Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
National Movement to Give Illegal Aliens the Right to Vote; November Elections To Be Monitored
Aired August 09, 2004 - 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.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, a national movement to give immigrants and illegal aliens the right to vote in our elections is building support.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADRIAN FENTY, WASHINGTON, D.C., CITY COUNCIL: efforts country is founded on taxation with representation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: We'll have a special report on the first right of citizenship.
And the world's leading democracy will for the first time ever have foreigners monitoring our presidential election. Some say this makes the United States look like corrupt Third-World countries. Others say American voters need protection.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernie Johnson and Congressman Steve Buyer will debate the issue tonight.
Both President Bush and Senator Kerry are proposing immigration reform. Still, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens pour into this country each year. Immigration and border security, two of the issues I'll be discussing with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
The FBI says al Qaeda may be planning attacks with helicopters and limousines. Tonight, Senator Chuck Hagel joins me to discuss the al Qaeda threat and how to prevent new attacks against the United States.
And the best government money can buy. The enormous power of special interests and lobbyists in Washington. Who really runs our government?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The folks who help write policy are the ones who give the money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Tonight, a special report.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Monday, August 9. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
Tonight, a national movement to give millions of immigrants and illegal aliens the right to vote in this country is gaining momentum. Until now, federal and local officials have reserved that right for U.S. citizens, but now two of the country's largest cities could soon extend the right to vote to thousands of non-citizens.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS (voice-over): The right to vote is central to the privileges of American citizenship, but Washington, D.C., Councilman Adrian Fenty is among those who want to change it. He supports a bill giving the right to vote to resident immigrants in Washington, D.C.
FENTY: This country is founded on taxation with representation, not taxation without representation. So you've got a group of residents out here who pay my salary, pay for the governments to work, but don't have any say in who runs the government.
DOBBS: Legal scholars strongly disagree.
PROF. PETER SCHUCK, YALE LAW SCHOOL: I think immigrants should not be able to vote until they have naturalized and become American citizens, but, once they have committed themselves to American society by showing a mastery of English, at least a limited level, and some understanding of the political system. Then and only then should they be able to vote.
DOBBS: Non-citizen voting is not unprecedented. Non-citizens vote in Chicago's school elections. Even illegal aliens are allowed to vote in Tacoma Park, Maryland. In San Francisco, voters will decide in November whether non-citizens, including illegal aliens, should be allowed to vote in school elections.
Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado says it's essential for immigrants to go through the citizenship process to earn the right to vote.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: This is one of the things that we provide people to go through a very laborious process. It's very difficult to do. It's also a mark of citizenship. We should not be simply casually handing this out because what we are doing is essentially destroying the whole concept of citizenship in this country.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Congressman Tancredo says the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the Government Reform Committee have promised that the U.S. Congress will override any local legislation that would give immigrants the right to vote in the nation's capital city.
The United States is the world's leading democracy, but some people in this country and overseas say our elections deserve as much scrutiny as elections in corrupt Third-World countries. For the first time ever, an international monitoring group will be watching over our presidential election.
Bill Tucker has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): What do Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania, Croatia and Kosovo have in common? Doubts exist about the ability of those countries to conduct fair and open elections.
Some Democrats in Congress apparently think the same is true of the United States. They've called from observers for the United Nations to monitor our presidential elections. In response, the State Department has invited in election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a group that America belongs to, along with European and Central Asian countries.
ADAM EREL, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: This is not a question of whether there's a free and fair election in the United States. This is a question of an agreement among all states of the OSCE that it is right and appropriate in the interest of transparency and equity and -- for all of us at various times to look at each other's elections.
TUCKER: It won't be the first time they've looked at the U.S. elections. The group sent in 10 observers and monitored the midterm elections in 2002.
Calling in outside observers is not risk-free, though. It's a move that some think could backfire on the Democrats.
JOHN SAMPLES, CATO INSTITUTE: The big risk is the one that, in fact, a lot of voters might find this insulting. It's sort of saying let's bring in the Europeans, let's have them control or watch over American democracy because we can't do it.
TUCKER: Still, some would argue having the OSCE monitor elections is not nearly as potentially insulting as having U.N. monitors at the polls.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now will there be monitors in every state? Not likely. A small group will come to the United States in mid September to assess the situation and decide how many observers to send in November.
One final note, Lou. The OSCE does not certify any elections. It simply observes.
DOBBS: Simply observes. The 2002 midterm elections. Also, the California election last year was observed by the OSCE. I don't recall what their position was. How did we do?
TUCKER: Substantial improvement since the election of 2000, Lou.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: A low base, as it were.
Bill Tucker, thank you very much.
Well, my next two guests heavily involved in the issue of observers, foreign, international observers monitoring U.S. elections.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat of Texas and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, joins us. She sees this decision as only a partial victory. She spearheaded the effort to get observers from the United Nations.
And we're joined tonight by Congressman Steve Buyer, Republican of Indiana, who tried to block the United States from being involved in this election. The congressman says it's fine for the OSCE to observe our election, as long as it doesn't play a role in the electoral process.
Thank you both for being here.
And, Congresswoman, let me begin with you. The idea that some people might take away from this -- that we are a Third-World nation to have international observers monitoring our elections. Why is it necessary, in your judgment?
REP. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D), TEXAS: It is necessary because people all over this country -- I didn't do this out of a whim. I did this out of extreme numbers of requests. People don't trust our electoral system right now. They didn't trust it in 2000 after they saw what happened. We must make sure that citizens...
I heard your opening comment about the non-citizens voting. We have not yet provided for our citizens to vote without intimidation and have those votes counted. That's all that we're asking for.
We monitor elections all over the world, and we have been told just recently that we write the rules for the world, we enforce them for the world and ignore them ourselves, and that's what I want to change.
DOBBS: Congressman Buyer, the congresswoman makes an excellent point. We had people disenfranchised in 2000.
REP. STEVE BUYER (R), INDIANA: I think that's false.
DOBBS: You do?
BUYER: That is false.
JOHNSON: I think...
BUYER: After an 18-month...
JOHNSON: ... you've been asleep the last four years.
DOBBS: I'm sorry, Congressman. Go ahead.
BUYER: After an 18-month investigation in Florida, only two people gave public testimony that they were actually denied their right to vote. So it's sort of a false issue that's being placed out there. I have a different take on this, Lou.
DOBBS: OK.
BUYER: My take on this is that America is an open and transparent society, and we set the pace for other countries, and the reason the United States -- in 1990, we had a change in Europe. So many of these former Warsaw Pact countries were very new infant republics, and the formation here of 55 nations of which the United States is part of...
Yes, we want to help these new republics in their electoral process, and, at the same time, since we're so open and transparent in our country, I think it's permissible for people to come in as observers for our electoral process. But it is appalling that members of Congress would abdicate their responsibility to have the United Nations come in to have -- to monitor our electoral process and access the validity.
One hundred sixty-one Democrats voted for that to happen, and I think that was pretty appalling for them to do that.
DOBBS: Congresswoman...
JOHNSON: You know...
DOBBS: May I just respond to the congressman, quickly?
JOHNSON: Sure.
DOBBS: This is simply -- I don't want to get into a debate on this specific issue, but estimates that I've seen of votes that were failed to be counted in the 200 election alone rose to four million nationwide.
BUYER: Lou -- Lou, can...
DOBBS: Now whether you want to call that disenfranchisement or simply at the margin of error...
BUYER: It is not. Lou...
JOHNSON: You know, let me just say that...
BUYER: Lou, let's -- Lou -- can I respond to this, Lou?
DOBBS: Surely.
BUYER: Because it's not disenfranchisement. I spent three weeks during the Florida recount. A hundred fifty-seven thousand votes -- ballots were thrown out in Florida. Now those were not disenfranchisement ballots.
DOBBS: OK. Congressman, that's why...
BUYER: They were...
DOBBS: ... I said I didn't want to get into a side issue.
BUYER: No, this is -- Lou -- Lou...
DOBBS: That's not the point at hand. I'm just saying -- Congressman, we'll take this up on another issue. I'm taking up the congresswoman's time, and I want to apologize to her.
BUYER: All right. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
DOBBS: But I did want to put that on the record.
Congresswoman, the idea that the United States -- we have a Justice Department. We have voting rights guarantees. Why do we need...
JOHNSON: You are exactly right. You are exactly right, except that the trust of the voters is not -- does not rest with this administration, and they do not trust our Justice Department, unfortunately.
Hopefully, there will be a day when people who have struggled and went through all kind of activities until we finally got the Voters' Rights Act in 1965, it has never worked perfectly, it probably won't ever work perfectly, but we sure want it to work where we can believe in what the results were.
This is not Democrat or Republican. I'm accustomed to losing -- Mr. Buyer probably can tell you that -- because they have a majority and they enforce that majority, if it takes six hours to count a vote, but let me assure you that we want people -- citizens to vote without intimidation and have those votes counted. We cannot say we've done that -- we did that in the last presidential election.
DOBBS: Congressman?
BUYER: Well, what I wanted to say is of the 156,000 votes in Florida, Lou, 111,000 were thrown out because people went to the ballot, and they voted for multiple votes in the presidential column. It's one person, one vote. So they spoiled their own ballot. That's not disenfranchisement. that's...
JOHNSON: It was not just Florida. It was all over the country.
