Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Historic Election in Iran; New Smoking Laws; Border Drug Wars

Aired June 12, 2009 - 19:00   ET

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

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everybody.

An historic presidential election in Iran: both main candidates tonight are claiming victory. We'll find out how this election could affect relations between Iran and this country.

Also sweeping new government regulations on cigarettes: President Obama says he'll sign into law a bill giving the government unprecedented power over the tobacco industry.

And special interests face charges that they are trying to buy influence and favor our judicial system. We'll have a special report on that.

We begin with breaking news on the bitterly fought election in Iran. Two leading candidates, President Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mousavi are both claiming victory. But Iran's Ministry of the Interior said President Ahmadinejad has a commanding lead.

For the past four years, President Ahmadinejad has been defying the world with his nuclear ambitions. He's also been calling for the destruction of Israel and saying the Holocaust is a myth.

For his part, Mousavi favors improved ties with the United States.

Jill Dougherty has the report. Jill, what is the very latest on the Iranian elections?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, the latest results are actually inconclusive. And we're hearing a lot of information, a lot of reporting coming from the region, from our Christiane Amanpour.

But I can tell you here at the State Department, they are really watching this extremely carefully. They have a lot of different ways of doing it.

One would be, of course, talking with experts on Iran and those could be around the world. Then also they have what are called -- what's called the rapid-response unit. And that -- that is a unit here at the State Department that monitors media coverage of the election. And then finally they have watch offices around the world, in U.S. embassies, and especially in the ones, in countries that have very large ex-pat Iranian populations and communities. So, they are watching it very carefully. They're not saying that much, but you can bet that the implications, Kitty, are very important on a lot of issues: Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, and certainly on the terror front.

All right, Jill, just -- at the State Department. Jill, stand by.

I want to bring in our White House correspondent, Dan Lothian. Dan, what is the administration saying tonight?

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, again, over here at the White House as well, they have been keeping a very close eye on the elections. Senior administration officials, though, being very careful not to weigh in or advocate for any one of the candidates, although certainly a moderate candidate would be something that this administration would embrace.

The president and this administration not giving any sort of official remarks or response yet to the early numbers that we're seeing in Iran. But the president today in the rose garden did point out that no matter who ultimately wins there in Iran he hopes that the diplomatic efforts, especially when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, will get a boost.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. And obviously after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change. And, you know, ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide.

But just as has been true in Lebanon, what's -- can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people are looking at new possibilities. And whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully, will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LOTHIAN: Kitty, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., was over here at the White House today. And she was asked whether the position, the U.S. position, would change towards Iran with regard to its nuclear program if, indeed, they did get a more moderate, new leader there in Iran. She pointed out it doesn't matter who the president is there, that the position will not change. They don't believe that they should have their nuclear program.

PILGRIM: You know, Dan, it's a really tough situation, because you don't want to comment on another country's elections. However, wouldn't the U.S. clearly would like a more moderate leader given the history of relations with Iran over the past few years?

LOTHIAN: They really would. And when you talk to experts in that region, they point out that it would really help to advance the case here for the U.S., that they really tried to help Iran, I guess, get rid of their nuclear program.

Iran of course saying that it is just for peaceful purposes, for electricity and so forth; the U.S. and some of their allies, obviously, believing that it is much more than that. So, clearly, there are experts who believe that on the diplomatic front the U.S. would be helped by a moderate leader.

But, again, the administration saying that no matter who wins over there, they believe that the whole process, the diplomatic process, will still get a boost.

PILGRIM: You know, Jill, Jill Dougherty -- I'd like to bring you in, over at the State Department. You know, I'm sure there's much worry about a prolonged, undecided outcome to this election. It looks like there's going to be some uncertainty.

The longer this goes, the more uncertainty it may -- it may generate inside a reasonably volatile country. Any thoughts on that?

DOUGHERTY: They are not saying anything about that, Kitty, certainly publicly. But, you know, just by watching any of the reporting and what is going on, there is concern, you know, whoever loses. Their supporters could be quite angry because this was a very hard-fought election.

And the implications are very, very important. But, you know, getting back to what Dan was talking about, the president of Iran does not make decisions on foreign policy. That is the Supreme Leader.

So, when you get into that area, the Supreme Leader remains the same. The president may change. Who knows? But the policy won't really change, and also their right, as they claim, to have nuclear power. They say it's for peaceful purposes. They still, even if it were Mousavi, would probably say that they retain that right.

However, Kitty, I did talk with a couple of experts who believe there might be shades of difference, that they might be more open to, let's say, having the international community observe what they are doing. So, there could be some changes. But it's a long way before this election apparently is going to be settled.

