. One hates to say this, but I'm not sure the country was as fixated on the Democrats as they were on Arnold Schwarzenegger, which was totally separate from Bush and the presidential contest. The Democrats are going to have their day, because do you know that only in 100 days, the first primary votes are going to be cast? So that's coming up real fast. DOBBS: And I know I shouldn't remind this of either you or Frank, but they might have also been distracted by something called the league championship series. I know I was.
Gentlemen, I thank you very much for being with us -- Bill Schneider, Frank Newport. Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination are struggling to distinguish themselves in what is a crowded field of nine. Today, Congressman Dennis Kucinich formally launched his campaign, although he has been campaigning since February. Congressman Kucinich told supporters at Cleveland, Ohio, it is time to bring American troops home from Iraq.
Meanwhile, Senator Joe Lieberman tried to jump start his campaign with a new attack on White House economic policy. Lieberman also called for higher taxes. He said upper income Americans should be paying more taxes than they did before the president's tax cuts. Senator Lieberman also said middle class families should be paying lower taxes. Turning now to our poll, tonight on the economy, do you believe this economy next year will be stronger, weaker, much stronger or much weaker? Please cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show.
Still ahead, we begin our series of special reports tonight on "a Crowded Nation." Rapid population increases are not only straining this country's resources; they're also changing the way we live. Kitty Pilgrim will report. The "Los Angeles Times" defends its coverage of the California recall election. Was it's reporting irresponsible? Rem Reider of the "American Journalism Review," syndicated columnist Jill Stuart joins. And in "Exporting America," the United States has lost its dominance in the global satellite business, and the federal government is certainly partly to blame. Casey Wian will have the report. All of that an a great deal more still ahead. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: As we've been reporting extensively here, illegal immigration has reached crisis proportions in this country. But neither Congress nor the administration is willing to take action to establish a national immigration policy. Instead, legislation is being introduced that would allow hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of illegal aliens to stay in the United States. Peter Viles has our report -- Peter.
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, this is an example of a piecemeal approach to what is a huge national problem, essentially singling out select groups of illegal aliens and granting them the right to stay in this country legally.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VILES (voice-over): Who goes to bat for illegal aliens? Not just protesters, but this fall, members of Congress, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, along with 35 of his colleagues, pushing the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, the DREAM Act -- get it? It provides permanent resident status, college aid to illegal aliens who came to this country when they were 16 or younger, have been here at least five years and graduated high school.
Meantime, liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy, with some Republican support pushing the Agriculture Jobs Opportunity Benefits and Security Act, AG JOBS -- get it? It would grant guest worker status to illegal aliens who have worked on farms over the past 18 months and agree to continue for the next six years. They could then apply for permanent resident status. Both bills raise the same concerns. First, that there they're a form of amnesty that will only encourage more illegal immigration.
ROY BECK, NUMBERSUSA.COM: Senator Hatch's DREAM Act rewards possibly 40,000, 50,000 illegal aliens a year with permanent residency, as well as access to federal funding, without doing anything to stop the flow of new illegal aliens coming in.
VILES: The bigger complaint: that Congress and the administration are dodging the larger issue, what to do about the millions of other illegal aliens and the forces that bring them to this country.
STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: There is a fundamental divide in America, and it is not left/right on illegal immigration. It's the elites in the United States, whether you look at journalists and academics and politicians all think there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration. And public opinion shows -- show that the public is outraged and wants the law enforced.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: Perhaps because of that last thought, to date, the Bush administration has not stated a position on either piece of immigration legislation -- Lou.
DOBBS: It's remarkable. One of the things that one takes away from your report and obviously all of the reporting is you have a situation in which illegal aliens in this country, in some cases, have better representation than the middle class, working Americans that one would expect to have that representation.
VILES: And we're expected to believe that it is wonderful and remarkable that the growers and the farm unions have come together on this bill. Well, guess what? They both want the status quo to continue. They both want the illegal aliens to continue working on the farms. So, of course they've come together.