BUYER: All over the country, right. People were voting five -- four, five, six people for president. You can't do that. And the others -- they chose not to vote in the presidential column.
JOHNSON: That's the fault of the ballot.
BUYER: That's called an under vote. That's not disenfranchisement of the vote. So, Lou, this issue is about the integrity of the electoral process in America. If you have -- we want people to vote, number one, make sure they have access and that it counts. We don't want criminals voting, we don't want aliens or illegal aliens voting or people multiple voting.
So it's about the integrity of the process, and it's at the local level, and that works best. So, if people want to see that, come to America and observe how it works.
DOBBS: Let me ask you both this question, see if we can reach some sort of agreement here.
BUYER: Sure.
DOBBS: One, there's great concern about paperless ballots this year. Despite the forming of the commission, everything else, we have got great concern about electronic voting machines, and, from what I've seen, there's plenty of justification for that concern because, in many cases, there will not be a paper trail for audits.
And, secondly -- secondly -- why in the world should not representatives of the United States Congress -- irrespective of whether the voters have faith or not, why should not representatives of the U.S. Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, not be coming together to assure the highest level of integrity in our voting nationwide?
BUYER: Well, I would agree with you. As a matter of fact, the DNC, the National Democrat Party, has called for 10,000 lawyers to go to every county in America. Now talk about intimidation. That's exactly what they did for six or seven canvassing boards in Florida to deny the military overseas vote, and that was appalling to America.
We -- the RNC asked the DNC to come together, and we'll bring bipartisan lawyers. Every canvassing board and election board in this country have their own lawyers. You're right. This should be a bipartisan issue, and the issue should be the integrity of the electoral process. I agree with you, Lou.
JOHNSON: Lou, let me just say this. One of the reasons why we don't trust this system is because the Republicans have crammed their opinions down our throats this whole time. We have not been able to have rational conversations, and I don't intend to give up this battle, because it's important that people in this country vote and have those votes counted. They were not counted all in 2000, and it was not just Florida.
BUYER: Lou...
JOHNSON: We have testimony from all over the country, and I don't -- these people testified under oath. There were calls from all over the country to me to write this letter, so I wrote to the OSEC -- the OS -- whatever it is. I wrote to them. I wrote to the U.N. I've written to the Justice Department. I've written another letter to the Justice Department.
I'd be happy, Mr. Buyer, to meet with the Justice Department with you and the secretary of state as well because...
DOBBS: Congress...
JOHNSON: ... this is something that people in this country feel very, very strongly about. They want their votes to count.
DOBBS: Congressman Buyer, you have the last word. I hope it's a succinct one.
JOHNSON: Well, I just believe that America has a tremendous process because we empower those at the local level, and, if people around the world want to see how we do it in this country, we welcome them. But they do not have the ability to assess the validity of our elections. The Constitution empowers the Congress and the states to do that.
DOBBS: Congressman Buyer, Congresswoman Johnson, we thank you both for being here.
BUYER: Thank you, Lou.
JOHNSON: Thank you very much, Lou.
DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Should international observers, in your opinion, be allowed to monitor American elections: Yes or no. Please cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Still ahead here, millions of illegal aliens crossing our borders. Tonight, American and Mexican governors meeting face-to-face to address the growing issues of trade, immigration and security threats at our border. New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson is my guest.
And a lesson in fraud for immigrants in the search for the American dream and a high school education.
America on Alert: the latest terrorist plot, the need for intelligence reform, and the politics of false urgency. Senate Intelligence Committee member Senator Chuck Hagel joins us coming right up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Illegal immigration and border security. Four U.S. governors, six Mexican governors today began a two-day conference on border security and trade and immigration in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
One of the key issues is the influx of illegal aliens into this country from Mexico, of course. Somewhere between eight million and 12 million illegal aliens are in the United States now. Another major issue is cross-border trade between this country and Mexico. Critics of NAFTA say free trade has benefited Mexico much more than the United States.
Joining me now from Santa Fe is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
Governor, good to have you with us.
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: The issue of -- let's begin with border security, particularly with the arrest last month of the woman suspected of having significant links to al Qaeda and international terrorist incidents. How do your counterparts in Mexico feel about this issue?
RICHARDSON: Well, border security is one issue that we'll announce today we've reached agreements on among the border states. More joint intelligence, training exercises on both sides, which hasn't happened before. As I mentioned, a lot of new equipment that both sides, with the Homeland Security Department, are working on. Both sides recognize this is an issue.
But, in one of the opening statements today, the Mexicans are concerned about the impact on commerce, on trucks, but, you know, we've got to protect or homeland here. This is a big issue for us. I think I for one -- I'm ready to discuss the immigration issue with Mexico as a border governor. We all know this is going to be put off until after the election.
Nothing's going to happen until then, but I think border security -- there is more and more consensus on both sides, especially on the Mexican sides. It was a little difficult early on.
DOBBS: Difficult early on, but the fact is, as you well know, estimates rise as high as a million illegal aliens crossing into this country each year. If you have that many illegal aliens crossing a porous border, what border security is there at all?
RICHARDSON: Well, Lou, the main emphasis is that we don't want anybody coming in here that is going to cause damage to this country. I think that's objective A, and what we have done in terms of agreements -- that we'll have more shared intelligence -- this didn't happen in the past -- more equipment, more joint exercises with our counterterrorism forces. This is major.
Now, again, look, the borders are porous. We have got to do a better job of enforcing the borders, and it's not just more Border Patrol. I think our Mexican friends have got to play a more active role here. It's been mainly the heavy lifting on our side, and I think you're going to see a lot of candid talk on both sides.
The Mexicans want an immigration agreement. Lou, I happen to think that that's better than not having one, because at least you know both sides -- where they stand.
DOBBS: Well, it's certainly better, Governor, as you say, if it leads to the objectives that are in the national interests of this country, and, of course, from your counterpoints' perspective the Mexican national interests.
But with their population rising as fast as it is and that overflow of population being transported into the United States, in particular into the border states, that national interest seems to be in conflict, isn't it?
RICHARDSON: Well, I believe if you have an accord, Lou -- say after President Bush's plan, the five years, that there is a definitive word on what happens after those immigrants are here five years, either an immigrant -- either a green card -- either some kind of status -- that's better than not knowing what happens because then you're encouraging the flight back and forth. I do think that -- I know NAFTA's a big issue with you.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
RICHARDSON: I do think we have to do a better job of bringing jobs on the American side, and, yes, trade is good for both countries, but we have got to focus on those pockets in America that have lost jobs and get the jobs to flow more into the United States. Mexico is doing very well from NAFTA.
I think it's still a plus, but, again, it's caused pollution at the border, environmental degradation, new sewers. We need infrastructure, air quality, a lot of -- you've been at the border. It's a mess, and we've got to make it better.
DOBBS: Right. And labor regulation and...
RICHARDSON: Yes, sure.
DOBBS: ... environmental protection. As we go through a host of these issues, Governor, one can't help but be struck by the fact that each of these are national issues in the case of the United States and Mexico. What can the governors realistically do about these critical national issues that frankly, as you and I both know, have been all but ignored by both this administration, the previous administration, and Congress?
RICHARDSON: Well, this meeting of the border governors, Lou, is the border governors, the states taking a more active role on energy, on issues relating to border security, in the absence of the federal government having an immigration bill, in the absence of the federal government participating in some of the big water challenges we have, in the absence of the federal government really caring about the border.
Now this is on both sides, on the Mexican side, on the American side. So this is why governors -- this is why being a governor is so much fun because you can actually do things, and, hopefully, we'll make some progress in the next two days.
DOBBS: Governor Bill Richardson, we thank you for being here.
RICHARDSON: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: Police in Texas tonight are holding an El Paso man on suspicion of human smuggling. Authorities found 79 illegal aliens crowded in the trailer of his 18-wheeler yesterday. A Fort Worth police officer stopped the truck on its way from El Paso to Dallas because it didn't have proper permits. The truck held dozens of men, women and children in a trailer that had absolutely no ventilation. Police said the illegal aliens will be returned to Mexico.
A disturbing story tonight from California about a chain of private schools trying to rewrite history, quite literally. Authorities have shut down the unaccredited schools that prey on immigrants. Those schools charge up to $1,500 for lessons that promise high school diplomas, but deliver only broken promises and misinformation.
Peter Viles reports from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Prosecutors saying in three states say a chain of private schools has been defrauding immigrants by selling worthless high school diplomas.
MARIA WILMA MORENG, "GRADUATE": I was so proud myself. My daughters -- they cry with me because it was a big graduation thing, and now I don't know how I found out, and I get so mad.
VILES: What's more, California alternative high schools charge students up for $1,450, and then allegedly taught bogus lessons: for example, that World War II really ended in 1942 -- that's three years before the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan; or that there are 53 states -- the three new ones, if you're curious, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico; and flags that show only 50 stars haven't been updated yet. And there's two Houses of Congress, the Senate for Republicans and the House for Democrats.
Prosecutors allege there were 78 of these schools in five states. Authorities in California, Nebraska and Iowa have sued to shut them down.
TOM MILLER, IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We required them to give us certain basic information to see whether they were really fulfilling their promises. They didn't provide the information, so the courts and I will shut them down until they do provide the information. They never have. They've been shut down in Iowa for months.
VILES: In California, authorities seized nearly $1 million in cash and cashier's checks from the home of principal Daniel Gossai.
