Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
White House Criticizes Media's Iraq Coverage; Supermarket Workers Strike Over Health Care Benefits; Interview With Michael Moore
Aired October 14, 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 Tuesday, October 14. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening.
Tonight: A high-ranking government official launched a blistering attack on the media and the way in which the media is covering the war in Iraq. Commerce Secretary Don Evans, who is in Baghdad, said Iraq is not the dismal, frightening place portrayed by news organizations. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan also criticized the media. He said the American people are not being told the full story about Iraq.
But Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stayed out of public view. He canceled a scheduled news conference in Washington.
White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reports.
We apologize. We obviously are having audio problems. We'll be returning to Suzanne Malveaux at the White House on that story in just a matter of moments, we hope. Our apologies.
The war goes on in Iraq. At least two people were wounded in Baghdad today in another suicide bomb attack, the target today, the Turkish Embassy. Many Iraqis oppose Turkey's decision to send as many as 10,000 troops into Iraq.
Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, has the report -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, as the U.S. adopts tougher security measures, once again, the target of the enemies of the United States are those who are helping the U.S. forces in Iraq.
Today, the target was the Turkish Embassy. And again the weapon was a suicide bomber. A single driver approached the concrete barriers outside the embassy. A bomb exploded. There was conflicting reports about how many casualties. According to the U.S., only the bomber was killed. And there were only minor miner injuries inside the Turkish Embassy. Witnesses, however, claim that eight people were wounded and two were killed, including the bomber.
This attack was stopped basically by a concrete barrier which absorbed most of the force of the blast. And a coalition military spokesman said that the embassy security there had been enhanced last week, after what he called a walk-in informant delivered information that there could be a possible explosion there.
But, again, on a day when the administration sought to highlight the achievements in Iraq, once again a bad news story coming out of the capital of Iraq, an attack against the Turkish Embassy. And, as you said, the Turkish Parliament decision to deploy troops to Iraq has been unpopular, both in some quarters in Iraq and also in Turkey itself, again complicating the situation -- Lou.
DOBBS: Jamie, has the Pentagon explained why Turkey is being sought for its troops? The relationship, obviously, between the Turks and the Kurds not good, the Iraqi council protesting the use of Turkish troops, and, again, the Kurds important allies in the war against Saddam Hussein. The reasoning behind this decision?
MCINTYRE: Well, there's a very strong feeling among the U.S. military commanders that they need a -- quote -- "Muslim face" on some of the security force. And troops from a NATO ally, Turkey, that's a Muslim nation, they believe would be helpful.
Obviously, it would increase tensions in the north, where the Kurds are. And there's been longtime tensions there. But the plan is to deploy troops in central Iraq in an area that would free up some U.S. troops to concentrate more on what's going on in Baghdad. And, of course, the United States is anxious to get commitments from as many other countries as possible to send a substantial number of troops. So they're very happy to have those Turkish troops there.
But it does raise a question of whether it's going to increase tension, as well as perhaps give the United States some help with security.
DOBBS: Jamie, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld again today staying out of public view. Is there any sense of what the reasoning is at the Pentagon?
MCINTYRE: Well, the explanation we were given was simply that his schedule was overloaded. He needed to go to the White House for a principals meeting, and that scheduled press meeting dropped off his schedule. We're told to expect that he'll be out talking to us again soon, although they haven't rescheduled that briefing yet.
DOBBS: OK, Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Let's turn now to the White House, the site of that principals meeting today, and also, of course, the White House, the administration, launching a blistering attack against the national media for its coverage of Iraq.
We turn now to Suzanne Malveaux -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, now the White House is on the offensive about its public relations offensive. It was just yesterday that President Bush complained about his story about the progress in Iraq was not getting out. He also has said that the Americans are not getting the truth when it comes to this story. That's why the White House went around and bypassed what he called the national media filter to give exclusive interviews to five reporters of regional outlets who normally don't cover the White House.
What has happened now, well, it's opened an active debate whether the blame-the-media aspect of this White House strategy is going to be effective. The White House today made no apologies about it, White House spokesman Scott McClellan defending the administration, saying it's absolutely necessary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: So there's a lot of important progress being made. And it's important for the American people to hear that story. There is a part of the story that is not getting the attention that we believe that it should receive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: And now, this week, the White House, all officials on message, unlike, last week, where there were divisions that erupted between the White House, as well as the Defend Department, over what role people were going to play inside of Iraq when it comes to reconstruction. There were even Democrats and Republicans calling for the president to take charge of the situation.
Well, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in a briefing about the president's trip to Asia, made it very clear that she is putting this controversy to rest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I want to be very clear. I'm the national security adviser. What I do is coordinate policy. I don't operate. I don't implement. I coordinate policy. It is the secretary of defense who will continue to run the postwar reconstruction, as he has done and as he has done well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: So, Lou, this is a White House that is making no apologies about how it's handling the situation, no apologies about its strategy. They say that they will call out the media when they feel that they're not being fair -- Lou.
DOBBS: And, Suzanne, for Condoleezza Rice, this is a considerable retreat from the position that was advanced early last week, is it not?
MALVEAUX: Well, Condoleezza Rice, speaking about this for the first time publicly, saying that her role was very clear from the very beginning. But, as you know, of course, it was Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who had to do a bit of backpedaling when it came to describing just how Secretary Rumsfeld was informed, how much he was informed, about this whole Iraq Stabilization Group. We heard from Rumsfeld last week saying that he was not informed adequately. So that was a dispute that spilled out in the airwaves. They certainly were not happy about that. They wanted to patch that all up.
DOBBS: And is there something to patch up in the case of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who today canceled an appearance and was not seen in public today?
MALVEAUX: Well, Jamie would be in a better position to actually get the motives behind Rumsfeld's cancellation. We do know that it's fairly typical that they have principal meetings here at the White House. It wouldn't be unusual that the secretary would be meeting with the other principals.
But, then again, it's unusual that he has stayed out of limelight for that long.
DOBBS: No ruminations out the White House or amongst the staff that you know of?
MALVEAUX: Well, at this point, what they're trying to do, Lou, is really bury all of this and move on.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Yes, but our job is to dig it up. We know they'll try to bury it, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. And that is something everybody has been working on.
One of the points that the national media has raised is the fact that access to the president has been rather limited. And that's something that we have been fighting for, for some time. Yes, the president wants a break from us to deal with the regional media, to do with friendly audiences. But the whole point being is that, the more you have access to the media, the more they can give a fair and balanced picture of what's actually happening.
DOBBS: An interesting construction, Suzanne. Thank you very much -- Suzanne Malveaux from the White House. Thank you.
Well, we'll be discussing this issue on the role of the media and its coverage of Iraq. We'll be talking with three of the leading national political reporters from Washington later in the show.
Tonight, labor disputes at three supermarket chains from California to West Virginia are disrupting the lives of millions. Tens of thousands of grocery workers are on picket lines. And there are signs that this strike is escalating.
Bill Tucker is here now and has the report for us -- Bill. BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the issue at the heart of these disputes are health care benefits. The companies say they want the employees to pay. The union says, no.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER (voice-over): That anger is about health care benefits. Ralph's, Bond's (ph) and Albertsons want their employees to take on part of the burden of their health care costs. Those workers pay nothing towards those costs now. The company wants them to pay $5 for individual coverage and $15 per week for family coverage.
GREG DENIER, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS: It's not about a few dollars a week kicked in. The companies are not that foolish to take a strike over that and workers are not foolish enough to risk their livelihoods over that. These are real things. These about the future of health care benefits in this country.
TUCKER: But the companies say health care costs have risen 50 percent over the last four years and to, remain competitive, they have to control costs. The president of Ralph's putting out a statement, saying that the typical industry margins are just 2 percent, leaving the company little room to compete with lower-cost operators.
But with union workers at Kroger stores in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky going out on the picket line, the anger is spreading.
PROTESTERS: We're going to roll! We're going to roll! We're going to roll the union on!
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: The anger over health care benefits is not limited to the Food Workers Union. Deputies in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office are staging a sick-out over health benefits in their contract talks. And mechanics for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority worked off their jobs over health care -- Lou.
DOBBS: Health care benefits critically important. In each instance, though, these supermarket chains have seen their profits rise. They have seen the productivity of these workers increase as well. What's the reason for holding back?
TUCKER: They're saying they simply can't afford it. They're facing lower-cost competitors and they have to be in a position to do it.
But you're right, profits at Safeway up 15 percent on average over 15 years, same sort of numbers at Kroger as well -- productivity up 40 percent. And the workers want their just dues for that.
DOBBS: And the principal competitor that they fear in this case?
TUCKER: The one they fear the most is Wal-Mart, although Wal- Mart's only 1 percent of the market.
DOBBS: In Southern California.
TUCKER: In Southern California.
DOBBS: Nationwide, quite a different story, the largest grocer in the country. Bill Tucker, thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: This wave of strikes is a sign that many American workers are becoming increasingly frustrated with their jobs, their work and with the demands of their employers.
Peter Viles is here now and has that part of the story for us -- Pete.
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, one expert we talked to said that the work force in America right now looks like a pressure cooker that is ready to blow. But union membership is on the decline and it appears management still holds all the cards right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VILES (voice-over): What's wrong with this picture? Workers are supposed to be pushing their luck when the economy is strong, not when it's struggling. Yet American workers appear to be running out of patience with an economy that demands higher productivity, lavishly rewards CEOs, and yet produces no new jobs. In fact, it exports more and more jobs overseas.