DOBBS: Low-cost labor and, of course the consumer presumably wanting low-cost produce. I don't know that that's entirely, though, the truth. Pete, thanks a lot -- Peter Viles. Tonight, we begin a series of special reports on another very important issue, the rapid population growth in this country and the impact on both our nation's resources and our society. We call it "A Crowded Nation." In fact, the United States now has the fastest growing population of all industrialized countries in the world. The United States is growing by more than 3 million people each year. To put that in some context, it's the same as adding a city the size of Chicago every 12 months. That growth is straining this country's resources and changing the way we live. Kitty Pilgrim is here now and has the report -- Kitty.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, some see this as just a quality of life issue because, frankly, in some places, it's becoming unbearable to get around. But the real issue is that important resources are being stretched. We'll look at the future growth. It holds some serious risks.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM (voice-over): One-hundred-twenty million more people are living in the country than 40 years ago. And if you think it is crowded now, just wait.
CARL HAUB, POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU: In about two to three years, we will hit that 300 million mark. That is phenomenally rapid growth for a developed country. It will keep the U.S. in the lead, certainly, for many, many, many decades to come.
PILGRIM: Cities have overflowed into suburbs, and urban sprawl has made some idyllic suburbs a congestion nightmare. Suburban workers are now commuting 20 to 25 miles to their jobs, and commutes are getting even longer.
HAUB: I think many people move to the suburbs because they're perceived as green, a little less hurried, but say five or 10 years after moving there, we often find that everybody else followed us. And so what we really have is just the same congestion that we were trying to get away from. So what do we do? We move further out.
PILGRIM: Cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas and Portland lead the list of fastest growing metropolitan areas since 1990, stretched beyond what was once unimaginable. Some of the suburbs of cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami, for example, have doubled or tripled, putting stresses on local community schools and hospitals. Infrastructure is already in decline, our schools filled to capacity. Three out of four urban hospital emergency rooms are at or over capacity. And there are more than 53 million students in k-12 today, more than ever in the history of the country. More than half of the new growth since 2000 has been to five states: California, Texas, New York, Illinois and Florida. California alone contributed to one-fifth of the U.S. population growth in 2000, 2001. About half the population growth is from immigration, and the rest because the United States has the highest birth rate of most industrialized countries.
(END VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM: Now, the impact on land use is alarming. For each person added to our population, we require one acre of farm land. Experts say, by 2030, this country will be using all its agriculture to feed Americans, and there will be no exports to the world -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kitty, alarming to say the very least. Thank you very much -- Kitty Pilgrim. Later I'll be talking about our staggering population growth in this country with University of Michigan demographer, William Fry, who says it's already hurting this country's middle class. That is still ahead here tonight. Coming up next, the "Los Angeles Times" defends itself against criticism that its coverage of the California recall was slanted. We'll be joined by people on either side of the debate, syndicated columnist, Jill Stewart. She says the "L.A. Times" simply got it wrong. Rem Reider, of the "American Journalism Review," says the "L.A. Times" was simply doing its job. That and a great deal more still ahead here. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The "Los Angeles Times" is defending its decision to publish sexual harassment allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger five days before the recall election in California. In the newspaper's Sunday edition, Editor John Carroll denied that the story and its timing were politically motivated. He wrote: "Our role is to serve citizens of varying views by examining the behavior and the policies of political leaders and publishing our findings. And when we publish, we do it in a timely fashion... Better... to be surprised by your newspaper in October than to learn in November that your newspaper has betrayed you by withholding the truth."
Joining me now is Rem Reider, of the "American Journalism Review," who says the "L.A. Times" was simply doing its job. He joins us tonight from Washington. Syndicated columnist, Jill Stewart, joins us tonight from Los Angeles. She's called the "L.A. Times" coverage irresponsible. Thank you both for being here.
REM REIDER, EDITOR, "AMERICAN JOURNALISM REVIEW": A pleasure to be here.
JILL STEWART, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Thank you.
DOBBS: Let me turn first to you, Jill, if I may. The irresponsibility you see simply because of the timing that is five days before election day to come out with this rather extensive report?