BILL LOCKYER, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: These are first- generation Americans who are working hard to improve themselves and their families, and it destroys their dreams when they're taken advantage of in these ways.
VILES: The basic charge here is false advertising. The school's handbook claims it is "recognized by states and the federal government" and "authorized to confer the high school diploma." It also does contain this stamp saying clearly it is not an approved or accredited institution.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: That's basically the school's defense, it's not accredited, its students should know that, buyer beware. As for this business for the United States consisting of 53 states, well, that may be wrong, but, in California anyway, it's not illegal to teach that -- Lou.
DOBBS: Incredible.
Peter Viles, thank you very much.
Tonight's thought is on education, real education. "Education is for improving the lives of others and for leaving your community and world better than you found it." Those the words of Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund.
Still ahead here, U.S. Marines pushing closer to the stronghold of the radical Islamist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf. We'll have a report.
America on Alert: Al Qaeda may be planning attacks with helicopters and limousines. I'll be joined tonight by Senator Chuck Hagel, a leading member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
And the best government money can buy. Tonight, our special report on the extraordinary influence of lobbyists and special interests on our policymakers in Washington.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Tonight, the battle for the Iraqi City of Najaf has entered a new and potentially decisive phase. The city's governor today gave U.S. Marines permission to launch attacks in the area around the city's main mosque. The insurgents' leader, Muqtada al- Sadr, is holed up inside that mosque. Al-Sadr says he will fight to the death.
Matthew Chance reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The holy city of Najaf, now Iraq's worst battleground. In five days, U.S. forces backed by Iraqis say they've killed more than 360 Mehdi Army fighters here. They're loyal to radical Shia cleric Muqtada al- Sadr, now publicly rejecting any negotiation while U.S. troops remain.
MUQTADA AL-SADR, RADICAL SHIA CLERIC (through translator): I will continue with resistance, and I will remain in Najaf. I will not leave. I will continue to defend Najaf as it is the holiest place. I will remain in the city until the last drop of my blood has been spilled. CHANCE: In Baghdad too, the Mehdi Army is taking a stand. Inside the city, there have been terrible clashes with U.S. forces, but here the militias hijack a police station. Not a shot was fired.
Inside the barracks, they rifle through cabinets for useful equipment, body armor meant to protect the police is stolen. Still, the interim Iraqi government says it's keen to get this militia and its leader to join a political process they have so far rejected.
GEORGE SADA, IRAQI GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN: You see, always, the best solution is even not to fight. But after we fight, the best solution is to cease fire, to stop fire and make negotiations because peacemaking is the best way of stopping and finishing any conflict.
CHANCE: But there's another way, too. Fight to the end, and U.S. troops now massed in Baghdad and with full authority in Najaf may be poised to finish it.
But this confrontation has potentially explosive consequences in Iraq. Reports from Najaf say the fighting is now concentrated around the Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest shrines in Shi'a Islam, now said to be surrounded by U.S. troops.
And a wrong step could unleash among Iraq's majority Shi'a, a ferocious backlash.
Matthew Chance, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: There was tight security in major U.S. cities today after the FBI said Al Qaeda terrorists may be planning attacks in which they use helicopters and limousines. An FBI bulletin said terrorists could try to hijack helicopters and use them in suicide attacks. The FBI also said that targets could include buildings, parades, or sporting events.
Officials say they are also concerned that terrorists may use limousines packed with explosives.
Senator Chuck Hagel says there will always be room to improvement our intelligence and security systems to make this country safer from terrorist attacks. But Senator Hagel says it would be a mistake to rush into reforms dictated by our political calendar.
Senator Hagel, leading member of the Senate Intelligence Committee joins me now from Washington, D.C. Senator, good to have you here.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: The idea, as you suggested in your op-ed piece in the "The Washington Post," that we should be cautious about a sense of false urgency in reforming our intelligence operations. Do you think this is a situation of false urgency? HAGEL: Well, I don't think we want to allow it to get to a point of false urgency. There's no question we're going to have to reform and restructure our intelligence community. I think we're all in agreement.
How we do that, of course, like all these great questions of our time, is the real issue here. We have so many reports, so many opportunities to delve into the depths of how we do this, and we only have one opportunity that comes along every so many years to do this right.
The other part of this is that we should not panic the American people, Lou, in thinking that somehow if we just restructure our intelligence networks and change some boxes and put a new national intelligence director on top, we flip a switch, we pass the bill, the president signs it and we're a safer country. It doesn't work that way.
So, false expectations are important that we don't get ourselves into that, and that we can do the things that we need to do, but we need to do it right and not be forced into it because of an election timetable.
DOBBS: Your colleagues, chairmen of the committee, Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Jay Rockefeller seem to me, at least, when -- I've talked with them on this broadcast -- to be saying that they're going to have a strong influence over what -- your committee is going to have a strong influence over what does transpire.
But what do you say to people who say, "It's been three years."? We've now got the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq intelligence. We now have the 9/11 Commission report on failures. Isn't it fairly straightforward -- and your committee certainly should be at the forefront of it -- but isn't it straightforward to say we need to fix a number of these issues?
HAGEL: No question. As I said, Lou, it should be straightforward, and I believe it is. I don't think there's a member of Congress, and certainly the president laid it out, certainly Senator Kerry did, that we need to fix the problems.
But at the same time, we have to be thoughtful, and think through consequences, and not just rearrange boxes or put another bureaucracy on top of an existing bureaucracy, and think or lead the American people to believe that that's going to make us more secure and safer.
There's the right way to do this: thoughtfully, through the process, through the hearings, read the reports, get the people up in front of us, and then work it through. It doesn't have to be a year- long process. But I don't think we want to put ourselves in a position that we're captive to an election time framework.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this and we'll put as caveats that this is your personal opinion at this moment in time, subject to further consideration, but do you believe we should have a Cabinet- level director of national intelligence? HAGEL: No, I do not believe that that would be wise. I think the president laid that out very clearly the other day as to why the reasons he would not support that, nor would I. But I think the important thing is here before we all get entrenched into taking positions let's work it through. That's the point here, Lou, in not rushing into something.
I may be wrong on this, the President might be wrong on it, but let's listen to the consumers of intelligence, let's bring the former CIA directors back, secretaries of defense back, people who need it who are charged with the security of this country, ask them how we should reform it.
This isn't done in 30 days, Lou. It should take, I don't know how many months: two, three months, I don't know how long it takes. But we should go into it with a completely unbiased understanding that we need to reform, first of all, and then let's figure out how we best do it.
DOBBS: I guess the question arises, Senator Hagel, we have gone through the travail of watching the very painful at times, arduous, difficult work of the 9/11 Commission. Is their work for nothing? Their recommendations are there. Both the administration, the Republican Party, Democrats, all have embraced it.
Now what seems to be moving forward is, "Wait a minute. It has indeed been three years since 9/11, but let's not rush into this." There seems to me, at least, to be some dissidence, if you will, in this.
HAGEL: Well, I don't think that's the case, Lou. This month, the month of August, we have 20 committee hearings already scheduled. We've already had a number in the last two weeks. We'll roll into September with more committee hearings. We probably will have some in October. I don't know
But let's not just take the 9/1 Commission report -- by the way, I think it was masterfully done. This country owes the members of that commission a great debt of gratitude. But let's look at Brent Scowcroft's report that he issued in his committee three years ago; the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Warren Rudman and Gary Hart's report a few years ago, that's tremendously valuable as we start framing up a new institution to deal with the 21st century threats.
I'm not at all, Lou, minimizing the effort that went into the 9/11 Commission. They did a tremendous service to this country, but at the same time, what I'm saying is let's put some value in that and not just rush into something, because the 9/11 Commission said it.
DOBBS: Senator Chuck Hagel, thanks for being here.
HAGEL: Thanks.
DOBBS: Coming up next: who's really running things in Washington? Money talks. Powerful special-interest groups spending hundreds of millions of dollars not only talking, they're shouting, and they're being heard. Tonight we begin a week-long series of special reports: The Best Government Money Can Buy.
And in the race for the White House, an American public sharply divided. We'll be talking about the key issues likely to sway voters in this election. I'll be joined by Ron Brownstein, National Political Correspondent of the "Los Angeles Times," next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The presidential election is now less than three months away. Special-interest groups are spending hundreds of millions in contributions to the Democratic and Republican Party campaigns.
Legally, donations can't buy a favorable vote on a particular issue, but lobbyists find ways to make certain their issue becomes a priority. Tonight we begin a special report that we call: The Best Government Money Can Buy. We'll be covering that issue all week. Lisa Sylvester reports now from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The sugar industry is a lot like the lobbying industry, you reap what you sow. Flo-Sun, known as Florida Crystals, is the largest U.S. raw sugar producer. Two brothers own the company, Alfonso and Jose Fanjul. The Fanjul family and the company's executives have given nearly $3 million in political contributions to both Democrats and Republicans since 1992.
Their chief lobbyist, Wayne Berman raised nearly $100,000 for President Bush in 2000 and gave another $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney inauguration. While there is no evidence of direct quid pro quo, the brothers and the rest of the sugar industry got a sweet deal when President Bush signed the 2002 Farm Bill; $400 million in taxpayer benefits.
CHELLIE PINGREE, COMMON CAUSE: Clearly to a lot of big organizations, they get the word, and they're told, "Make your contribution and you'll be remembered after Election Day."