THOMAS KOCHAN, MIT SLOAN SCHOOL OF MGMT.: .... who have gone to college believe that they have invested in education to get a secure job. They're now feeling the same economic pressures, the same overworking pressures and the pressure of the fear of job loss.
VILES: In a new CNN/Gallup poll, 59 percent of those polled said they were -- quote -- "angry" about the way things are going. And labor unions do not appear to have the answer. They are losing clout in the private sector.
Membership in the private sector has fallen from 16.8 percent in 1983 to just 8.7 percent last year. For workers, it is an unpredictable combination, anger, but declining influence.
GREG TARPINIAN, LABOR RESEARCH ASSN.: There's no question that American corporations hold all the cards when it comes to their relationship with their employees. The idea that you are threatened and you're insecure creates a malaise at the same time as it creates anger. So there's anger brewing, but where it goes is another question.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: This is an element that has been missing in the debate about how to fix what's wrong with corporate America. You hear so much about the need for more independent directors at these companies, but almost nothing about the need to give workers a bigger voice in running big companies -- Lou.
DOBBS: And the other part of that question, though, of course, is, why give them a voice if you don't need to?
VILES: Right. Until there's some sort of pushback -- and we may be seeing it in some of the story Bill covered -- there is no need for corporate America to respond to this.
DOBBS: And, at the same time you're presented with this situation, the unions, in this case, representing over one million workers in this country, they are the same union that is seeking to liberalize immigration laws, to give amnesty to illegal aliens, many of whom are competing at lower wages for the very jobs that the unions are trying to ostensibly protect and improve the lives of their workers. How does a union reconcile that absolute -- seeming contradict?
VILES: Well, you have the farmworkers unions pushing for immigration bills that would allow illegal farmworkers to stay in America and eventually become legal workers. I guess they figure that these people are working whether it's legal or illegal. They want to bring them in and maybe raise the boat that way, raise benefits that way.
But there is a big inconsistency here. And we don't see any sort of overreaching policies in the labor market here. We've talked a lot about how companies are sending jobs abroad, no overarching policies here.
DOBBS: OK, Pete, thank you very much.
Bill Tucker, thank you.
Tonight's quote from an L.A. County official on the 500,000 commuters in Southern California affected by the mass transit strike -- and we quote -- "These hard-working people, numbering the hundreds of thousands in our country, are going to be held hostage to a set of demands which are unreasonable and unmatchable" -- that was Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County supervisor, MTA board member.
Coming up next here: The FDA reconsiders its ban on silicone breast implants after 11 years. Medical correspondent Christy Feig reports.
And then: The sky's the limit and the victim, an explosion in population growth destroying the very air we breathe. Lisa Sylvester reports tonight in our special report, "A Crowded Nation."
And bowling for Bush. Filmmaker, author, Michael Moore's latest target, naturally, the White House. Moore calls for regime change. He's our guest next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Supreme Court today will announce that it will take on a controversial case over the Pledge of Allegiance. That case sparked outrage when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the words "under God" in the pledge made it unconstitutional.
A California man whose daughter attends a public school where the pledge is recited every day filed that lawsuit. Today, he said he expects to the court to rule in his favor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL NEWDOW, BROUGHT PLEDGE LAWSUIT: The chances of not having a favorable ruling for my camp are pretty close to nil. This case is the easiest case they're going to have. The law is clearly on my side. just read the Supreme Court's decision in establish clause law. By every single test that they've ever annunciated, sticking the two words "under God' in the middle of the pledge is clearly unconstitutional.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: In a separate case, the Supreme Court today let stand an appellate court ruling that allows doctors to recommend medical marijuana to their patients. The justices decided not to hear a White House appeal that would have allowed the government to revoke those doctors' prescription licenses.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel today began a two- day public hearing to consider ending a ban on silicone breast implants. The United States banned those implants for most women in 1992, after inconclusive reports about the safety of the implants. However, major studies have failed to prove the implants actually caused chronic illness.
CNN medical correspondent Christy Feig reports for us from Washington.
CHRISTY FEIG, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Lou.
These implants were pulled off the market in 1992 over concerns That the silicone could leak out of implants into the surrounding tissue and possibly make these women sick. A lot of women came forward, said that they were sick after they got the implants, blamed the implants for that. And a lot of the reports were anecdotal.
Nonetheless, a company called Inamed Corp. now believes, after three years of their own research, they have a safe product. And they're presenting that information to an FDA advisory committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. RONALD EHMSEN, INAMED CORPORATION: There's no increased risk of breast cancer, no increased risk of rheumatic or autoimmune disease and no negative effect on children of women with breast implants.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEIG: But for women who have had silicone breast implants, it's a contentious issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANN STANSA, FORMER BREAST IMPLANT PATIENT: I had many of the same local complications. I can't even remember how many surgeries I suffered. Silicone was found in my side, where it migrated from a broken implant.
CATHY PATEN, BREAST IMPLANT ADVOCATE: I believe firmly that women should have the option to choose saline or silicone and that they should have the risk and benefits outlined for each.
The individual receiving the product needs to have confidence in the product itself and also in the surgeon who's performing the procedure. I believe women who are well informed will make the decision that works best for them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEIG: Now, Lou, this all begs the obvious question. If these implants weren't safe enough to be on the market to begin with, how did they ever got on the market?
For that, you have to go back to 1976. That's when the FDA was given authority to regulate medical devices, such as breast implants that were already on the market. At that point, the FDA had to go along and comb through all these devices that had already been on the market and find out which posed enough risk that they would need to go through premarket approval, even though they were already on the market. Breast implants fell into this category.
They believe they posed enough of a risk that they would need to prove that these were indeed safe devices. At that point, we went through a lot of reports that came out: Silicone seems to leak from certain capsules, and things like this. In 1992, the FDA said, you know what? These things don't have enough evidence to prove that they're safe. Let's take them off the market. And that's how we got where we are today -- Lou.
DOBBS: And the studies to this point, the three-year trial, demonstrating to the FDA that they are in fact safe? That's the judgment the FDA panel will have to make?
FEIG: Absolutely. That's what Inamed presented today to this advisory committee. They said, so far, we're finding no evidence to show that these things actually cause autoimmune diseases, they don't cause cancer, things like that.
But now, what the other groups that are calling for these things to be banned are saying: You know what? We need more long-term studies. We want to see 10-year studies, 15-year studies, 20-year studies, because they say a lot of the problems that are associated with the breast implants don't occur until seven to 10 years after implantation. So they say: We need to see a lot more than three years of data before we can be assured that these are indeed safe enough to put in women's body.
DOBBS: Christy, thank you very much -- Christy Feig from Washington.
Coming up next: massive population growth in this country, the devastating effects it's having on the very air we breathe in some parts of the country. Lisa Sylvester reports tonight in our series "A Crowded Nation" next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The population of this country has more than doubled since World War II to almost 300 million people. That growth means more people on our roads, more power plants and more factories, all contributing to our pollution.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One hundred, forty-six million people -- that's just shy of half of the entire country -- live in counties with dirty air, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
This year, the smog in Los Angeles is the worst on record in seven years. And the American Lung Association estimates, 50,000 people go to the hospital every year because of pollution.
JANICE NOLEN, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION: We're looking at risks associated with heart attacks, with strokes. Plus, it aggravates asthma. It sends people to the hospital. It makes breathing harder, especially for people who already have problems breathing.
SYLVESTER: Cleaning up the nation's air is daunting, considering the nation's rapid population growth. While, overall, pollution levels have come down in the last 30 years, more people are driving longer distances.
According to the EPA, in 1970, drivers logged one trillion road miles. By 2001, that number had nearly tripled. Since, 1970 energy consumption has increased 42 percent, which means power plants, one of the main sources of pollutants, have had to increase their output.
BILL BECKER, ASSN. OF LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIALS: We need to do a much better job of regulating power plants. There are some very dirty existing power plants that have existed for 30 or more years that are spewing toxic air pollutants into our environment. And we need to clean those up.
SYLVESTER: Under the Clean Air Act, older plower plants were to install new pollution control equipment when it was time for a major overhaul, but the Environmental Protection Agency relaxed those rules this year. The EPA says the changes allow power plants to provide reliable electrical service without harming the environment.
JEFF HOLMSTEAD, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: I can say with complete confidence that the air's not going to get worse anywhere and it is the most effective way that we've ever -- that anyone has ever designed to reduce pollution from major factories.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: But environmental groups worry, now some of the older power plants will never have an incentive to install pollution controls, dimming the prospects for cleaner skies -- Lou.
DOBBS: Lisa, thanks -- Lisa Sylvester from Washington.
Tomorrow night, our special report, "A Crowded Nation." Our fast-growing population is draining the water supply in many parts of the country. And, in too many instances, drinking water may not be safe at all -- that special report here tomorrow night. Please join us.
As we reported, the White House tonight says the media is not telling the American people the full story on Iraq. The White House says the United States is making good progress in Iraq, but the public is hearing only about violence in the country.
Joining me now to discuss this issue, Roger Simon, the political editor of "U.S. News & World Report," Karen Tumulty, the national political correspondent for "TIME" magazine, and Tom DeFrank, Washington bureau chief for "The New York Daily News," joining us Washington.
Thank you, all.
Let me begin, if I may, Roger, with you. Are you surprised at the vehemence, frankly, of the P.R. campaign that the White House launched a week ago? We're celebrating a one-week anniversary here tonight.
ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": No, I'm not surprised at the vehemence.
A great deal of White House time and effort is spent on spin. And presidents have always been upset with the Washington press corps. I don't know if George Washington tried to go over the head of "Poor Richard's Almanac" or not, but it probably dates to pretty much of that time.
And I don't understand, really understand, quite the irritation of the national press. They know this is a phase that most presidents go through. They know that the regional press really isn't that terrible. There are smart people there. And it is all going to probably go back to normal within weeks.
DOBBS: Well, Karen, are you amongst those smart people who are upset or not upset? KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME": Well, I must say, I do find it ironic that the White House was not complaining about the national media when they were giving glowing coverage of our actual -- of our progress during the war itself.
The fact is that the White House laid down some expectations of what this war would produce. They suggested we would be in and out of Iraq within three months. They suggested that the oil revenues would pay to fix the damage. None of that has happened. And so I think the media's doing its job, which is measuring them against what they, themselves, had promised.
DOBBS: Tom, do you believe that the White House perhaps has a point here, that reporting, as we do on this broadcast every evening -- we look at the number of casualties, the number of Americans killed in Iraq -- do you think that we're being far too negative?
TOM DEFRANK, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": No, I don't think so, Lou.
I just have to laugh. This is the eighth administration I've covered. And they all behave the same way when they get in trouble. The tendency is to blame the messenger, when maybe they ought to be looking a little harder at the message. So I'm not upset about it. This is the way they do.
But it's very ironic to me that this is a White House that has not been particularly helpful to the press, and now they're jawboning the press. And I think they're a little over the top, but that's just the way they operate.
DOBBS: The president's approval rating has moved up significantly, according to the latest CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll. Do you think this a watershed moment for the president, that the administration turned the corner in what looked to be a weakening approval rating, Roger?
SIMON: No. I don't think a one-week bounce means much of anything. There are at least two other polls. I think one is already out today, The "Cook Political Report" poll, which shows the opposite, a continuing downward trend of the president's popularity.
And there have been rumors that the ABC/"Washington Post" that's going to be out soon is also going to show a continuing loss of popularity. Probably more important figures read at the White House than the president's approval ratings are the president's reelect numbers. And I think those are still hovering around 45 percent.
DOBBS: And, Karen, as we look at the political economy right now, we are seeing job creation for the first time in eight months. We're seeing a GDP in the most recent quarter of 3.3 percent. We are seeing a market that is simply moving much higher than even the most on optimistic savants had thought possible. What is your take on how well the president is doing right now with the economy?
TUMULTY: Well, I think that those job approval ratings in the poll yesterday were a very direct measure of the stock market, which is something that people can -- you open the paper every day and you can see how it's doing.
But the fact is, it does come against some other measures of great anxiety on the part of the public. But, look, it's a long time between now and the election. And what the president really needs to look at is not his week-to-week popularity numbers, but, again, this feeling of anxiety or lack of it on the part of the public.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask all of you -- and if I may begin with you, Tom -- we have nine Democrats out there now contesting for their party's nomination. This administration is under daily assault by one of them. How well are they doing at differentiating themselves? How well are they doing in staking a case with the American people that they should be considered, rather than the incumbent?
DEFRANK: Well, I think all of them are having problems with traction, Lou.
I think part of the problem is, from week to week, they're having to decide whether they want to attack one another or attack President Bush. They know they want to attack Bush. But when they decide they want to go after Bush, they're not sure whether they ought to go after him on the war or on the economy or both. And it's just hard in this phase before the first caucus and the first primary for any of these Democrats to be taken too seriously by most voters.
I'm one of these people who thinks that elections basically are decided by the three debates a year from now. So I think it's still premature, even though they have been out there working very hard for a very long time.
DOBBS: Amongst the issues -- and any one of you who wishes to address this, or all of you -- the issues that are critically important right now that are, at least in my judgment -- and I'd like to hear yours -- amongst them, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, productivity, frankly, the integrity of our markets, why are none of these candidates embracing these issues, because they are absolutely of bedrock importance to the working middle class in this country? Why are none of them grabbing hold of these issues and moving ahead with them?
TUMULTY: Well, I actually find it interesting, because you listen to these debates. And sometime, you would think it was 1988. I think that these candidates have taken a sharp turn towards protectionism in these debates that is quite remarkable, considering how far Bill Clinton had taken the party in the other direction.
And I think that is their first cut at trying to address those very issues that you're talking about.
DOBBS: Roger, your thoughts?
SIMON: Well, I think you have correctly identified that those issues are very important to the future of the American people. However, as Tommy said, all these candidates are trying to get traction with ordinary voters, or at least with those who vote in primaries. And a lot of those things that you have mentioned are complicated and they make people's eyes glaze over.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: We dare to be dull here, Roger.
(LAUGHTER)
SIMON: And when you are competing with the World Series and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kobe Bryant and a million other stories, candidates tend to go for red-meat, hot-button issues, if they can get those before the public and get some attention for themselves.
DOBBS: Tom, tell us it ain't so, that you have found a reservoir of hope and trust in the American people that they can handle very complicated issues. I can assure you the audience of this broadcast can.
DEFRANK: Well, it is so, Lou, sorry so say.
But you're right. And I think every candidate, every Democratic candidate could show you position papers and policy statements where they're all talking about these very critically important issues. But the bottom line at the moment is, the American people are worried about Iraq. The American people are worried about the state of the economy. And those are mega-issues at the moment. And as long as American soldiers are dying every week, as long as the jobless numbers are iffy, I think that's going to be the focus of the American voter for now.
But, remember, it's 13 months between now and the election.
DOBBS: And, of course, national security will always be primary with any voter. But when you talk about the jobless in this country, all of that is so critically related to trade issues and to immigration issues that, hopefully, we will see politicians of both stripes, Democrat and Republican, take up soon.
We thank you for taking up all of these issues here today, Tom DeFrank, Karen Tumulty, Roger Simon. Thank you so much.
TUMULTY: Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: That brings us to tonight's poll. The question: Whose view of the situation in Iraq do you believe most, that of the Bush administration, congressional Democrats, the media, or the United Nations? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll have results a little later here in the show.
Tonight's thought is on partisan politics: "Those who think all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes. They do not consider that disproportion destroys a state" -- Aristotle.
Coming up next: The Catholic Church has seen rapid growth in recent years, despite a rash of scandals, changing demographics. But, in this country, the growth is largely contained to one segment of the population. Kitty Pilgrim reports on the growing number of Catholics in America.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Vatican today said Pope John Paul II has no intention of stepping down, despite rising concerns about his health. Over the past several weeks, the pope has been unable to finish some of his speeches because his Parkinson's disease causes him to slur words. Tomorrow, the Vatican begins a weeklong festival to celebrate the pope's 25th anniversary as pontiff.
The pope's declining health comes as the number of Catholics is declining in Europe, a host of challenges facing the church. However, despite the enormous scandal over sexual misconduct within the church in America, the number of Catholics in this country has increased since he became pontiff.
Kitty Pilgrim is here now and has the story for us -- Kitty.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, since Pope John Paul II took over, the number of Catholics have skyrocketed to more than one billion worldwide. And in this country, one million infants are baptized a year.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you.
SYLVESTER (voice-over): Nearly one-quarter of all Americans, 23 percent exactly, are Catholic, up 33 percent since the young John Paul II took on the job of pope.
FATHER RICHARD JOHN NEUHAUS, INST. ON RELIGION & PUBLIC LIFE: The Catholic Church in the United States is far and away the largest and most rapidly growing religious community in America, far and away. There's not even anybody within hailing distance in terms of its size and the rapidity of its growth.
SYLVESTER: Sixty-six million American Catholics contribute about $6 billion to the church, attending mass in more than 19,000 parishes across the country.
But it doesn't end with mass. More than two million grade school and high school students are educated in Catholic schools; 17 percent of hospital admissions in the country are to Catholic hospitals. And seven million people receive services from Catholic charities.
Catholics in America are multinational. You can hear a mass in Spanish, Vietnamese or German. Nearly 40 percent of all American Catholics are Hispanic. In fact, nearly three-quarters of the growth of the Catholic Church in America has come from Hispanics.
Pope John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in more than 400 years, coming to America with a strength and vigor, at first touring the Northeast, then, in successive trips, traveling through the South and West in the mid-1980 and '90s. His more than 100 trips to countries all over the world reach out to many cultures. For Americans, with the largest community of Jews outside of the holy land, many say his approach to the Jewish religion was healing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After two millennia of bad feelings between Catholics and Jews, this pope made that happen through his visit of the synagogue in Rome, his visit to the death camps in Europe, establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, going to the Holy Wall and praying there. He's go to be remembered for this for centuries, because this is a millennial change in attitudes in church history.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, with the recent church scandals, there is perhaps the perception that the American Catholic Church is in some kind of decline. A look at the numbers shows that's anything but the case; 585 new parishes were created last year alone -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much -- Kitty Pilgrim.
Well, coming up next here, controversial filmmaker, author Michael Moore on his new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" and why he says the French are the very best friends this country has ever had. Michael Moore is next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Filmmaker, author Michael Moore has been an outspoken critic of corporate America, the media, the gun lobby, the Bush administration, especially the Bush administration. In his new book, "Dude, Where is My Country?" -- actually, it's "Where's My Country?" -- Moore calls for regime change in Washington. He claims, among other things, that there is no terrorist threat against this country.