STEWART: Well, it's not just the timing; it's the fact that they consciously made decisions that delayed the story a number of times. They could have gotten it in much, much earlier. I've been really pummeled with phone calls from "L.A. Times" reporters and editors who disagree with how it was handled, who felt that it should have and could have run much, much earlier and are very, very disappointed. They feel that carol himself became so personally involved that he lost his judgment. The second big issue, besides the timing, is that they could have and should have created a similar team to look at the personal behavior of Governor Gray Davis. I've been told now, by an editor who was close to this project and another reporter who was close to this project, that more than 20 reporters were working on getting Arnold Schwarzenegger and his personal life, every tidbit, and that there was no such team on Gray Davis, that the "Los Angeles Times," in fact, has information about Gray Davis that it is sitting on that I don't know about. So there is a bias built in to what they did.
DOBBS: Jill, return. Rem, your thoughts? Jill is making some rather strong charges there.
REIDER: Yes, she is. As far as the Schwarzenegger piece and reporters inside the paper complaining, on any very sensitive story, if you're the top editor of the paper, you ought to be very careful with it and look at it very closely. And there are going to be people impatient to get it in, and there are going to be people on the fringe who might, without total knowledge of what's going on, who might be breaking. That's kind of the way the newspaper business works. The reality is the paper came out with what reads -- something that reads to me like a very solid piece of journalism. Yes, it would have been nicer if it could have come in earlier, but you publish it when it is ready. And, in fact, it apparently is accurate. Schwarzenegger basically pleaded no lo contender. And, in fact, 10 more people came forward afterwards. And also, as far as the timing, it clearly didn't have any major effect on the results. People waited and apparently decided that they wanted to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger anyway. But I think this looks like a pretty strong piece of journalism.
DOBBS: Jill, when you say 20 reporters, this business, for those of our viewers who do not know, does not always work in a linear fashion. When you say 20, those are 20 reporters who have been working part of their day over a number of weeks on. They wouldn't have been all contemporaneously working on it full-time. Is that correct?
STEWART: I believe that's correct. I believe they were pulled in as it grew and grew. And I'm told that Carol himself left his executive office and became the strategist, the assignment editor, the project editor on this. He really stepped over the line and became involved, on a daily basis, and the feeling in the newsroom was openly get Schwarzenegger. I'm hearing this from a number of people, from respected people at the "L.A. Times." The people who feel this way, who were saying this to me don't feel comfortable talking about it at the "L.A. Times" because it's not their city editor or their assignment editor who did this, it's Carroll himself, and you can't argue with somebody who controls your career. And so I think there is a real problem with Carroll, and I think that's why he wrote this. He got very involved...
DOBBS: Well, Carroll...
STEWART: And he wanted to stop Schwarzenegger.
DOBBS: Well, John Carroll has a very good reputation, Jill, as both a forthright, hard-working and typically a balanced editor. Don't you agree that assessment, Rem? REIDER: Yes, he's actually -- I think he's one of the best editors in the country. And you look at his track record, he's always been the kind of editor who, on big projects, big investigative projects, is involved in the editing. That's been his pattern. And I think, with a major story of this kind of sensitivity, that's a good thing. We've had stories in the past that it's come out that -- very controversial stories, that a top editor hadn't even read the thing. And to me, that's the problem. The having a very active and involved editor is a plus.
DOBBS: Yes, I was going to say to both of you, if this story, with the dynamite that it represented for the readers of the "Times" and because, as you noted, Jill, this is going to be highly charged, almost irrespective of the time, but certainly more so because of the timing, he had better know what's going on with this story. I would certainly have expected at least that. The hands-on issue is quite a different one. I think we should also point out to our viewers who are not acquainted with this craft and its various forms, whether electronic or print, newsrooms are often, shall we say, heterogeneous and sometimes spontaneous in their difference of views that can be expressed in them.
The idea that the "Los Angeles Times" is regarded as a liberal paper, Rem, do you think this would have been as combustible if this had been -- if this had come out, for example, this investigative piece, five days before the election on Governor Gray Davis?
REIDER: No, probably not. And actually they may have had people on the other side complaining. But I would say, given the fact that if a paper has -- some schools it is thought to be liberal, obviously that's going add to the combustibility of the issue.