SYLVESTER: But campaign contributions and lobbying by agricultural interests pale in comparison to other industries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent the most lobbying Congress in 2003: $40 million. The industry received a number of business-friendly tax breaks.
The pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America spent $23 million, one result: an industry-favorable Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Home lender Freddie Mac spent nearly $22 million fighting tougher regulation. This is in addition to the nearly $8 million the three groups gave in direct campaign contributions in 2002.
CHARLES LEWIS, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: The folks who get heard, the folks who get meetings, the folks who help write policy are the ones who give the money. And anyone who thinks for a moment there's no connection is living on Neptune or something.
SYLVESTER: Hundreds of the top firms are located on K Street in Washington. In 1996, there were only 10,000 lobbyists registered with the secretary of the Senate. Today there are nearly 25,000 lobbyists.
LARRY NOBLE, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: If what you're seeing is a contribution given in return for a vote, there's a pretty simple answer: that's bribery. People go to jail for that. So it's a much more subtle process.
SYLVESTER: It's about access. That's why you often see a revolving door. Lobbying firms offering lucrative jobs to former and current members of Congress; at the same time lobbyists are seeking appointments to government positions. There are 232 former members of Congress who are currently lobbyists.
ALEX KNOTT, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: There are people that can walk onto the House and the Senate floors during a House vote and basically say, "Hey, John, I don't want you to vote for that bill." And that is extremely influential.
SYLVESTER: Last month, Congressman Jim Greenwood, who chairs the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, announced he's retiring to take a job lobbying for biotechnology.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: A Florida Crystal spokesperson said the company's philosophy is to support politicians who support agriculture, not necessarily just sugar. And in the interest of full disclosure, we should point out that Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is also a major political donor. Lou?
DOBBS: Absolutely. Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much. And, tomorrow in our special series of reports this week, The Best Government Money Can Buy, we show you how the game is played in Washington, D.C.: the many different ways in which special-interest groups funnel big money into Washington.
A reminder now to vote in our poll tonight. The question: should international observers be allowed to monitor American elections? Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results coming up later in the broadcast.
Still ahead here, President Bush and Senator Kerry fighting for the undecided vote in the election that's virtually tied. One of the nation's top political journalists, Ron Brownstein joins us.
And, a contender for the X-prize failed to reach the edge of space; didn't make it. We'll have that story in just a moment. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: A federal judge is holding a "Time Magazine" reporter in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
In an order released July 20 but released today, the judge ordered "Time" magazine's Matthew Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert to testify. NBC News said Russert had already answered some questions under oath Saturday. "Time Magazine" and Matthew Cooper, however, did not agree and intend to appeal the judge's ruling.
In tonight's campaign journal, Senator Kerry today campaigned at the Grand Canyon and promoted his plan to protect our national parks. Senator Kerry also talked about Iraq. He said knowing what he knows now, he would still have voted to support President Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have, but I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Also today, President Bush launched a new campaign tour to promote ownership. President Bush told voters in Virginia that he wants to help Americans own more, including homes, retirement plans, and businesses. The president says his tax cuts will help.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You've got to be careful about this rhetoric: we're only going to tax the rich. Yeah. You know, the rich in America happen to be the small business owners. That's what that means.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: And the intensity of this presidential campaign, according to my next guest, is both inspiring and frightening. Ron Brownstein is one of the country's top political journalists, National Political Correspondent for the "Los Angeles Times," joining us from Washington.
Ron, why is this...
RON BROWNSTEIN, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "L.A. TIMES": How are you?
DOBBS: How are you doing?
BROWNSTEIN: Good to see you.
DOBBS: Why is this, in your judgment, so frightening -- the intensity?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I say inspiring and frightening. I mean, I think it's inspiring in the sense that no one is talking about the American public being apathetic in this election.
Every sign we have is the people are engaged, polls show more people following the news closely about the election in the past -- the sheer amount of money that Senator Kerry and President Bush and the various interest groups have raised all testify to a country that is deeply involved in this election. I think that's a good thing with all the concerns we've had about participation over really the last generation.
The frightening part is it's almost -- as you go around the country and you talk to people -- it's almost as if people care too much, I think. In the end, someone is going to have to govern a very closely divided country, Lou. And that's the most likely outcome and right now --
DOBBS: You mean do what President Bush has done for the past three and a half years.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, he's going to have to try to hold together the country, perhaps have it be less polarized as it's been for the last three and a half years. And we have, I think, just such intensity of emotion on both sides, people sort of seeing almost apocalyptic consequences to this, that I think everybody has to take a deep breath and remind themselves that these two men are rivals, they are not enemies.
We have real enemies outside the country. And we need to sort of keep in mind that we are going to have to try to all get along to some extent when this is over.
DOBBS: Ron, as you point out, a deeply divided country on a host of issues over the course of the last three and a half years. It doesn't look like much has been done to bring us together.
Is there, in your judgment, any sense about this campaign that these two candidates are talking about real issues? I mean, we're hearing a lot about gay marriage, we're hearing a lot about a host of so-called wedge issues.
But on immigration we're not hearing anything. On free trade, we're hearing muted responses. On the issues of investing and infrastructure, on education, we're hearing one person is disappointing; one person wants to do this. But I'll be doggoned if I hear either man talking in concrete terms about specifics and the real issues that are going to affect the future of the country.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I would respond in a couple ways to that, Lou. First of all, there are specifics out there. Senator Kerry has put his name on a whole bunch of position papers on many of those issues. Whether it's on immigration where there is a very specific kind of earned legalization plan, or an education, where he's laid out how he wants to increase teacher pay in return for tougher teacher standards, while at the same time taking some steps to loosen the accountability provisions that teachers don't like in the No Child Left Behind Law.
What neither candidate really has done, however, is move these positions into the debate in any kind of systematic way. We've had a campaign in which President Bush has focused mostly on defending his first-term decisions and challenging Senator Kerry's voting record without giving us much idea yet, may be changing today on what he would do in the second term.
And Senator Kerry has made sort of a broad critique of Bush's priorities both at home and abroad without really -- for example, at this convention -- emphasizing many of the specifics that he does have on paper.
DOBBS: OK. We didn't get much of a bounce from Senator Kerry coming out of the convention. Are we going to get much of a bounce from President Bush coming out of his?
BROWNSTEIN: We don't know. I mean, that's a good question.
DOBBS: Well, that's why I'm asking you. You're the guru.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, historically -- well, a tarnished guru.
I think the general assumption is this election has been going on, first of all, for so long. It's been going on as a general election since March. Secondly, the country is so polarized. We talked about the few undecideds -- it's hard to see really dramatic shifts in the horse race out of this convention.
Senator Kerry did not get the bounce that many Democrats were expecting in terms of the horse race. He did, in fairness to him, improve his position on a lot of other measures: how people perceive him, whether he's ready to be commander-in-chief, whether he's a strong leader, whether he's decisive, and so forth.
DOBBS: Ron, Ron...
BROWNSTEIN: That does matter, Lou, because what's going to happen is as the Republicans come back against him, he will have firmer ground to stand on. So, it's hard to say...
DOBBS: But I asked you, will President Bush get a bounce?
BROWNSTEIN: Look, I think President Bush will get some bounce if he focuses on making his own case rather than raising doubts about Kerry.
To me the clearest message in the polling in the last few weeks -- and this is, I think, an important point -- is that President Bush is looking at an electoral right now in which a majority of the country does not have faith that he is leading us in a direction that will produce a safer and more prosperous future. I think that is job one at the Republican Convention. If they focus on that, he should do himself some good.
DOBBS: Ron Brownstein, as always, good to talk with you.
BROWNSTEIN: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: And we'll see if we can add some luster to that guru status with that forecast.
Still ahead: another record for oil prices. The Middle Class Squeeze is real when it comes to energy in this country. We'll have that story next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Wall Street: stocks didn't do much and the Dow, NASDAQ and S&P all moved within just a few points of one other; a little up, a little down. Oil, however, had a decisive move; a new record high, approaching $45 a barrel.
Christine Romans is here.
Christine.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Russia, Iraq and Venezuela, not Saudi Arabia, not OPEC, creating the tension in the oil markets today.
The radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, threatened to sabotage output in southern Iraq.
The Yukos situation is a daily drama about whether 1.7 million barrels a day will keep flowing there, and Venezuela has an upcoming referendum on the rule of President Hugo Chavez. That's on August 15th. His opponents disrupted oil supplies a couple years ago. That's the supply situation.
Demand: still red hot; the fastest consumption growth in 20 years. Crude is up 38 percent over the past year, natural gas running 9 percent more expensive today than a year ago, and the middle class is feeling the squeeze.
Home heating oil could cost $250 to $400 more per home this winter. Suppliers are offering consumers contracts to lock in anywhere from $1.50 to $1.80 a gallon. You now, there were contracts last year at $1.20, so it's going to hurt this winter.
DOBBS: Already hurting. All right. Thanks, Christine.
The race to launch the first private space flight ended disastrously for one West Coast company. Space Transport's Rubicon One rocket exploded just after takeoff yesterday in Washington state.
The designers had hoped the 23-foot-long rocket would reach an altitude of 20,000 feet. They're among several teams trying to win the $10 million prize for building the first private reusable spacecraft.
Still ahead here, the results of our poll. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of tonight's poll: 78 percent of you say international observers should be allowed to monitor American elections.
Thanks for being with us. Join us tomorrow.