He joins us tonight from Chicago.
Michael, good to have you here.
MICHAEL MOORE, AUTHOR, "DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY?": Thanks for having me, Lou.
DOBBS: The idea, first...
MOORE: There is a terrorist threat here in Chicago, though. It's called the Florida Marlins.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: And they're giving it a bit of a run. And that will be taken up and resolved, at least part of it, later.
Let's start with your incessant calls for regime change, as you put it, for the Bush administration. George Bush is a nice guy. He's been very effective, to this point, in a host of ways. Why would you single him for your particular brand of torture and criticism?
MOORE: Because he's a serial liar, to start with. He lied to the country about weapons of mass destruction, about chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, about Saddam Hussein having something to do with September 11, and on and on and on and on and on.
DOBBS: Well...
MOORE: The American people don't like being lied to, no matter what their political stripe is. That's just the core value of us Americans.
DOBBS: And which party would you suggest they should turn to, Michael, for this resplendent virtue that you seem to hold so dear and find so absent in the Republican Party and President Bush?
MOORE: Yes. Yes.
I know what you're getting at. The Democrats aren't much better.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: Well, I didn't say that. I was just wondering how you thought about it.
MOORE: Well, here's what I think.
I think, first of all, there are a number of good Democrats that are running this time around that are honest and will, I think, do the job much better than George W. Bush, certainly will bring an end to this war and get the country back on the right track.
DOBBS: Which of them, Michael, most embraces your views, of the nine? Have you made a decision?
MOORE: No, I haven't made a decision. But Clark is good. Dean's good, Kucinich. Even Al Sharpton, just for human purposes -- and I mean that in a good way -- is good to have in the debates.
DOBBS: Well, you've cut the list by about 45 percent there.
MOORE: I'll say something good about all of them, actually, except Lieberman.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Why Lieberman?
MOORE: Each of them -- well, that's -- Lieberman is what has been wrong with the Democrats in the past. Lieberman is a Republican posing as a Democrat.
If the Democrats want to win, they've got to get some backbone and some spine and start acting like Democrats and not Republicans. People who like Republicans already have a party. It's called the Republican Party. These (CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: You're not much of a new Democrat. I thought you were kind of excited about President Bill Clinton.
MOORE: Well, Clinton did a lot of good things and he did a lot of things I didn't like. But these Democrats that are running, at least, I think, the majority of them, are even better than that. And so...
DOBBS: Well, let's talk about some of these candidates and which sort of embrace your views or don't and get your views on a few things.
One, some of the more important issues, which of these candidates do you think is talking most seriously about issues of population growth in this country, what it's doing to our natural resources, what it's doing to our society?
MOORE: I don't know much about population growth. Are you accusing me of something or...
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: No, no, not at all, Michael.
Let's talk about illegal immigration, illegal aliens.
MOORE: Oh. Oh.
DOBBS: Maybe eight million to 10 million of them in the country. What do you think we should do there?
MOORE: Oh, there's more than eight million to 10 million. Actually, I think most of our forefathers came here in some way, shape or form...
DOBBS: No, no, Michael, I said illegal.
MOORE: Oh, that's what I mean. I think a lot of people, a lot of our ancestors got here by any means necessary, many of them illegally. And so now we have a new crop of people who are here -- quote -- "illegally." And
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: So you're not concerned about border security or our national immigration policy?
MOORE: No, no. Actually, I welcome people to come to this country. It's a large country. If you've ever driven across Kansas, you know there's lots of room.
(LAUGHTER)
MOORE: And I'm not worried about people who choose to come here and work hard to clean our floors, pick our fruit, and do all the jobs none of us want to do.
So I don't know why we want to punk on these people. Lou, this is the part I don't get. Why do we as Americans -- or at least some Americans -- want to punish the people who are the least among us? That is not the way I think most of us were raised. We should hold out a helping hand to those who are trying to make a better life, I think.
DOBBS: Yes. I think you and I would agree this country has a remarkable record of generosity in nearly all respects, internationally, with immigration.
But, at the same time, you talk about the people most deprived in this country, they are the people also most suffering as a result of very depressed wages because of illegal immigration. And it's something that no one wants seemingly to touch in politics. They'd rather repair to some sort of soulful refrain about opening our arms. We've opened our arms.
MOORE: How about this? How about this? Why don't we all agree that we need to raise the minimum wage? Wouldn't you agree with that, that the minimum wage has been too low for too long? Wouldn't that be a big help to people on the lower end of things?
DOBBS: I think that it would in some cases, in others, not, particularly the imposition that it might put on some small businesses.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: If you and I were going to negotiate, I would say to you that it doesn't mat what the minimum wage is, so long as you have a constant flow of one million illegal immigrants into the country every year that will work for lower wages, doing so now. And it continues to depress it. And I know you support labor unions, but they have this bizarre philosophy that they are going to endorse illegal aliens, at the same time, trying to protect jobs. I don't know if it's worked. Do you?
MOORE: Yes.
I don't think large corporations really want to get rid of illegal aliens, because, again, the economy would not function without their slave labor.
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: So it's kind of a moot point.
DOBBS: Well, oddly enough, it won't be moot as long as you and a number of other people keep focusing on the issues. And you do so with great humor. And I always enjoy talking with you. We don't often agree, but there are those moments, this probably one of them.
Michael Moore...
MOORE: Yes. This actually is a tender moment between you and I. And I want to thank you for having me on the show.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: Well, Michael, thank you very much. And I appreciate your time. Appreciate it. Good luck with the book.
MOORE: Thank you very much, Lou. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
DOBBS: Coming up next, Christine Romans will have the market. We'll share your thoughts on our series of special reports, "A Crowded Nation," and what the politicians in Washington aren't doing about it.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll: Whose view of situation in Iraq do you believe most? Eleven percent said the Bush administration; 26 percent said congressional Democrats; 19 percent said the media; 44 percent said the United Nations.
On Wall Street, the major stock indexes rose to new highs for the year. The Dow up almost 49 points. The Nasdaq gained almost 10. The S&P up 4.
Christine Romans with the market.
The good times continue.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They are.
The Dow topped 9800 here, year-and-a-half highs for some of the major averages, Lou, solid earns from Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Intel, Bank of America; 60 S&P 500 companies have reported, showing profit growth of more than 17 percent.
But the buzz on the trading floor was not just earnings. The specialist system is under fire. Fidelity joined the criticism of the way the NYSE does business, fidelity urging the stock exchange to model itself after the electronic Nasdaq.
And the California controller agreed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE WESTLY, CALIFORNIA CONTROLLER: Obviously, it would be a seismic shift at the New York Stock Exchange, but I think the handwriting is on the wall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: The NYSE is the only exchange with the system, said the electronic trading should be faster and more efficient and would remove conflicts of interest. Such high-profile criticism knocked down the specialist stocks. Look at LaBranche and Van Der Moolen. The electronic market stocks, Instinet and Knight, rallied.
Now, pension managers urged swift and broad reform at the stock exchange after a meeting today with Big Board chief John Reed. They expect Reed to cut the unwieldy board by 10, give the public a bigger voice. And that on the table is a proposal to split the chairman and CEO role. And Steve Westly, that the California controller saying, he thinks splitting off the regulatory control of the exchange is also still on the table.
DOBBS: It should be, if it's not. Christine, thanks -- Christine Romans.
Taking a look now at your thoughts.
From Riverton, Utah: "Lou Dobbs and his staff are currently the only news analysts really taking a hard look at the root causes of many of our economic and business problems today. Thank you for looking at all sides" -- Sid Halford.
From Charlotte, North Carolina: "Your series on 'A Crowded Nation' is right on the money. I wish somebody would name just one other country as stupid as ours. The politicians only want votes, and to hell with the welfare of the rest of us" -- M. Stastny.
From Knoxville, Tennessee: "Mr. Dobbs, every individual is responsible for how many they reproduce, regardless of religion, beliefs, income and race. Every individual should focus on the quality of life. How can I provide, lead and educate?" -- that from Ginger Moore.
And from Lagunitas, California: "Your series on 'A Crowded Nation' reveals the most important issue facing our quality of life, our children and all future generations. This issue increasingly underlies our economic and environmental problems. Neither political party and no politician is willing to confront this problem, as they seem to regard more people as offering more votes or more cheap labor" -- that from Daniel Brown.
From Conway, Arkansas: "Lou, your report of overpopulation of the United States raised unjustified fears. Arkansas has only two million people. And we would welcome those extra three million people a year. Our vacancy sign is on, and we welcome them" -- David Baker.
And from Rockport, Texas: "Lou, just wanted to thank you for an outstanding job that you and your crew do on your show. It's humbling to know that someone out there cares about the American work force" -- Jeff McMurray.
From Los Angeles: "We just set up a season pass for LOU DOBBS TONIGHT on our TiVo. Now we'll never miss a broadcast. Keep up the good reporting."
Well, thank you. And on behalf of everyone here, I assure you, we'll keep trying to earn that season pass.
We love hearing from you. Please e-mail us at LouDobbs@CNN.com. That's our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us.
Tomorrow, in our special report "A Crowded Nation," our booming population growth is leading to water shortages in both the West and parts of the South. We'll be joined tomorrow night by Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. And as we approach the expected launch of China's first manned space station, we'll be joined by Professor Joan Johnson-Freese of the Naval War College to discuss military implications of the Chinese space program.