In this case though, the editor, the person who we have been talking about who was so personally involved, has no history at all as far as I know of having a political agenda. In fact, he's kind of more out of the sort of straight up the middle, very tough, investigative tradition.
DOBBS: There are certain news organizations that talk about the tenets of this craft and amongst those is fairness. And the issue of fairness in this case, Jill raises an interesting point. Is it fair to investigate one candidate or another, for all I know, perhaps they did investigate Governor Gray Davis, I would like to hear both your thoughts? Should this piece come out side by side of a piece critical of Gray Davis and one critical of Arnold Schwarzenegger? Would that have provided the fairness that you both obviously think is a requisite?
(CROSSTALK)
REIDER: Fairness only if they both have equally strong cases to be made against them. I'm not familiar with everything the "L.A. Times" looked at as far as Gray Davis is concerned. Carroll says that -- he had one of his top reporters, among others, investigated and didn't find any information to support a strong enough story to run. Balance doesn't mean writing the same thing about both people if they've acted differently. But, of course, if -- they would be in a weak position if they, in fact, didn't pursue allegations against Davis. I just don't know that that's the case.
DOBBS: Jill, you work for the "Times" for some years. Your thoughts?
STEWART: Well, they in fact have information about Gray Davis that they should have pursued. What Carroll is talking in his op-ed piece this weekend is ancient history about work they didn't do I think properly and didn't look into deeply enough.
They have some information on Gray Davis, some very damaging information on him that they have not investigated. And I'm told they made a conscious decision not to create a S.W.A.T. team on Davis. And a very conscious decision to create this huge effort on Schwarzenegger. And he launched this effort with the words, I want Schwarzenegger scoured clean.
Now, this is a real emotional thing to say to a news room of people. They're going to go out and they're going get him. And I think there was bias built in from the beginning. And I think they did protect Gray Davis and now, of course, the "Los Angeles Weekly" and Bill Bradley who is also attacked this weekend by John Carroll, though not named in this op-ed piece.
The "L.A. Weekly" reported in this last week a bombshell that someone at the "Los Angeles Times" leaked this story and leaked some of the really key information on Schwarzenegger to the Democratic camp before the piece was published in the "Los Angeles Times."
And "The Times" is just ignoring the "L.A. Weekly's" piece on this. They need to get on this and find out who leaked it to the Democratic camp. This is a firing offense if this is indeed true.
DOBBS: You have an association with the -- that news organization, do you not?
STEWART: Who?
DOBBS: "The L.A. Weekly?"
STEWART: No, I freelanced for them many years ago, ten years ago perhaps.
DOBBS: Okay, I just wanted to get it clear out there.
STEWART: No. No I don't. In fact, Bill Bradley are rivals in Sacramento. We don't even get along. But we agree on this issue.
DOBBS: Well, I just wanted to get -- as you would say, the facts straight on that. And, Rem, the -- what Jill is saying here really -- we're talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's obviously been elected. He was elected by a sizable percentage of women voters in this case. So apparently the charges didn't make much of a difference. But it did change the relationship one would think particularly after John Carroll's editorial for the relationship between the paper and its readers, many of the readers, and perhaps with the incoming administration.
REIDER: That's very true. Sometimes, unfortunately to do the right thing in journalism you have to do something your readers aren't going to like. In this case they were investigating widespread reports that have been around for quite some time that are the governor-elect has a history of mistreating women.
And given than kind of buzz out there, and the talk of the past, it seems to me it made sense to investigate it. And if they came up with the story strong enough to publish, in this case they did, you go it. Unfortunately that will not make you the most popular person in town. Do your job and put the information out there. And the voters will do what they want with it.
DOBBS: We all understand that -- that part of it. But the idea that there should not have been, if you will, a countervailing work against or upon Governor Gray Davis, that's your point, is it not, Jill, not that you had a particular problem with the piece that was actually reported by the "Times" on Schwarzenegger.
STEWART: That's right. They should have looked much harder at Gray Davis' history of staff bashing, attacking members of his staff who work for him, throwing things, throwing objects, his violent personality, his dual personality, the times always barely looked into it.
DOBBS: Gray Davis has a violent personality?