For all of us here: good night from New York.
"ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired August 9, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, a national movement to give immigrants and illegal aliens the right to vote in our elections is building support.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADRIAN FENTY, WASHINGTON, D.C., CITY COUNCIL: efforts country is founded on taxation with representation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: We'll have a special report on the first right of citizenship.
And the world's leading democracy will for the first time ever have foreigners monitoring our presidential election. Some say this makes the United States look like corrupt Third-World countries. Others say American voters need protection.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernie Johnson and Congressman Steve Buyer will debate the issue tonight.
Both President Bush and Senator Kerry are proposing immigration reform. Still, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens pour into this country each year. Immigration and border security, two of the issues I'll be discussing with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
The FBI says al Qaeda may be planning attacks with helicopters and limousines. Tonight, Senator Chuck Hagel joins me to discuss the al Qaeda threat and how to prevent new attacks against the United States.
And the best government money can buy. The enormous power of special interests and lobbyists in Washington. Who really runs our government?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The folks who help write policy are the ones who give the money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Tonight, a special report.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Monday, August 9. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
Tonight, a national movement to give millions of immigrants and illegal aliens the right to vote in this country is gaining momentum. Until now, federal and local officials have reserved that right for U.S. citizens, but now two of the country's largest cities could soon extend the right to vote to thousands of non-citizens.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS (voice-over): The right to vote is central to the privileges of American citizenship, but Washington, D.C., Councilman Adrian Fenty is among those who want to change it. He supports a bill giving the right to vote to resident immigrants in Washington, D.C.
FENTY: This country is founded on taxation with representation, not taxation without representation. So you've got a group of residents out here who pay my salary, pay for the governments to work, but don't have any say in who runs the government.
DOBBS: Legal scholars strongly disagree.
PROF. PETER SCHUCK, YALE LAW SCHOOL: I think immigrants should not be able to vote until they have naturalized and become American citizens, but, once they have committed themselves to American society by showing a mastery of English, at least a limited level, and some understanding of the political system. Then and only then should they be able to vote.
DOBBS: Non-citizen voting is not unprecedented. Non-citizens vote in Chicago's school elections. Even illegal aliens are allowed to vote in Tacoma Park, Maryland. In San Francisco, voters will decide in November whether non-citizens, including illegal aliens, should be allowed to vote in school elections.
Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado says it's essential for immigrants to go through the citizenship process to earn the right to vote.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: This is one of the things that we provide people to go through a very laborious process. It's very difficult to do. It's also a mark of citizenship. We should not be simply casually handing this out because what we are doing is essentially destroying the whole concept of citizenship in this country.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Congressman Tancredo says the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the Government Reform Committee have promised that the U.S. Congress will override any local legislation that would give immigrants the right to vote in the nation's capital city.
The United States is the world's leading democracy, but some people in this country and overseas say our elections deserve as much scrutiny as elections in corrupt Third-World countries. For the first time ever, an international monitoring group will be watching over our presidential election.
Bill Tucker has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): What do Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania, Croatia and Kosovo have in common? Doubts exist about the ability of those countries to conduct fair and open elections.
Some Democrats in Congress apparently think the same is true of the United States. They've called from observers for the United Nations to monitor our presidential elections. In response, the State Department has invited in election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a group that America belongs to, along with European and Central Asian countries.
ADAM EREL, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: This is not a question of whether there's a free and fair election in the United States. This is a question of an agreement among all states of the OSCE that it is right and appropriate in the interest of transparency and equity and -- for all of us at various times to look at each other's elections.
TUCKER: It won't be the first time they've looked at the U.S. elections. The group sent in 10 observers and monitored the midterm elections in 2002.
Calling in outside observers is not risk-free, though. It's a move that some think could backfire on the Democrats.
JOHN SAMPLES, CATO INSTITUTE: The big risk is the one that, in fact, a lot of voters might find this insulting. It's sort of saying let's bring in the Europeans, let's have them control or watch over American democracy because we can't do it.
TUCKER: Still, some would argue having the OSCE monitor elections is not nearly as potentially insulting as having U.N. monitors at the polls.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now will there be monitors in every state? Not likely. A small group will come to the United States in mid September to assess the situation and decide how many observers to send in November.
One final note, Lou. The OSCE does not certify any elections. It simply observes.
DOBBS: Simply observes. The 2002 midterm elections. Also, the California election last year was observed by the OSCE. I don't recall what their position was. How did we do?
TUCKER: Substantial improvement since the election of 2000, Lou.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: A low base, as it were.
Bill Tucker, thank you very much.
Well, my next two guests heavily involved in the issue of observers, foreign, international observers monitoring U.S. elections.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat of Texas and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, joins us. She sees this decision as only a partial victory. She spearheaded the effort to get observers from the United Nations.
And we're joined tonight by Congressman Steve Buyer, Republican of Indiana, who tried to block the United States from being involved in this election. The congressman says it's fine for the OSCE to observe our election, as long as it doesn't play a role in the electoral process.
Thank you both for being here.
And, Congresswoman, let me begin with you. The idea that some people might take away from this -- that we are a Third-World nation to have international observers monitoring our elections. Why is it necessary, in your judgment?
REP. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D), TEXAS: It is necessary because people all over this country -- I didn't do this out of a whim. I did this out of extreme numbers of requests. People don't trust our electoral system right now. They didn't trust it in 2000 after they saw what happened. We must make sure that citizens...
I heard your opening comment about the non-citizens voting. We have not yet provided for our citizens to vote without intimidation and have those votes counted. That's all that we're asking for.
We monitor elections all over the world, and we have been told just recently that we write the rules for the world, we enforce them for the world and ignore them ourselves, and that's what I want to change.
DOBBS: Congressman Buyer, the congresswoman makes an excellent point. We had people disenfranchised in 2000.
REP. STEVE BUYER (R), INDIANA: I think that's false.
DOBBS: You do?
BUYER: That is false.
JOHNSON: I think...
BUYER: After an 18-month...
JOHNSON: ... you've been asleep the last four years.
DOBBS: I'm sorry, Congressman. Go ahead.
BUYER: After an 18-month investigation in Florida, only two people gave public testimony that they were actually denied their right to vote. So it's sort of a false issue that's being placed out there. I have a different take on this, Lou.
DOBBS: OK.
BUYER: My take on this is that America is an open and transparent society, and we set the pace for other countries, and the reason the United States -- in 1990, we had a change in Europe. So many of these former Warsaw Pact countries were very new infant republics, and the formation here of 55 nations of which the United States is part of...
Yes, we want to help these new republics in their electoral process, and, at the same time, since we're so open and transparent in our country, I think it's permissible for people to come in as observers for our electoral process. But it is appalling that members of Congress would abdicate their responsibility to have the United Nations come in to have -- to monitor our electoral process and access the validity.
One hundred sixty-one Democrats voted for that to happen, and I think that was pretty appalling for them to do that.
DOBBS: Congresswoman...
JOHNSON: You know...
DOBBS: May I just respond to the congressman, quickly?
JOHNSON: Sure.
DOBBS: This is simply -- I don't want to get into a debate on this specific issue, but estimates that I've seen of votes that were failed to be counted in the 200 election alone rose to four million nationwide.
BUYER: Lou -- Lou, can...
DOBBS: Now whether you want to call that disenfranchisement or simply at the margin of error...
BUYER: It is not. Lou...
JOHNSON: You know, let me just say that...
BUYER: Lou, let's -- Lou -- can I respond to this, Lou?
DOBBS: Surely.
BUYER: Because it's not disenfranchisement. I spent three weeks during the Florida recount. A hundred fifty-seven thousand votes -- ballots were thrown out in Florida. Now those were not disenfranchisement ballots.
DOBBS: OK. Congressman, that's why...
BUYER: They were...
DOBBS: ... I said I didn't want to get into a side issue.
BUYER: No, this is -- Lou -- Lou...
DOBBS: That's not the point at hand. I'm just saying -- Congressman, we'll take this up on another issue. I'm taking up the congresswoman's time, and I want to apologize to her.
BUYER: All right. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
DOBBS: But I did want to put that on the record.
Congresswoman, the idea that the United States -- we have a Justice Department. We have voting rights guarantees. Why do we need...
JOHNSON: You are exactly right. You are exactly right, except that the trust of the voters is not -- does not rest with this administration, and they do not trust our Justice Department, unfortunately.
Hopefully, there will be a day when people who have struggled and went through all kind of activities until we finally got the Voters' Rights Act in 1965, it has never worked perfectly, it probably won't ever work perfectly, but we sure want it to work where we can believe in what the results were.
This is not Democrat or Republican. I'm accustomed to losing -- Mr. Buyer probably can tell you that -- because they have a majority and they enforce that majority, if it takes six hours to count a vote, but let me assure you that we want people -- citizens to vote without intimidation and have those votes counted. We cannot say we've done that -- we did that in the last presidential election.
DOBBS: Congressman?
BUYER: Well, what I wanted to say is of the 156,000 votes in Florida, Lou, 111,000 were thrown out because people went to the ballot, and they voted for multiple votes in the presidential column. It's one person, one vote. So they spoiled their own ballot. That's not disenfranchisement. that's...
JOHNSON: It was not just Florida. It was all over the country.
BUYER: All over the country, right. People were voting five -- four, five, six people for president. You can't do that. And the others -- they chose not to vote in the presidential column.