For all of us here, good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Workers Strike Over Health Care Benefits; Interview With Michael Moore>
Aired October 14, 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 Tuesday, October 14. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening.
Tonight: A high-ranking government official launched a blistering attack on the media and the way in which the media is covering the war in Iraq. Commerce Secretary Don Evans, who is in Baghdad, said Iraq is not the dismal, frightening place portrayed by news organizations. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan also criticized the media. He said the American people are not being told the full story about Iraq.
But Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stayed out of public view. He canceled a scheduled news conference in Washington.
White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reports.
We apologize. We obviously are having audio problems. We'll be returning to Suzanne Malveaux at the White House on that story in just a matter of moments, we hope. Our apologies.
The war goes on in Iraq. At least two people were wounded in Baghdad today in another suicide bomb attack, the target today, the Turkish Embassy. Many Iraqis oppose Turkey's decision to send as many as 10,000 troops into Iraq.
Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, has the report -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, as the U.S. adopts tougher security measures, once again, the target of the enemies of the United States are those who are helping the U.S. forces in Iraq.
Today, the target was the Turkish Embassy. And again the weapon was a suicide bomber. A single driver approached the concrete barriers outside the embassy. A bomb exploded. There was conflicting reports about how many casualties. According to the U.S., only the bomber was killed. And there were only minor miner injuries inside the Turkish Embassy. Witnesses, however, claim that eight people were wounded and two were killed, including the bomber.
This attack was stopped basically by a concrete barrier which absorbed most of the force of the blast. And a coalition military spokesman said that the embassy security there had been enhanced last week, after what he called a walk-in informant delivered information that there could be a possible explosion there.
But, again, on a day when the administration sought to highlight the achievements in Iraq, once again a bad news story coming out of the capital of Iraq, an attack against the Turkish Embassy. And, as you said, the Turkish Parliament decision to deploy troops to Iraq has been unpopular, both in some quarters in Iraq and also in Turkey itself, again complicating the situation -- Lou.
DOBBS: Jamie, has the Pentagon explained why Turkey is being sought for its troops? The relationship, obviously, between the Turks and the Kurds not good, the Iraqi council protesting the use of Turkish troops, and, again, the Kurds important allies in the war against Saddam Hussein. The reasoning behind this decision?
MCINTYRE: Well, there's a very strong feeling among the U.S. military commanders that they need a -- quote -- "Muslim face" on some of the security force. And troops from a NATO ally, Turkey, that's a Muslim nation, they believe would be helpful.
Obviously, it would increase tensions in the north, where the Kurds are. And there's been longtime tensions there. But the plan is to deploy troops in central Iraq in an area that would free up some U.S. troops to concentrate more on what's going on in Baghdad. And, of course, the United States is anxious to get commitments from as many other countries as possible to send a substantial number of troops. So they're very happy to have those Turkish troops there.
But it does raise a question of whether it's going to increase tension, as well as perhaps give the United States some help with security.
DOBBS: Jamie, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld again today staying out of public view. Is there any sense of what the reasoning is at the Pentagon?
MCINTYRE: Well, the explanation we were given was simply that his schedule was overloaded. He needed to go to the White House for a principals meeting, and that scheduled press meeting dropped off his schedule. We're told to expect that he'll be out talking to us again soon, although they haven't rescheduled that briefing yet.
DOBBS: OK, Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Let's turn now to the White House, the site of that principals meeting today, and also, of course, the White House, the administration, launching a blistering attack against the national media for its coverage of Iraq.
We turn now to Suzanne Malveaux -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, now the White House is on the offensive about its public relations offensive. It was just yesterday that President Bush complained about his story about the progress in Iraq was not getting out. He also has said that the Americans are not getting the truth when it comes to this story. That's why the White House went around and bypassed what he called the national media filter to give exclusive interviews to five reporters of regional outlets who normally don't cover the White House.
What has happened now, well, it's opened an active debate whether the blame-the-media aspect of this White House strategy is going to be effective. The White House today made no apologies about it, White House spokesman Scott McClellan defending the administration, saying it's absolutely necessary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: So there's a lot of important progress being made. And it's important for the American people to hear that story. There is a part of the story that is not getting the attention that we believe that it should receive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: And now, this week, the White House, all officials on message, unlike, last week, where there were divisions that erupted between the White House, as well as the Defend Department, over what role people were going to play inside of Iraq when it comes to reconstruction. There were even Democrats and Republicans calling for the president to take charge of the situation.
Well, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in a briefing about the president's trip to Asia, made it very clear that she is putting this controversy to rest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I want to be very clear. I'm the national security adviser. What I do is coordinate policy. I don't operate. I don't implement. I coordinate policy. It is the secretary of defense who will continue to run the postwar reconstruction, as he has done and as he has done well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: So, Lou, this is a White House that is making no apologies about how it's handling the situation, no apologies about its strategy. They say that they will call out the media when they feel that they're not being fair -- Lou.
DOBBS: And, Suzanne, for Condoleezza Rice, this is a considerable retreat from the position that was advanced early last week, is it not?
MALVEAUX: Well, Condoleezza Rice, speaking about this for the first time publicly, saying that her role was very clear from the very beginning. But, as you know, of course, it was Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who had to do a bit of backpedaling when it came to describing just how Secretary Rumsfeld was informed, how much he was informed, about this whole Iraq Stabilization Group. We heard from Rumsfeld last week saying that he was not informed adequately. So that was a dispute that spilled out in the airwaves. They certainly were not happy about that. They wanted to patch that all up.
DOBBS: And is there something to patch up in the case of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who today canceled an appearance and was not seen in public today?
MALVEAUX: Well, Jamie would be in a better position to actually get the motives behind Rumsfeld's cancellation. We do know that it's fairly typical that they have principal meetings here at the White House. It wouldn't be unusual that the secretary would be meeting with the other principals.
But, then again, it's unusual that he has stayed out of limelight for that long.
DOBBS: No ruminations out the White House or amongst the staff that you know of?
MALVEAUX: Well, at this point, what they're trying to do, Lou, is really bury all of this and move on.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Yes, but our job is to dig it up. We know they'll try to bury it, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. And that is something everybody has been working on.
One of the points that the national media has raised is the fact that access to the president has been rather limited. And that's something that we have been fighting for, for some time. Yes, the president wants a break from us to deal with the regional media, to do with friendly audiences. But the whole point being is that, the more you have access to the media, the more they can give a fair and balanced picture of what's actually happening.
DOBBS: An interesting construction, Suzanne. Thank you very much -- Suzanne Malveaux from the White House. Thank you.
Well, we'll be discussing this issue on the role of the media and its coverage of Iraq. We'll be talking with three of the leading national political reporters from Washington later in the show.
Tonight, labor disputes at three supermarket chains from California to West Virginia are disrupting the lives of millions. Tens of thousands of grocery workers are on picket lines. And there are signs that this strike is escalating.
Bill Tucker is here now and has the report for us -- Bill. BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the issue at the heart of these disputes are health care benefits. The companies say they want the employees to pay. The union says, no.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER (voice-over): That anger is about health care benefits. Ralph's, Bond's (ph) and Albertsons want their employees to take on part of the burden of their health care costs. Those workers pay nothing towards those costs now. The company wants them to pay $5 for individual coverage and $15 per week for family coverage.
GREG DENIER, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS: It's not about a few dollars a week kicked in. The companies are not that foolish to take a strike over that and workers are not foolish enough to risk their livelihoods over that. These are real things. These about the future of health care benefits in this country.
TUCKER: But the companies say health care costs have risen 50 percent over the last four years and to, remain competitive, they have to control costs. The president of Ralph's putting out a statement, saying that the typical industry margins are just 2 percent, leaving the company little room to compete with lower-cost operators.
But with union workers at Kroger stores in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky going out on the picket line, the anger is spreading.
PROTESTERS: We're going to roll! We're going to roll! We're going to roll the union on!
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: The anger over health care benefits is not limited to the Food Workers Union. Deputies in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office are staging a sick-out over health benefits in their contract talks. And mechanics for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority worked off their jobs over health care -- Lou.
DOBBS: Health care benefits critically important. In each instance, though, these supermarket chains have seen their profits rise. They have seen the productivity of these workers increase as well. What's the reason for holding back?
TUCKER: They're saying they simply can't afford it. They're facing lower-cost competitors and they have to be in a position to do it.
But you're right, profits at Safeway up 15 percent on average over 15 years, same sort of numbers at Kroger as well -- productivity up 40 percent. And the workers want their just dues for that.
DOBBS: And the principal competitor that they fear in this case?
TUCKER: The one they fear the most is Wal-Mart, although Wal- Mart's only 1 percent of the market.
DOBBS: In Southern California.
TUCKER: In Southern California.
DOBBS: Nationwide, quite a different story, the largest grocer in the country. Bill Tucker, thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: This wave of strikes is a sign that many American workers are becoming increasingly frustrated with their jobs, their work and with the demands of their employers.
Peter Viles is here now and has that part of the story for us -- Pete.
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, one expert we talked to said that the work force in America right now looks like a pressure cooker that is ready to blow. But union membership is on the decline and it appears management still holds all the cards right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VILES (voice-over): What's wrong with this picture? Workers are supposed to be pushing their luck when the economy is strong, not when it's struggling. Yet American workers appear to be running out of patience with an economy that demands higher productivity, lavishly rewards CEOs, and yet produces no new jobs. In fact, it exports more and more jobs overseas.