STEWART: He's -- I call him a closet wacko in a column I did. The "L.A. Times" has done some look at this and walked away from this story in the past.
DOBBS: I thank you both very much. Jill Stewart, Rem Reider, thank you for analyzing this from your perspectives. We appreciate it.
Coming up next year, our next guest says the rising population of immigrants in this country is changing the very makeup of our society. We talk with University of Michigan demography William Frey right after this. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: My next guest says our fast growing population, coupled with the influx of immigrants of this country is changing the make-up of our cities and our society.
William Frey is a University of Michigan demographer. He's a visiting fellow with the Brookings Institution. And joins us tonight from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Good to have you with us.
WILLIAM FREY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Good to be with you, Lou. DOBBS: The population growth in this country, most people do not recognize just how quickly this country is growing, the fastest among all industrialized nations. What percentage of that is natural birth rate? What percentage immigration.
FREY: Somewhere between half and three-quarters of our population growth can be attributed to the combined effects of immigration and natural increase. And of course, immigration contributes to that natural increase, because immigrants have higher than average fertility. Immigration is a fair component of our growth these days.
DOBBS: As you look at the patterns of our population growth, the states that one would expect that is, in the sun belt, they are the principle beneficiaries or victims of this population growth is that correct?
FREY: Well, the states with the highest population growth typically are the ones that don't have the most immigrants. If you look at the state of Nevada which grew by 66 percent over the 1990s and Las Vegas which grew by 85 percent, over the 1990s, it is not immigrants that are contributing to their growth, but people coming there from other parts of the U.S.
So the immigration and what I call domestic migration, which is people moving around the United States, they contribute differently to different places. The really fast growing places are not the big immigrant ports of entry. They're places sort of further in and further in the sun belt.
DOBBS: And when you say further in, in the sun belt, we know that the overall population growth, for example, in Texas, in Florida, in California, leads the nation in absolute terms of population growth, they are the most populous states in point of fact along with New York.
How concern ready you about what is happening as a result of our population growth, of our immigration, both legal and illegal and our migration and the strain it is putting upon our infrastructure, our resources, our natural resources?
FREY: I think that it is important to make this distinction that I started to before between the impact of immigration and then other people moving around the United States. The four biggest metropolitan areas that are gaining the most immigrants in the U.S. which are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York are each losing the biggest number of domestic migrants, that is people moving to other parts of the United States. So there is a spill-out effect that distributes the population to these other places.
You're right, those big immigrant magnet states of California, Texas and Florida gain the most people. But the fastest growth rates are the more internal states like Georgia and the Carolinas and Nevada and Arizona. So this is this kind of dynamic where the immigrants with coming in one door and the domestic migrants are going out the other. DOBBS: Any implication for the middle class, for working Americans in this country?
FREY: Well, what I think what we're finding in greater Los Angeles and greater New York, where you do have this big swell of immigrants and also an in immigration of people with college degrees and professionals and so forth is that the middle class, people with only -- with less than Bachelor's degrees and middle incomes are leading the way to these interior states, Nevada and Arizona or the Carolinas and Georgia. They find these other states more affordable, less congested, and the jobs are moving there, too, which is attracting them.
DOBBS Bill Frey, we thank you very much for being with us. William Frey of the University of Michigan.
Tomorrow our special, "A Crowded Nation," we focus on the impact of too many people and dangerous pollution. Protecting the air we breathe tomorrow night. Please join us.
Still ahead here, China is preparing to launch its first manned spacecraft possibly within the next 48 hours. China entering the space race, we'll have a report for you from Beijing next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: This week, perhaps as soon as within 48 hours, China hopes to become the third country ever to launch a human being into space. The Shin Dao 5 (ph) space capsule is expected to circle the planet 14 times before re-entry. Dozens of Chinese astronauts competed to take part in the mission. Jaime FlorCruz reports from Beijing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAIME FLORCRUZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Chinese astronauts training for zero gravity. Part of the long and rigorous preparation for China's first mad space flight.
CHEAH KOK WAI, HONG KING BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: I think they are actually doing the final touch of it, getting everything ready. Really the first launch cannot fail in that sense.