JOHNSON: That's the fault of the ballot.
BUYER: That's called an under vote. That's not disenfranchisement of the vote. So, Lou, this issue is about the integrity of the electoral process in America. If you have -- we want people to vote, number one, make sure they have access and that it counts. We don't want criminals voting, we don't want aliens or illegal aliens voting or people multiple voting.
So it's about the integrity of the process, and it's at the local level, and that works best. So, if people want to see that, come to America and observe how it works.
DOBBS: Let me ask you both this question, see if we can reach some sort of agreement here.
BUYER: Sure.
DOBBS: One, there's great concern about paperless ballots this year. Despite the forming of the commission, everything else, we have got great concern about electronic voting machines, and, from what I've seen, there's plenty of justification for that concern because, in many cases, there will not be a paper trail for audits.
And, secondly -- secondly -- why in the world should not representatives of the United States Congress -- irrespective of whether the voters have faith or not, why should not representatives of the U.S. Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, not be coming together to assure the highest level of integrity in our voting nationwide?
BUYER: Well, I would agree with you. As a matter of fact, the DNC, the National Democrat Party, has called for 10,000 lawyers to go to every county in America. Now talk about intimidation. That's exactly what they did for six or seven canvassing boards in Florida to deny the military overseas vote, and that was appalling to America.
We -- the RNC asked the DNC to come together, and we'll bring bipartisan lawyers. Every canvassing board and election board in this country have their own lawyers. You're right. This should be a bipartisan issue, and the issue should be the integrity of the electoral process. I agree with you, Lou.
JOHNSON: Lou, let me just say this. One of the reasons why we don't trust this system is because the Republicans have crammed their opinions down our throats this whole time. We have not been able to have rational conversations, and I don't intend to give up this battle, because it's important that people in this country vote and have those votes counted. They were not counted all in 2000, and it was not just Florida.
BUYER: Lou...
JOHNSON: We have testimony from all over the country, and I don't -- these people testified under oath. There were calls from all over the country to me to write this letter, so I wrote to the OSEC -- the OS -- whatever it is. I wrote to them. I wrote to the U.N. I've written to the Justice Department. I've written another letter to the Justice Department.
I'd be happy, Mr. Buyer, to meet with the Justice Department with you and the secretary of state as well because...
DOBBS: Congress...
JOHNSON: ... this is something that people in this country feel very, very strongly about. They want their votes to count.
DOBBS: Congressman Buyer, you have the last word. I hope it's a succinct one.
JOHNSON: Well, I just believe that America has a tremendous process because we empower those at the local level, and, if people around the world want to see how we do it in this country, we welcome them. But they do not have the ability to assess the validity of our elections. The Constitution empowers the Congress and the states to do that.
DOBBS: Congressman Buyer, Congresswoman Johnson, we thank you both for being here.
BUYER: Thank you, Lou.
JOHNSON: Thank you very much, Lou.
DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Should international observers, in your opinion, be allowed to monitor American elections: Yes or no. Please cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Still ahead here, millions of illegal aliens crossing our borders. Tonight, American and Mexican governors meeting face-to-face to address the growing issues of trade, immigration and security threats at our border. New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson is my guest.
And a lesson in fraud for immigrants in the search for the American dream and a high school education.
America on Alert: the latest terrorist plot, the need for intelligence reform, and the politics of false urgency. Senate Intelligence Committee member Senator Chuck Hagel joins us coming right up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Illegal immigration and border security. Four U.S. governors, six Mexican governors today began a two-day conference on border security and trade and immigration in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
One of the key issues is the influx of illegal aliens into this country from Mexico, of course. Somewhere between eight million and 12 million illegal aliens are in the United States now. Another major issue is cross-border trade between this country and Mexico. Critics of NAFTA say free trade has benefited Mexico much more than the United States.
Joining me now from Santa Fe is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
Governor, good to have you with us.
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: The issue of -- let's begin with border security, particularly with the arrest last month of the woman suspected of having significant links to al Qaeda and international terrorist incidents. How do your counterparts in Mexico feel about this issue?
RICHARDSON: Well, border security is one issue that we'll announce today we've reached agreements on among the border states. More joint intelligence, training exercises on both sides, which hasn't happened before. As I mentioned, a lot of new equipment that both sides, with the Homeland Security Department, are working on. Both sides recognize this is an issue.
But, in one of the opening statements today, the Mexicans are concerned about the impact on commerce, on trucks, but, you know, we've got to protect or homeland here. This is a big issue for us. I think I for one -- I'm ready to discuss the immigration issue with Mexico as a border governor. We all know this is going to be put off until after the election.
Nothing's going to happen until then, but I think border security -- there is more and more consensus on both sides, especially on the Mexican sides. It was a little difficult early on.
DOBBS: Difficult early on, but the fact is, as you well know, estimates rise as high as a million illegal aliens crossing into this country each year. If you have that many illegal aliens crossing a porous border, what border security is there at all?
RICHARDSON: Well, Lou, the main emphasis is that we don't want anybody coming in here that is going to cause damage to this country. I think that's objective A, and what we have done in terms of agreements -- that we'll have more shared intelligence -- this didn't happen in the past -- more equipment, more joint exercises with our counterterrorism forces. This is major.
Now, again, look, the borders are porous. We have got to do a better job of enforcing the borders, and it's not just more Border Patrol. I think our Mexican friends have got to play a more active role here. It's been mainly the heavy lifting on our side, and I think you're going to see a lot of candid talk on both sides.
The Mexicans want an immigration agreement. Lou, I happen to think that that's better than not having one, because at least you know both sides -- where they stand.
DOBBS: Well, it's certainly better, Governor, as you say, if it leads to the objectives that are in the national interests of this country, and, of course, from your counterpoints' perspective the Mexican national interests.
But with their population rising as fast as it is and that overflow of population being transported into the United States, in particular into the border states, that national interest seems to be in conflict, isn't it?
RICHARDSON: Well, I believe if you have an accord, Lou -- say after President Bush's plan, the five years, that there is a definitive word on what happens after those immigrants are here five years, either an immigrant -- either a green card -- either some kind of status -- that's better than not knowing what happens because then you're encouraging the flight back and forth. I do think that -- I know NAFTA's a big issue with you.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
RICHARDSON: I do think we have to do a better job of bringing jobs on the American side, and, yes, trade is good for both countries, but we have got to focus on those pockets in America that have lost jobs and get the jobs to flow more into the United States. Mexico is doing very well from NAFTA.
I think it's still a plus, but, again, it's caused pollution at the border, environmental degradation, new sewers. We need infrastructure, air quality, a lot of -- you've been at the border. It's a mess, and we've got to make it better.
DOBBS: Right. And labor regulation and...
RICHARDSON: Yes, sure.
DOBBS: ... environmental protection. As we go through a host of these issues, Governor, one can't help but be struck by the fact that each of these are national issues in the case of the United States and Mexico. What can the governors realistically do about these critical national issues that frankly, as you and I both know, have been all but ignored by both this administration, the previous administration, and Congress?
RICHARDSON: Well, this meeting of the border governors, Lou, is the border governors, the states taking a more active role on energy, on issues relating to border security, in the absence of the federal government having an immigration bill, in the absence of the federal government participating in some of the big water challenges we have, in the absence of the federal government really caring about the border.
Now this is on both sides, on the Mexican side, on the American side. So this is why governors -- this is why being a governor is so much fun because you can actually do things, and, hopefully, we'll make some progress in the next two days.
DOBBS: Governor Bill Richardson, we thank you for being here.
RICHARDSON: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: Police in Texas tonight are holding an El Paso man on suspicion of human smuggling. Authorities found 79 illegal aliens crowded in the trailer of his 18-wheeler yesterday. A Fort Worth police officer stopped the truck on its way from El Paso to Dallas because it didn't have proper permits. The truck held dozens of men, women and children in a trailer that had absolutely no ventilation. Police said the illegal aliens will be returned to Mexico.
A disturbing story tonight from California about a chain of private schools trying to rewrite history, quite literally. Authorities have shut down the unaccredited schools that prey on immigrants. Those schools charge up to $1,500 for lessons that promise high school diplomas, but deliver only broken promises and misinformation.
Peter Viles reports from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Prosecutors saying in three states say a chain of private schools has been defrauding immigrants by selling worthless high school diplomas.
MARIA WILMA MORENG, "GRADUATE": I was so proud myself. My daughters -- they cry with me because it was a big graduation thing, and now I don't know how I found out, and I get so mad.
VILES: What's more, California alternative high schools charge students up for $1,450, and then allegedly taught bogus lessons: for example, that World War II really ended in 1942 -- that's three years before the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan; or that there are 53 states -- the three new ones, if you're curious, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico; and flags that show only 50 stars haven't been updated yet. And there's two Houses of Congress, the Senate for Republicans and the House for Democrats.
Prosecutors allege there were 78 of these schools in five states. Authorities in California, Nebraska and Iowa have sued to shut them down.
TOM MILLER, IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We required them to give us certain basic information to see whether they were really fulfilling their promises. They didn't provide the information, so the courts and I will shut them down until they do provide the information. They never have. They've been shut down in Iowa for months.
VILES: In California, authorities seized nearly $1 million in cash and cashier's checks from the home of principal Daniel Gossai.
BILL LOCKYER, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: These are first- generation Americans who are working hard to improve themselves and their families, and it destroys their dreams when they're taken advantage of in these ways.