THOMAS KOCHAN, MIT SLOAN SCHOOL OF MGMT.: .... who have gone to college believe that they have invested in education to get a secure job. They're now feeling the same economic pressures, the same overworking pressures and the pressure of the fear of job loss.
VILES: In a new CNN/Gallup poll, 59 percent of those polled said they were -- quote -- "angry" about the way things are going. And labor unions do not appear to have the answer. They are losing clout in the private sector.
Membership in the private sector has fallen from 16.8 percent in 1983 to just 8.7 percent last year. For workers, it is an unpredictable combination, anger, but declining influence.
GREG TARPINIAN, LABOR RESEARCH ASSN.: There's no question that American corporations hold all the cards when it comes to their relationship with their employees. The idea that you are threatened and you're insecure creates a malaise at the same time as it creates anger. So there's anger brewing, but where it goes is another question.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: This is an element that has been missing in the debate about how to fix what's wrong with corporate America. You hear so much about the need for more independent directors at these companies, but almost nothing about the need to give workers a bigger voice in running big companies -- Lou.
DOBBS: And the other part of that question, though, of course, is, why give them a voice if you don't need to?
VILES: Right. Until there's some sort of pushback -- and we may be seeing it in some of the story Bill covered -- there is no need for corporate America to respond to this.
DOBBS: And, at the same time you're presented with this situation, the unions, in this case, representing over one million workers in this country, they are the same union that is seeking to liberalize immigration laws, to give amnesty to illegal aliens, many of whom are competing at lower wages for the very jobs that the unions are trying to ostensibly protect and improve the lives of their workers. How does a union reconcile that absolute -- seeming contradict?
VILES: Well, you have the farmworkers unions pushing for immigration bills that would allow illegal farmworkers to stay in America and eventually become legal workers. I guess they figure that these people are working whether it's legal or illegal. They want to bring them in and maybe raise the boat that way, raise benefits that way.
But there is a big inconsistency here. And we don't see any sort of overreaching policies in the labor market here. We've talked a lot about how companies are sending jobs abroad, no overarching policies here.
DOBBS: OK, Pete, thank you very much.
Bill Tucker, thank you.
Tonight's quote from an L.A. County official on the 500,000 commuters in Southern California affected by the mass transit strike -- and we quote -- "These hard-working people, numbering the hundreds of thousands in our country, are going to be held hostage to a set of demands which are unreasonable and unmatchable" -- that was Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County supervisor, MTA board member.
Coming up next here: The FDA reconsiders its ban on silicone breast implants after 11 years. Medical correspondent Christy Feig reports.
And then: The sky's the limit and the victim, an explosion in population growth destroying the very air we breathe. Lisa Sylvester reports tonight in our special report, "A Crowded Nation."
And bowling for Bush. Filmmaker, author, Michael Moore's latest target, naturally, the White House. Moore calls for regime change. He's our guest next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Supreme Court today will announce that it will take on a controversial case over the Pledge of Allegiance. That case sparked outrage when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the words "under God" in the pledge made it unconstitutional.
A California man whose daughter attends a public school where the pledge is recited every day filed that lawsuit. Today, he said he expects to the court to rule in his favor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL NEWDOW, BROUGHT PLEDGE LAWSUIT: The chances of not having a favorable ruling for my camp are pretty close to nil. This case is the easiest case they're going to have. The law is clearly on my side. just read the Supreme Court's decision in establish clause law. By every single test that they've ever annunciated, sticking the two words "under God' in the middle of the pledge is clearly unconstitutional.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: In a separate case, the Supreme Court today let stand an appellate court ruling that allows doctors to recommend medical marijuana to their patients. The justices decided not to hear a White House appeal that would have allowed the government to revoke those doctors' prescription licenses.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel today began a two- day public hearing to consider ending a ban on silicone breast implants. The United States banned those implants for most women in 1992, after inconclusive reports about the safety of the implants. However, major studies have failed to prove the implants actually caused chronic illness.
CNN medical correspondent Christy Feig reports for us from Washington.
CHRISTY FEIG, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Lou.
These implants were pulled off the market in 1992 over concerns That the silicone could leak out of implants into the surrounding tissue and possibly make these women sick. A lot of women came forward, said that they were sick after they got the implants, blamed the implants for that. And a lot of the reports were anecdotal.
Nonetheless, a company called Inamed Corp. now believes, after three years of their own research, they have a safe product. And they're presenting that information to an FDA advisory committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. RONALD EHMSEN, INAMED CORPORATION: There's no increased risk of breast cancer, no increased risk of rheumatic or autoimmune disease and no negative effect on children of women with breast implants.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEIG: But for women who have had silicone breast implants, it's a contentious issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANN STANSA, FORMER BREAST IMPLANT PATIENT: I had many of the same local complications. I can't even remember how many surgeries I suffered. Silicone was found in my side, where it migrated from a broken implant.
CATHY PATEN, BREAST IMPLANT ADVOCATE: I believe firmly that women should have the option to choose saline or silicone and that they should have the risk and benefits outlined for each.
The individual receiving the product needs to have confidence in the product itself and also in the surgeon who's performing the procedure. I believe women who are well informed will make the decision that works best for them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEIG: Now, Lou, this all begs the obvious question. If these implants weren't safe enough to be on the market to begin with, how did they ever got on the market?
For that, you have to go back to 1976. That's when the FDA was given authority to regulate medical devices, such as breast implants that were already on the market. At that point, the FDA had to go along and comb through all these devices that had already been on the market and find out which posed enough risk that they would need to go through premarket approval, even though they were already on the market. Breast implants fell into this category.
They believe they posed enough of a risk that they would need to prove that these were indeed safe devices. At that point, we went through a lot of reports that came out: Silicone seems to leak from certain capsules, and things like this. In 1992, the FDA said, you know what? These things don't have enough evidence to prove that they're safe. Let's take them off the market. And that's how we got where we are today -- Lou.
DOBBS: And the studies to this point, the three-year trial, demonstrating to the FDA that they are in fact safe? That's the judgment the FDA panel will have to make?
FEIG: Absolutely. That's what Inamed presented today to this advisory committee. They said, so far, we're finding no evidence to show that these things actually cause autoimmune diseases, they don't cause cancer, things like that.
But now, what the other groups that are calling for these things to be banned are saying: You know what? We need more long-term studies. We want to see 10-year studies, 15-year studies, 20-year studies, because they say a lot of the problems that are associated with the breast implants don't occur until seven to 10 years after implantation. So they say: We need to see a lot more than three years of data before we can be assured that these are indeed safe enough to put in women's body.
DOBBS: Christy, thank you very much -- Christy Feig from Washington.
Coming up next: massive population growth in this country, the devastating effects it's having on the very air we breathe in some parts of the country. Lisa Sylvester reports tonight in our series "A Crowded Nation" next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The population of this country has more than doubled since World War II to almost 300 million people. That growth means more people on our roads, more power plants and more factories, all contributing to our pollution.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One hundred, forty-six million people -- that's just shy of half of the entire country -- live in counties with dirty air, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
This year, the smog in Los Angeles is the worst on record in seven years. And the American Lung Association estimates, 50,000 people go to the hospital every year because of pollution.
JANICE NOLEN, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION: We're looking at risks associated with heart attacks, with strokes. Plus, it aggravates asthma. It sends people to the hospital. It makes breathing harder, especially for people who already have problems breathing.
SYLVESTER: Cleaning up the nation's air is daunting, considering the nation's rapid population growth. While, overall, pollution levels have come down in the last 30 years, more people are driving longer distances.
According to the EPA, in 1970, drivers logged one trillion road miles. By 2001, that number had nearly tripled. Since, 1970 energy consumption has increased 42 percent, which means power plants, one of the main sources of pollutants, have had to increase their output.
BILL BECKER, ASSN. OF LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIALS: We need to do a much better job of regulating power plants. There are some very dirty existing power plants that have existed for 30 or more years that are spewing toxic air pollutants into our environment. And we need to clean those up.
SYLVESTER: Under the Clean Air Act, older plower plants were to install new pollution control equipment when it was time for a major overhaul, but the Environmental Protection Agency relaxed those rules this year. The EPA says the changes allow power plants to provide reliable electrical service without harming the environment.
JEFF HOLMSTEAD, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: I can say with complete confidence that the air's not going to get worse anywhere and it is the most effective way that we've ever -- that anyone has ever designed to reduce pollution from major factories.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: But environmental groups worry, now some of the older power plants will never have an incentive to install pollution controls, dimming the prospects for cleaner skies -- Lou.
DOBBS: Lisa, thanks -- Lisa Sylvester from Washington.
Tomorrow night, our special report, "A Crowded Nation." Our fast-growing population is draining the water supply in many parts of the country. And, in too many instances, drinking water may not be safe at all -- that special report here tomorrow night. Please join us.
As we reported, the White House tonight says the media is not telling the American people the full story on Iraq. The White House says the United States is making good progress in Iraq, but the public is hearing only about violence in the country.
Joining me now to discuss this issue, Roger Simon, the political editor of "U.S. News & World Report," Karen Tumulty, the national political correspondent for "TIME" magazine, and Tom DeFrank, Washington bureau chief for "The New York Daily News," joining us Washington.
Thank you, all.
Let me begin, if I may, Roger, with you. Are you surprised at the vehemence, frankly, of the P.R. campaign that the White House launched a week ago? We're celebrating a one-week anniversary here tonight.
ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": No, I'm not surprised at the vehemence.