FLORCRUZ: The Chinese are sharing few details in advance. The rocket, an updated version of the Long March (ph, originally designed to carry nuclear weapons. This time it will take between one to three astronauts into orbit. They will ride inside a fifth generation Sheng Go (ph) space capsule, previously tested without human passengers.
RICHARD HU, UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG: We only know that the capsule will be a little bigger than Russia's first one and then probably more technically more advanced.
FLORCRUZ: Certainly much more sophisticated than the first satellite China launched 33 years ago. While in orbit, the capsule transmitted a revolutionary tune. That flight's success had patriotic fervor.
In recent years, China has released pictures of perfect satellite launches and one or two failures. A glitch-free manned flight would give good publicity and credibility to its commercial satellite launch industry, which is competing with the Europeans, Russians and Americans for customers. Manned space launches, experts say, also bring military payoffs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, for future space-based system for reconnaissance, civilians and also maybe military security commander functions.
FLORCRUZ: But Beijing officials are quick to calm fears that China is building any star wars type weapons system for space.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): China will not in any way take part in an arms race in outer space.
FLORCRUZ (on camera): China's space program is shrouded in secrecy, in part because of its links with the military. Launch dates and other details were never revealed in advance.
But this time provisional dates have been announced. And live television coverage is planned. It is an unusual move which experts say indicate China's confidence of success. Jaime FlorCruz, CNN, Beijing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: As China prepares to enter the space race, this country has lost an important part of that race. The United States is no longer the leader in the construction and launch of satellites. And the U.S. government is part of the reason U.S. satellites are part of "Exporting America." Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): U.S. satellite manufacturers continue to lose business to foreign competitors. In part because of the U.S. government's own regulations.
RICHARD DALBELLO, SATELLITE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: Laws put into place a couple of years ago which reclassified satellites as a munition have made it harder for U.S. sellers of satellites to compete internationally.
WIAN: In 1998, Congress passed restrictions on U.S. commercial satellite exports.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R) CALIFORNIA: They're losing customers overseas that they should have. However, they also have to remember you have these heavy regulatory restrictions because there were people in the satellite industry, top executives, who betrayed America, who gave satellite technology and rocket technology to the Communist Chinese after swearing they would never do this if we lessened the controls. WIAN: Still, Rohrabacher, says the restrictions have gone too far. He supports easing some of the controls, because now even small benign communications satellites must pass through a tangle of congressional and state department red tape before they can be sold to foreign customers.
PHILIP MCALISTER, DIR. FUTRON CORP.: That made it more difficult to exchange information about your satellite with your potential customer. And that's very -- makes it very difficult for you to sell that product.
WIAN: The U.S. satellite manufacturing business had two-thirds of the global market in the late '90s. But just 36 percent last year. Europeans invested heavily in satellite manufacturing during the '90s.
(on camera): New competitors are emerging in China and India, vying for business that is expected to accelerate over the next decade. That's when more than half of the world's satellite fleet will need replacing, Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Still ahead, tens of thousands of supermarket employees all across the country have walked out on the job. There's word tonight the that strike may spread. We'll have the story. Christine Romans will have the market.
That and more still ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of tonight's poll. The question, do you believe the economy next year will be stronger, weaker, much stronger or much weaker? Twenty-three percent of you said stronger, 41 percent weaker, 8 percent much stronger, 28 percent much weaker.
Thousands of grocery workers at Kroger's stores across the country voted to strike tonight at midnight. That comes only two days after 70,000 grocery workers walked away from their jobs in a number of supermarket chains in Southern California. At issue, the rising cost of health care benefits. Miguel Marquez has the report for us from Los Angeles -- Miguel.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Wolf (sic). It is about 70,000 workers from San Diego to Santa Barbara at Bond's (ph), Ralph's and Albertson's stores here in Southern California. The union struck against one store, and the other two chains locked their employees out. In St. Louis, about 10,000 grocery workers on the picket line, and in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, the union there has OKayed a strike against 44 Kroger's stores, and company officials there have decided to simply close all of them until the strike ends.