VILES: The basic charge here is false advertising. The school's handbook claims it is "recognized by states and the federal government" and "authorized to confer the high school diploma." It also does contain this stamp saying clearly it is not an approved or accredited institution.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: That's basically the school's defense, it's not accredited, its students should know that, buyer beware. As for this business for the United States consisting of 53 states, well, that may be wrong, but, in California anyway, it's not illegal to teach that -- Lou.
DOBBS: Incredible.
Peter Viles, thank you very much.
Tonight's thought is on education, real education. "Education is for improving the lives of others and for leaving your community and world better than you found it." Those the words of Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund.
Still ahead here, U.S. Marines pushing closer to the stronghold of the radical Islamist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf. We'll have a report.
America on Alert: Al Qaeda may be planning attacks with helicopters and limousines. I'll be joined tonight by Senator Chuck Hagel, a leading member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
And the best government money can buy. Tonight, our special report on the extraordinary influence of lobbyists and special interests on our policymakers in Washington.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Tonight, the battle for the Iraqi City of Najaf has entered a new and potentially decisive phase. The city's governor today gave U.S. Marines permission to launch attacks in the area around the city's main mosque. The insurgents' leader, Muqtada al- Sadr, is holed up inside that mosque. Al-Sadr says he will fight to the death.
Matthew Chance reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The holy city of Najaf, now Iraq's worst battleground. In five days, U.S. forces backed by Iraqis say they've killed more than 360 Mehdi Army fighters here. They're loyal to radical Shia cleric Muqtada al- Sadr, now publicly rejecting any negotiation while U.S. troops remain.
MUQTADA AL-SADR, RADICAL SHIA CLERIC (through translator): I will continue with resistance, and I will remain in Najaf. I will not leave. I will continue to defend Najaf as it is the holiest place. I will remain in the city until the last drop of my blood has been spilled. CHANCE: In Baghdad too, the Mehdi Army is taking a stand. Inside the city, there have been terrible clashes with U.S. forces, but here the militias hijack a police station. Not a shot was fired.
Inside the barracks, they rifle through cabinets for useful equipment, body armor meant to protect the police is stolen. Still, the interim Iraqi government says it's keen to get this militia and its leader to join a political process they have so far rejected.
GEORGE SADA, IRAQI GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN: You see, always, the best solution is even not to fight. But after we fight, the best solution is to cease fire, to stop fire and make negotiations because peacemaking is the best way of stopping and finishing any conflict.
CHANCE: But there's another way, too. Fight to the end, and U.S. troops now massed in Baghdad and with full authority in Najaf may be poised to finish it.
But this confrontation has potentially explosive consequences in Iraq. Reports from Najaf say the fighting is now concentrated around the Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest shrines in Shi'a Islam, now said to be surrounded by U.S. troops.
And a wrong step could unleash among Iraq's majority Shi'a, a ferocious backlash.
Matthew Chance, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: There was tight security in major U.S. cities today after the FBI said Al Qaeda terrorists may be planning attacks in which they use helicopters and limousines. An FBI bulletin said terrorists could try to hijack helicopters and use them in suicide attacks. The FBI also said that targets could include buildings, parades, or sporting events.
Officials say they are also concerned that terrorists may use limousines packed with explosives.
Senator Chuck Hagel says there will always be room to improvement our intelligence and security systems to make this country safer from terrorist attacks. But Senator Hagel says it would be a mistake to rush into reforms dictated by our political calendar.
Senator Hagel, leading member of the Senate Intelligence Committee joins me now from Washington, D.C. Senator, good to have you here.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: The idea, as you suggested in your op-ed piece in the "The Washington Post," that we should be cautious about a sense of false urgency in reforming our intelligence operations. Do you think this is a situation of false urgency? HAGEL: Well, I don't think we want to allow it to get to a point of false urgency. There's no question we're going to have to reform and restructure our intelligence community. I think we're all in agreement.
How we do that, of course, like all these great questions of our time, is the real issue here. We have so many reports, so many opportunities to delve into the depths of how we do this, and we only have one opportunity that comes along every so many years to do this right.
The other part of this is that we should not panic the American people, Lou, in thinking that somehow if we just restructure our intelligence networks and change some boxes and put a new national intelligence director on top, we flip a switch, we pass the bill, the president signs it and we're a safer country. It doesn't work that way.
So, false expectations are important that we don't get ourselves into that, and that we can do the things that we need to do, but we need to do it right and not be forced into it because of an election timetable.
DOBBS: Your colleagues, chairmen of the committee, Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Jay Rockefeller seem to me, at least, when -- I've talked with them on this broadcast -- to be saying that they're going to have a strong influence over what -- your committee is going to have a strong influence over what does transpire.
But what do you say to people who say, "It's been three years."? We've now got the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq intelligence. We now have the 9/11 Commission report on failures. Isn't it fairly straightforward -- and your committee certainly should be at the forefront of it -- but isn't it straightforward to say we need to fix a number of these issues?
HAGEL: No question. As I said, Lou, it should be straightforward, and I believe it is. I don't think there's a member of Congress, and certainly the president laid it out, certainly Senator Kerry did, that we need to fix the problems.
But at the same time, we have to be thoughtful, and think through consequences, and not just rearrange boxes or put another bureaucracy on top of an existing bureaucracy, and think or lead the American people to believe that that's going to make us more secure and safer.
There's the right way to do this: thoughtfully, through the process, through the hearings, read the reports, get the people up in front of us, and then work it through. It doesn't have to be a year- long process. But I don't think we want to put ourselves in a position that we're captive to an election time framework.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this and we'll put as caveats that this is your personal opinion at this moment in time, subject to further consideration, but do you believe we should have a Cabinet- level director of national intelligence? HAGEL: No, I do not believe that that would be wise. I think the president laid that out very clearly the other day as to why the reasons he would not support that, nor would I. But I think the important thing is here before we all get entrenched into taking positions let's work it through. That's the point here, Lou, in not rushing into something.
I may be wrong on this, the President might be wrong on it, but let's listen to the consumers of intelligence, let's bring the former CIA directors back, secretaries of defense back, people who need it who are charged with the security of this country, ask them how we should reform it.
This isn't done in 30 days, Lou. It should take, I don't know how many months: two, three months, I don't know how long it takes. But we should go into it with a completely unbiased understanding that we need to reform, first of all, and then let's figure out how we best do it.
DOBBS: I guess the question arises, Senator Hagel, we have gone through the travail of watching the very painful at times, arduous, difficult work of the 9/11 Commission. Is their work for nothing? Their recommendations are there. Both the administration, the Republican Party, Democrats, all have embraced it.
Now what seems to be moving forward is, "Wait a minute. It has indeed been three years since 9/11, but let's not rush into this." There seems to me, at least, to be some dissidence, if you will, in this.
HAGEL: Well, I don't think that's the case, Lou. This month, the month of August, we have 20 committee hearings already scheduled. We've already had a number in the last two weeks. We'll roll into September with more committee hearings. We probably will have some in October. I don't know
But let's not just take the 9/1 Commission report -- by the way, I think it was masterfully done. This country owes the members of that commission a great debt of gratitude. But let's look at Brent Scowcroft's report that he issued in his committee three years ago; the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Warren Rudman and Gary Hart's report a few years ago, that's tremendously valuable as we start framing up a new institution to deal with the 21st century threats.
I'm not at all, Lou, minimizing the effort that went into the 9/11 Commission. They did a tremendous service to this country, but at the same time, what I'm saying is let's put some value in that and not just rush into something, because the 9/11 Commission said it.
DOBBS: Senator Chuck Hagel, thanks for being here.
HAGEL: Thanks.
DOBBS: Coming up next: who's really running things in Washington? Money talks. Powerful special-interest groups spending hundreds of millions of dollars not only talking, they're shouting, and they're being heard. Tonight we begin a week-long series of special reports: The Best Government Money Can Buy.
And in the race for the White House, an American public sharply divided. We'll be talking about the key issues likely to sway voters in this election. I'll be joined by Ron Brownstein, National Political Correspondent of the "Los Angeles Times," next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The presidential election is now less than three months away. Special-interest groups are spending hundreds of millions in contributions to the Democratic and Republican Party campaigns.
Legally, donations can't buy a favorable vote on a particular issue, but lobbyists find ways to make certain their issue becomes a priority. Tonight we begin a special report that we call: The Best Government Money Can Buy. We'll be covering that issue all week. Lisa Sylvester reports now from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The sugar industry is a lot like the lobbying industry, you reap what you sow. Flo-Sun, known as Florida Crystals, is the largest U.S. raw sugar producer. Two brothers own the company, Alfonso and Jose Fanjul. The Fanjul family and the company's executives have given nearly $3 million in political contributions to both Democrats and Republicans since 1992.
Their chief lobbyist, Wayne Berman raised nearly $100,000 for President Bush in 2000 and gave another $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney inauguration. While there is no evidence of direct quid pro quo, the brothers and the rest of the sugar industry got a sweet deal when President Bush signed the 2002 Farm Bill; $400 million in taxpayer benefits.
CHELLIE PINGREE, COMMON CAUSE: Clearly to a lot of big organizations, they get the word, and they're told, "Make your contribution and you'll be remembered after Election Day."