A great deal of White House time and effort is spent on spin. And presidents have always been upset with the Washington press corps. I don't know if George Washington tried to go over the head of "Poor Richard's Almanac" or not, but it probably dates to pretty much of that time.
And I don't understand, really understand, quite the irritation of the national press. They know this is a phase that most presidents go through. They know that the regional press really isn't that terrible. There are smart people there. And it is all going to probably go back to normal within weeks.
DOBBS: Well, Karen, are you amongst those smart people who are upset or not upset? KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME": Well, I must say, I do find it ironic that the White House was not complaining about the national media when they were giving glowing coverage of our actual -- of our progress during the war itself.
The fact is that the White House laid down some expectations of what this war would produce. They suggested we would be in and out of Iraq within three months. They suggested that the oil revenues would pay to fix the damage. None of that has happened. And so I think the media's doing its job, which is measuring them against what they, themselves, had promised.
DOBBS: Tom, do you believe that the White House perhaps has a point here, that reporting, as we do on this broadcast every evening -- we look at the number of casualties, the number of Americans killed in Iraq -- do you think that we're being far too negative?
TOM DEFRANK, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": No, I don't think so, Lou.
I just have to laugh. This is the eighth administration I've covered. And they all behave the same way when they get in trouble. The tendency is to blame the messenger, when maybe they ought to be looking a little harder at the message. So I'm not upset about it. This is the way they do.
But it's very ironic to me that this is a White House that has not been particularly helpful to the press, and now they're jawboning the press. And I think they're a little over the top, but that's just the way they operate.
DOBBS: The president's approval rating has moved up significantly, according to the latest CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll. Do you think this a watershed moment for the president, that the administration turned the corner in what looked to be a weakening approval rating, Roger?
SIMON: No. I don't think a one-week bounce means much of anything. There are at least two other polls. I think one is already out today, The "Cook Political Report" poll, which shows the opposite, a continuing downward trend of the president's popularity.
And there have been rumors that the ABC/"Washington Post" that's going to be out soon is also going to show a continuing loss of popularity. Probably more important figures read at the White House than the president's approval ratings are the president's reelect numbers. And I think those are still hovering around 45 percent.
DOBBS: And, Karen, as we look at the political economy right now, we are seeing job creation for the first time in eight months. We're seeing a GDP in the most recent quarter of 3.3 percent. We are seeing a market that is simply moving much higher than even the most on optimistic savants had thought possible. What is your take on how well the president is doing right now with the economy?
TUMULTY: Well, I think that those job approval ratings in the poll yesterday were a very direct measure of the stock market, which is something that people can -- you open the paper every day and you can see how it's doing.
But the fact is, it does come against some other measures of great anxiety on the part of the public. But, look, it's a long time between now and the election. And what the president really needs to look at is not his week-to-week popularity numbers, but, again, this feeling of anxiety or lack of it on the part of the public.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask all of you -- and if I may begin with you, Tom -- we have nine Democrats out there now contesting for their party's nomination. This administration is under daily assault by one of them. How well are they doing at differentiating themselves? How well are they doing in staking a case with the American people that they should be considered, rather than the incumbent?
DEFRANK: Well, I think all of them are having problems with traction, Lou.
I think part of the problem is, from week to week, they're having to decide whether they want to attack one another or attack President Bush. They know they want to attack Bush. But when they decide they want to go after Bush, they're not sure whether they ought to go after him on the war or on the economy or both. And it's just hard in this phase before the first caucus and the first primary for any of these Democrats to be taken too seriously by most voters.
I'm one of these people who thinks that elections basically are decided by the three debates a year from now. So I think it's still premature, even though they have been out there working very hard for a very long time.
DOBBS: Amongst the issues -- and any one of you who wishes to address this, or all of you -- the issues that are critically important right now that are, at least in my judgment -- and I'd like to hear yours -- amongst them, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, productivity, frankly, the integrity of our markets, why are none of these candidates embracing these issues, because they are absolutely of bedrock importance to the working middle class in this country? Why are none of them grabbing hold of these issues and moving ahead with them?
TUMULTY: Well, I actually find it interesting, because you listen to these debates. And sometime, you would think it was 1988. I think that these candidates have taken a sharp turn towards protectionism in these debates that is quite remarkable, considering how far Bill Clinton had taken the party in the other direction.
And I think that is their first cut at trying to address those very issues that you're talking about.
DOBBS: Roger, your thoughts?
SIMON: Well, I think you have correctly identified that those issues are very important to the future of the American people. However, as Tommy said, all these candidates are trying to get traction with ordinary voters, or at least with those who vote in primaries. And a lot of those things that you have mentioned are complicated and they make people's eyes glaze over.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: We dare to be dull here, Roger.
(LAUGHTER)
SIMON: And when you are competing with the World Series and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kobe Bryant and a million other stories, candidates tend to go for red-meat, hot-button issues, if they can get those before the public and get some attention for themselves.
DOBBS: Tom, tell us it ain't so, that you have found a reservoir of hope and trust in the American people that they can handle very complicated issues. I can assure you the audience of this broadcast can.
DEFRANK: Well, it is so, Lou, sorry so say.
But you're right. And I think every candidate, every Democratic candidate could show you position papers and policy statements where they're all talking about these very critically important issues. But the bottom line at the moment is, the American people are worried about Iraq. The American people are worried about the state of the economy. And those are mega-issues at the moment. And as long as American soldiers are dying every week, as long as the jobless numbers are iffy, I think that's going to be the focus of the American voter for now.
But, remember, it's 13 months between now and the election.
DOBBS: And, of course, national security will always be primary with any voter. But when you talk about the jobless in this country, all of that is so critically related to trade issues and to immigration issues that, hopefully, we will see politicians of both stripes, Democrat and Republican, take up soon.
We thank you for taking up all of these issues here today, Tom DeFrank, Karen Tumulty, Roger Simon. Thank you so much.
TUMULTY: Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: That brings us to tonight's poll. The question: Whose view of the situation in Iraq do you believe most, that of the Bush administration, congressional Democrats, the media, or the United Nations? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll have results a little later here in the show.
Tonight's thought is on partisan politics: "Those who think all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes. They do not consider that disproportion destroys a state" -- Aristotle.
Coming up next: The Catholic Church has seen rapid growth in recent years, despite a rash of scandals, changing demographics. But, in this country, the growth is largely contained to one segment of the population. Kitty Pilgrim reports on the growing number of Catholics in America.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Vatican today said Pope John Paul II has no intention of stepping down, despite rising concerns about his health. Over the past several weeks, the pope has been unable to finish some of his speeches because his Parkinson's disease causes him to slur words. Tomorrow, the Vatican begins a weeklong festival to celebrate the pope's 25th anniversary as pontiff.
The pope's declining health comes as the number of Catholics is declining in Europe, a host of challenges facing the church. However, despite the enormous scandal over sexual misconduct within the church in America, the number of Catholics in this country has increased since he became pontiff.
Kitty Pilgrim is here now and has the story for us -- Kitty.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, since Pope John Paul II took over, the number of Catholics have skyrocketed to more than one billion worldwide. And in this country, one million infants are baptized a year.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you.
SYLVESTER (voice-over): Nearly one-quarter of all Americans, 23 percent exactly, are Catholic, up 33 percent since the young John Paul II took on the job of pope.
FATHER RICHARD JOHN NEUHAUS, INST. ON RELIGION & PUBLIC LIFE: The Catholic Church in the United States is far and away the largest and most rapidly growing religious community in America, far and away. There's not even anybody within hailing distance in terms of its size and the rapidity of its growth.
SYLVESTER: Sixty-six million American Catholics contribute about $6 billion to the church, attending mass in more than 19,000 parishes across the country.
But it doesn't end with mass. More than two million grade school and high school students are educated in Catholic schools; 17 percent of hospital admissions in the country are to Catholic hospitals. And seven million people receive services from Catholic charities.
Catholics in America are multinational. You can hear a mass in Spanish, Vietnamese or German. Nearly 40 percent of all American Catholics are Hispanic. In fact, nearly three-quarters of the growth of the Catholic Church in America has come from Hispanics.
Pope John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in more than 400 years, coming to America with a strength and vigor, at first touring the Northeast, then, in successive trips, traveling through the South and West in the mid-1980 and '90s. His more than 100 trips to countries all over the world reach out to many cultures. For Americans, with the largest community of Jews outside of the holy land, many say his approach to the Jewish religion was healing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After two millennia of bad feelings between Catholics and Jews, this pope made that happen through his visit of the synagogue in Rome, his visit to the death camps in Europe, establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, going to the Holy Wall and praying there. He's go to be remembered for this for centuries, because this is a millennial change in attitudes in church history.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, with the recent church scandals, there is perhaps the perception that the American Catholic Church is in some kind of decline. A look at the numbers shows that's anything but the case; 585 new parishes were created last year alone -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much -- Kitty Pilgrim.
Well, coming up next here, controversial filmmaker, author Michael Moore on his new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" and why he says the French are the very best friends this country has ever had. Michael Moore is next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Filmmaker, author Michael Moore has been an outspoken critic of corporate America, the media, the gun lobby, the Bush administration, especially the Bush administration. In his new book, "Dude, Where is My Country?" -- actually, it's "Where's My Country?" -- Moore calls for regime change in Washington. He claims, among other things, that there is no terrorist threat against this country.
He joins us tonight from Chicago.
Michael, good to have you here.