Why all the striking, you ask? Health care. There were other issues like pension plans and salaries for new employees on the table, but it is the cost of health care that is driving all three strikes. The problem, in a nutshell, the companies say in a world of rapidly rising health care costs and cutthroat competition from the likes of retail giants like Wal-Mart, Costco and Target, they can no longer afford to offer the health care plans they once did. They want employees to pay a piece of their coverage. Of course, the unions say the companies want to cap spending, effectively cutting their benefits by 50 percent -- Lou.
DOBBS: Miguel, thank you very much.
On Wall Street today, stock prices climbed to the highest levels in more than a year. The Dow Jones Industrials up nearly 90 points. The Nasdaq up more than 18, closing at its highest level in more than a year and a half, in fact. The S&P 500 added more than 7 points. Christine Romans is here now with what is a rally to talk about.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It was. Almost 400 stocks hit new 52-week highs today, Lou. And a number of them were Dow stocks, and all of this stoked by earnings optimism, and Motorola's early earnings report. Now, Motorola raised its fourth quarter sales target, reported a five cent profit, that's slightly ahead of a year ago.
But Lou, that early stock gains faded, and the focus sharpened on the bigger picture. The stock is down 77 percent since its 2000 peak, down 47 percent since its current CEO took over in 1997. Revenue has fallen as the pay of the CEO has soared. Christopher Galvin earned $70.8 million in salary, bonus, long-term incentive and options since 1997.
Now, scoop out the theoretical value of those options, those earnings still top $30 million. And Lou, the value of the options awarded just last year was $7 million a year when the company posted a $1.8 billion loss, saw sales sharply below the levels from five years ago. Galvin retiring early because of strategy disagreements with the board.
Meanwhile, come Thursday, AOL Time Warner abandons the AOL ticker symbol and comes full circle. The old TWX ticker comes back.
DOBBS: Welcome back.
ROMANS: Since AOL became AOL Time Warner and AOL became the ticker symbol, the stock is down more than 60 some percent. We get the old ticker, Lou, but not the old stock price.
DOBBS: Can't we work on that somehow?
ROMANS: I'm afraid we can't.
DOBBS: We can call up Jerry Levin and see if there can be some adjustment.
Christine, thanks. Christine Romans.
Well, as I've said here numerous times, our audience is the smartest in television. We wanted to share a few examples of why.
From Niwot, Colorado on illegal aliens: "Lou, I've finally figured it out. Eventually, all of America's jobs will be in Mexico, and all the Mexico's illegal aliens will be here. At that point, all the illegal immigrants will return to Mexico, to get a good job. And all of America's corporations will move their facilities back to the States, to take advantage of the cheap labor here. Go figure." That from Marv Luse.
From Los Angeles on exporting America: "I thought in the 21st century robotics and automation would render the U.S. worker obsolete. It seems that outsourcing is doing it at a faster rate. Corporate greed is going to be the downfall of the great United States of America." E.J. Cerna.
Well, we haven't lost the battle yet.
And while we do get critical e-mail from time to time, OK, it's rare, I'll admit, we do want to hear your criticisms and your thoughts about how we can improve the show, and your suggestions of issues that you want us to critically examine.
Continuing with your thoughts. From Everett, Washington: "I would very much like to thank you for the way you doggedly argue for the American worker. I'm an electronic technician in experimental flight tests for the Boeing Company. I've watched so very many jobs disappear to Russia, to Chile, and Mexico. Thank you for sticking up with the regular guy worker, trying to live the ever more elusive American dream." That from Mike Bowman. A regular guy worker and gal worker as well.
And from Stevenson, Maryland: "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT is the best thing that's happened to television news broadcasts in a long, long time. Thank you very much for providing such an intelligent approach to the news." Ralph Cohen.
Well, we thank you very much. And we thank everyone associated with this broadcast for bringing that intelligence to you.
Please send us your thoughts. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com. That's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us. Tomorrow, our special report, "A Crowded Nation," we look at how rapid population growth and pollution endanger the very air we breathe in this country. And we'll be joined by Michael Moore -- yes, that Michael Moore -- author of the new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" He'll be here.
For all of us, thanks for joining us. Good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Officials: No New Intelligence on Saddam>