SYLVESTER: But campaign contributions and lobbying by agricultural interests pale in comparison to other industries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent the most lobbying Congress in 2003: $40 million. The industry received a number of business-friendly tax breaks.
The pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America spent $23 million, one result: an industry-favorable Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Home lender Freddie Mac spent nearly $22 million fighting tougher regulation. This is in addition to the nearly $8 million the three groups gave in direct campaign contributions in 2002.
CHARLES LEWIS, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: The folks who get heard, the folks who get meetings, the folks who help write policy are the ones who give the money. And anyone who thinks for a moment there's no connection is living on Neptune or something.
SYLVESTER: Hundreds of the top firms are located on K Street in Washington. In 1996, there were only 10,000 lobbyists registered with the secretary of the Senate. Today there are nearly 25,000 lobbyists.
LARRY NOBLE, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: If what you're seeing is a contribution given in return for a vote, there's a pretty simple answer: that's bribery. People go to jail for that. So it's a much more subtle process.
SYLVESTER: It's about access. That's why you often see a revolving door. Lobbying firms offering lucrative jobs to former and current members of Congress; at the same time lobbyists are seeking appointments to government positions. There are 232 former members of Congress who are currently lobbyists.
ALEX KNOTT, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: There are people that can walk onto the House and the Senate floors during a House vote and basically say, "Hey, John, I don't want you to vote for that bill." And that is extremely influential.
SYLVESTER: Last month, Congressman Jim Greenwood, who chairs the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, announced he's retiring to take a job lobbying for biotechnology.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: A Florida Crystal spokesperson said the company's philosophy is to support politicians who support agriculture, not necessarily just sugar. And in the interest of full disclosure, we should point out that Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is also a major political donor. Lou?
DOBBS: Absolutely. Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much. And, tomorrow in our special series of reports this week, The Best Government Money Can Buy, we show you how the game is played in Washington, D.C.: the many different ways in which special-interest groups funnel big money into Washington.
A reminder now to vote in our poll tonight. The question: should international observers be allowed to monitor American elections? Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results coming up later in the broadcast.
Still ahead here, President Bush and Senator Kerry fighting for the undecided vote in the election that's virtually tied. One of the nation's top political journalists, Ron Brownstein joins us.
And, a contender for the X-prize failed to reach the edge of space; didn't make it. We'll have that story in just a moment. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: A federal judge is holding a "Time Magazine" reporter in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
In an order released July 20 but released today, the judge ordered "Time" magazine's Matthew Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert to testify. NBC News said Russert had already answered some questions under oath Saturday. "Time Magazine" and Matthew Cooper, however, did not agree and intend to appeal the judge's ruling.
In tonight's campaign journal, Senator Kerry today campaigned at the Grand Canyon and promoted his plan to protect our national parks. Senator Kerry also talked about Iraq. He said knowing what he knows now, he would still have voted to support President Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have, but I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Also today, President Bush launched a new campaign tour to promote ownership. President Bush told voters in Virginia that he wants to help Americans own more, including homes, retirement plans, and businesses. The president says his tax cuts will help.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You've got to be careful about this rhetoric: we're only going to tax the rich. Yeah. You know, the rich in America happen to be the small business owners. That's what that means.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: And the intensity of this presidential campaign, according to my next guest, is both inspiring and frightening. Ron Brownstein is one of the country's top political journalists, National Political Correspondent for the "Los Angeles Times," joining us from Washington.
Ron, why is this...
RON BROWNSTEIN, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "L.A. TIMES": How are you?
DOBBS: How are you doing?
BROWNSTEIN: Good to see you.
DOBBS: Why is this, in your judgment, so frightening -- the intensity?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I say inspiring and frightening. I mean, I think it's inspiring in the sense that no one is talking about the American public being apathetic in this election.
Every sign we have is the people are engaged, polls show more people following the news closely about the election in the past -- the sheer amount of money that Senator Kerry and President Bush and the various interest groups have raised all testify to a country that is deeply involved in this election. I think that's a good thing with all the concerns we've had about participation over really the last generation.
The frightening part is it's almost -- as you go around the country and you talk to people -- it's almost as if people care too much, I think. In the end, someone is going to have to govern a very closely divided country, Lou. And that's the most likely outcome and right now --
DOBBS: You mean do what President Bush has done for the past three and a half years.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, he's going to have to try to hold together the country, perhaps have it be less polarized as it's been for the last three and a half years. And we have, I think, just such intensity of emotion on both sides, people sort of seeing almost apocalyptic consequences to this, that I think everybody has to take a deep breath and remind themselves that these two men are rivals, they are not enemies.
We have real enemies outside the country. And we need to sort of keep in mind that we are going to have to try to all get along to some extent when this is over.
DOBBS: Ron, as you point out, a deeply divided country on a host of issues over the course of the last three and a half years. It doesn't look like much has been done to bring us together.
Is there, in your judgment, any sense about this campaign that these two candidates are talking about real issues? I mean, we're hearing a lot about gay marriage, we're hearing a lot about a host of so-called wedge issues.
But on immigration we're not hearing anything. On free trade, we're hearing muted responses. On the issues of investing and infrastructure, on education, we're hearing one person is disappointing; one person wants to do this. But I'll be doggoned if I hear either man talking in concrete terms about specifics and the real issues that are going to affect the future of the country.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I would respond in a couple ways to that, Lou. First of all, there are specifics out there. Senator Kerry has put his name on a whole bunch of position papers on many of those issues. Whether it's on immigration where there is a very specific kind of earned legalization plan, or an education, where he's laid out how he wants to increase teacher pay in return for tougher teacher standards, while at the same time taking some steps to loosen the accountability provisions that teachers don't like in the No Child Left Behind Law.
What neither candidate really has done, however, is move these positions into the debate in any kind of systematic way. We've had a campaign in which President Bush has focused mostly on defending his first-term decisions and challenging Senator Kerry's voting record without giving us much idea yet, may be changing today on what he would do in the second term.
And Senator Kerry has made sort of a broad critique of Bush's priorities both at home and abroad without really -- for example, at this convention -- emphasizing many of the specifics that he does have on paper.
DOBBS: OK. We didn't get much of a bounce from Senator Kerry coming out of the convention. Are we going to get much of a bounce from President Bush coming out of his?
BROWNSTEIN: We don't know. I mean, that's a good question.
DOBBS: Well, that's why I'm asking you. You're the guru.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, historically -- well, a tarnished guru.
I think the general assumption is this election has been going on, first of all, for so long. It's been going on as a general election since March. Secondly, the country is so polarized. We talked about the few undecideds -- it's hard to see really dramatic shifts in the horse race out of this convention.
Senator Kerry did not get the bounce that many Democrats were expecting in terms of the horse race. He did, in fairness to him, improve his position on a lot of other measures: how people perceive him, whether he's ready to be commander-in-chief, whether he's a strong leader, whether he's decisive, and so forth.
DOBBS: Ron, Ron...
BROWNSTEIN: That does matter, Lou, because what's going to happen is as the Republicans come back against him, he will have firmer ground to stand on. So, it's hard to say...
DOBBS: But I asked you, will President Bush get a bounce?
BROWNSTEIN: Look, I think President Bush will get some bounce if he focuses on making his own case rather than raising doubts about Kerry.
To me the clearest message in the polling in the last few weeks -- and this is, I think, an important point -- is that President Bush is looking at an electoral right now in which a majority of the country does not have faith that he is leading us in a direction that will produce a safer and more prosperous future. I think that is job one at the Republican Convention. If they focus on that, he should do himself some good.
DOBBS: Ron Brownstein, as always, good to talk with you.
BROWNSTEIN: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: And we'll see if we can add some luster to that guru status with that forecast.
Still ahead: another record for oil prices. The Middle Class Squeeze is real when it comes to energy in this country. We'll have that story next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Wall Street: stocks didn't do much and the Dow, NASDAQ and S&P all moved within just a few points of one other; a little up, a little down. Oil, however, had a decisive move; a new record high, approaching $45 a barrel.
Christine Romans is here.
Christine.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Russia, Iraq and Venezuela, not Saudi Arabia, not OPEC, creating the tension in the oil markets today.
The radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, threatened to sabotage output in southern Iraq.
The Yukos situation is a daily drama about whether 1.7 million barrels a day will keep flowing there, and Venezuela has an upcoming referendum on the rule of President Hugo Chavez. That's on August 15th. His opponents disrupted oil supplies a couple years ago. That's the supply situation.
Demand: still red hot; the fastest consumption growth in 20 years. Crude is up 38 percent over the past year, natural gas running 9 percent more expensive today than a year ago, and the middle class is feeling the squeeze.
Home heating oil could cost $250 to $400 more per home this winter. Suppliers are offering consumers contracts to lock in anywhere from $1.50 to $1.80 a gallon. You now, there were contracts last year at $1.20, so it's going to hurt this winter.
DOBBS: Already hurting. All right. Thanks, Christine.
The race to launch the first private space flight ended disastrously for one West Coast company. Space Transport's Rubicon One rocket exploded just after takeoff yesterday in Washington state.
The designers had hoped the 23-foot-long rocket would reach an altitude of 20,000 feet. They're among several teams trying to win the $10 million prize for building the first private reusable spacecraft.
Still ahead here, the results of our poll. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of tonight's poll: 78 percent of you say international observers should be allowed to monitor American elections.
Thanks for being with us. Join us tomorrow.
For all of us here: good night from New York.
"ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