MICHAEL MOORE, AUTHOR, "DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY?": Thanks for having me, Lou.
DOBBS: The idea, first...
MOORE: There is a terrorist threat here in Chicago, though. It's called the Florida Marlins.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: And they're giving it a bit of a run. And that will be taken up and resolved, at least part of it, later.
Let's start with your incessant calls for regime change, as you put it, for the Bush administration. George Bush is a nice guy. He's been very effective, to this point, in a host of ways. Why would you single him for your particular brand of torture and criticism?
MOORE: Because he's a serial liar, to start with. He lied to the country about weapons of mass destruction, about chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, about Saddam Hussein having something to do with September 11, and on and on and on and on and on.
DOBBS: Well...
MOORE: The American people don't like being lied to, no matter what their political stripe is. That's just the core value of us Americans.
DOBBS: And which party would you suggest they should turn to, Michael, for this resplendent virtue that you seem to hold so dear and find so absent in the Republican Party and President Bush?
MOORE: Yes. Yes.
I know what you're getting at. The Democrats aren't much better.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: Well, I didn't say that. I was just wondering how you thought about it.
MOORE: Well, here's what I think.
I think, first of all, there are a number of good Democrats that are running this time around that are honest and will, I think, do the job much better than George W. Bush, certainly will bring an end to this war and get the country back on the right track.
DOBBS: Which of them, Michael, most embraces your views, of the nine? Have you made a decision?
MOORE: No, I haven't made a decision. But Clark is good. Dean's good, Kucinich. Even Al Sharpton, just for human purposes -- and I mean that in a good way -- is good to have in the debates.
DOBBS: Well, you've cut the list by about 45 percent there.
MOORE: I'll say something good about all of them, actually, except Lieberman.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Why Lieberman?
MOORE: Each of them -- well, that's -- Lieberman is what has been wrong with the Democrats in the past. Lieberman is a Republican posing as a Democrat.
If the Democrats want to win, they've got to get some backbone and some spine and start acting like Democrats and not Republicans. People who like Republicans already have a party. It's called the Republican Party. These (CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: You're not much of a new Democrat. I thought you were kind of excited about President Bill Clinton.
MOORE: Well, Clinton did a lot of good things and he did a lot of things I didn't like. But these Democrats that are running, at least, I think, the majority of them, are even better than that. And so...
DOBBS: Well, let's talk about some of these candidates and which sort of embrace your views or don't and get your views on a few things.
One, some of the more important issues, which of these candidates do you think is talking most seriously about issues of population growth in this country, what it's doing to our natural resources, what it's doing to our society?
MOORE: I don't know much about population growth. Are you accusing me of something or...
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: No, no, not at all, Michael.
Let's talk about illegal immigration, illegal aliens.
MOORE: Oh. Oh.
DOBBS: Maybe eight million to 10 million of them in the country. What do you think we should do there?
MOORE: Oh, there's more than eight million to 10 million. Actually, I think most of our forefathers came here in some way, shape or form...
DOBBS: No, no, Michael, I said illegal.
MOORE: Oh, that's what I mean. I think a lot of people, a lot of our ancestors got here by any means necessary, many of them illegally. And so now we have a new crop of people who are here -- quote -- "illegally." And
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: So you're not concerned about border security or our national immigration policy?
MOORE: No, no. Actually, I welcome people to come to this country. It's a large country. If you've ever driven across Kansas, you know there's lots of room.
(LAUGHTER)
MOORE: And I'm not worried about people who choose to come here and work hard to clean our floors, pick our fruit, and do all the jobs none of us want to do.
So I don't know why we want to punk on these people. Lou, this is the part I don't get. Why do we as Americans -- or at least some Americans -- want to punish the people who are the least among us? That is not the way I think most of us were raised. We should hold out a helping hand to those who are trying to make a better life, I think.
DOBBS: Yes. I think you and I would agree this country has a remarkable record of generosity in nearly all respects, internationally, with immigration.
But, at the same time, you talk about the people most deprived in this country, they are the people also most suffering as a result of very depressed wages because of illegal immigration. And it's something that no one wants seemingly to touch in politics. They'd rather repair to some sort of soulful refrain about opening our arms. We've opened our arms.
MOORE: How about this? How about this? Why don't we all agree that we need to raise the minimum wage? Wouldn't you agree with that, that the minimum wage has been too low for too long? Wouldn't that be a big help to people on the lower end of things?
DOBBS: I think that it would in some cases, in others, not, particularly the imposition that it might put on some small businesses.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: If you and I were going to negotiate, I would say to you that it doesn't mat what the minimum wage is, so long as you have a constant flow of one million illegal immigrants into the country every year that will work for lower wages, doing so now. And it continues to depress it. And I know you support labor unions, but they have this bizarre philosophy that they are going to endorse illegal aliens, at the same time, trying to protect jobs. I don't know if it's worked. Do you?
MOORE: Yes.
I don't think large corporations really want to get rid of illegal aliens, because, again, the economy would not function without their slave labor.
(CROSSTALK)
MOORE: So it's kind of a moot point.
DOBBS: Well, oddly enough, it won't be moot as long as you and a number of other people keep focusing on the issues. And you do so with great humor. And I always enjoy talking with you. We don't often agree, but there are those moments, this probably one of them.
Michael Moore...
MOORE: Yes. This actually is a tender moment between you and I. And I want to thank you for having me on the show.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: Well, Michael, thank you very much. And I appreciate your time. Appreciate it. Good luck with the book.
MOORE: Thank you very much, Lou. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
DOBBS: Coming up next, Christine Romans will have the market. We'll share your thoughts on our series of special reports, "A Crowded Nation," and what the politicians in Washington aren't doing about it.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll: Whose view of situation in Iraq do you believe most? Eleven percent said the Bush administration; 26 percent said congressional Democrats; 19 percent said the media; 44 percent said the United Nations.
On Wall Street, the major stock indexes rose to new highs for the year. The Dow up almost 49 points. The Nasdaq gained almost 10. The S&P up 4.
Christine Romans with the market.
The good times continue.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They are.
The Dow topped 9800 here, year-and-a-half highs for some of the major averages, Lou, solid earns from Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Intel, Bank of America; 60 S&P 500 companies have reported, showing profit growth of more than 17 percent.
But the buzz on the trading floor was not just earnings. The specialist system is under fire. Fidelity joined the criticism of the way the NYSE does business, fidelity urging the stock exchange to model itself after the electronic Nasdaq.
And the California controller agreed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE WESTLY, CALIFORNIA CONTROLLER: Obviously, it would be a seismic shift at the New York Stock Exchange, but I think the handwriting is on the wall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: The NYSE is the only exchange with the system, said the electronic trading should be faster and more efficient and would remove conflicts of interest. Such high-profile criticism knocked down the specialist stocks. Look at LaBranche and Van Der Moolen. The electronic market stocks, Instinet and Knight, rallied.
Now, pension managers urged swift and broad reform at the stock exchange after a meeting today with Big Board chief John Reed. They expect Reed to cut the unwieldy board by 10, give the public a bigger voice. And that on the table is a proposal to split the chairman and CEO role. And Steve Westly, that the California controller saying, he thinks splitting off the regulatory control of the exchange is also still on the table.
DOBBS: It should be, if it's not. Christine, thanks -- Christine Romans.
Taking a look now at your thoughts.
From Riverton, Utah: "Lou Dobbs and his staff are currently the only news analysts really taking a hard look at the root causes of many of our economic and business problems today. Thank you for looking at all sides" -- Sid Halford.
From Charlotte, North Carolina: "Your series on 'A Crowded Nation' is right on the money. I wish somebody would name just one other country as stupid as ours. The politicians only want votes, and to hell with the welfare of the rest of us" -- M. Stastny.
From Knoxville, Tennessee: "Mr. Dobbs, every individual is responsible for how many they reproduce, regardless of religion, beliefs, income and race. Every individual should focus on the quality of life. How can I provide, lead and educate?" -- that from Ginger Moore.
And from Lagunitas, California: "Your series on 'A Crowded Nation' reveals the most important issue facing our quality of life, our children and all future generations. This issue increasingly underlies our economic and environmental problems. Neither political party and no politician is willing to confront this problem, as they seem to regard more people as offering more votes or more cheap labor" -- that from Daniel Brown.
From Conway, Arkansas: "Lou, your report of overpopulation of the United States raised unjustified fears. Arkansas has only two million people. And we would welcome those extra three million people a year. Our vacancy sign is on, and we welcome them" -- David Baker.
And from Rockport, Texas: "Lou, just wanted to thank you for an outstanding job that you and your crew do on your show. It's humbling to know that someone out there cares about the American work force" -- Jeff McMurray.
From Los Angeles: "We just set up a season pass for LOU DOBBS TONIGHT on our TiVo. Now we'll never miss a broadcast. Keep up the good reporting."
Well, thank you. And on behalf of everyone here, I assure you, we'll keep trying to earn that season pass.
We love hearing from you. Please e-mail us at LouDobbs@CNN.com. That's our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us.
Tomorrow, in our special report "A Crowded Nation," our booming population growth is leading to water shortages in both the West and parts of the South. We'll be joined tomorrow night by Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. And as we approach the expected launch of China's first manned space station, we'll be joined by Professor Joan Johnson-Freese of the Naval War College to discuss military implications of the Chinese space program.
For all of us here, good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Workers Strike Over Health Care Benefits; Interview With Michael Moore>