PILGRIM: It's a very critical issue. Thanks very much for your analysis tonight. Jill Dougherty at the State Department and Dan Lothian at the White House; thank you very much.

LOTHIAN: Thank you.

PILGRIM: Iranians appear to be much more enthusiastic about their version of democracy than many Americans are about theirs. That is if voter turnout is any indication.

We looked at turnout in Iran; we compared it with voter turnout in Virginia's Democratic primary. Early estimates say more than 70 percent Iranian voters took part in today's presidential election; that's a possible record. That compares with a turnout of just 6 percent in the Democratic primary of Virginia this week. Only 320,000 Virginians participated in that primary.

Let's turn to another important international story: the diplomatic showdown over North Korea. The United Nations Security Council today voted unanimously to expand sanctions against North Korea. And that in response to Pyongyang's recent nuclear weapons test.

Communist China and Russia were among the nations voting in favor of the sanctions. U.N. member states will now have the authority to inspect North Korean cargo on the high seas.

North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, tonight appears to be closer to declaring his youngest son a successor. Published reports show that Kim's son is being called "Brilliant Comrade" in North Korea. The North Korean leader reported suffered a stroke last year and he's apparently in poor health ever since.

In this country, the Congress today sent President Obama legislation giving the government sweeping authority to regulate cigarettes. Lawmakers sent the bill to the White House after voting strongly in favor of the legislation.

For the first time, the Food and Drug Administration will have control over tobacco production, marketing and sales.

Brian Todd reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): No ads within 1,000 feet of schools or playgrounds; black-and-white ads only; bigger warning labels; no more candy or fruit-flavored cigarettes. Just some of the tough, new regulations in a bill that will give the government unprecedented power to regulate the tobacco industry. Supporters say a top goal is to prevent the marketing of cigarettes to children.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many loved ones and constituents do you know have died from lung cancer caused by smoking? This bill can help those 13, 14, and 15-year-olds who are growing up now, not to become addicted to tobacco.

TODD: The government projects the bill would reduce underage smoking by 11 percent over the next decade and cut down smoking by adults 2 percent. Opponents say it also cuts free-speech rights and represents bureaucratic meddling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Freedom and self-reliance and individualism can solve these problems a lot better than a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats and tobacco police here from Washington, D.C.

TODD: President Obama, who struggled to kick his own habit, will sign the bill, which finally pushed through after decades of resistance by the tobacco industry. OBAMA: This bill has obviously been a long time coming. We've known for years, even decades, about the harmful, addictive, and often deadly effects of tobacco products.

TODD: Altria Group, owner of the largest American cigarette maker, Philip Morris, is the only major manufacturer to support the bill. A libertarian critic of the legislation says the ad restrictions will actually benefit the biggest cigarette makers whose brands are already well known.

MIKE CANNON, CATO INSTITUTE: Big Tobacco is a perennial villain. Congress loves to tax them, loves to run against them, loves to say that they're going to regulate big tobacco out of existence or keep cigarettes out of the hands of kids. But usually it's Big Tobacco has their way with Congress rather than the other way around.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: Now, as for one of the most critical issues here, the use of the addictive substance nicotine, this bill empowers the FDA to require manufacturers to reduce the levels of nicotine in cigarettes, but it does not ban nicotine outright and does not ban smoking -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Brian, quick question, how does this reflect on the legendary power of the tobacco lobby in Washington?

TODD: Well, watchdog groups are telling us that the tobacco industry has given just as much money, if not more money, to Congress in recent years and it's on tap to do that again this year. And that they can always count on support from tobacco state legislators.

But they also tell us that with the growing momentum on health care reform and the growing sentiment overall against smoking in this country, the industry's money and influence in Congress is not enough to stop all that.

PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, Brian Todd. Thanks, Brian.

Still to come -- free speech versus hate speech. That's our face off tonight.

Also, rising concern about special interests and possible corruption in our judicial system.

Also, a showdown between federal and local police in Mexico as the drug cartel violence escalates.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: The war against Mexico's violent drug cartels escalated this week. The battle spread to a legendary tourist resort, and Mexican law enforcement authorities fought each other in the streets.

Corruption has hampered Mexico's efforts to control the cartels, allowing traffickers to concentrate on moving illegal drugs across the border into this country.

Casey Wian reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tensions between Mexican federal troops and local police erupted this week in Monterrey, Mexico's third largest city. Federal police are trying to oust local officers suspected of collaborating with drug cartels. Colleagues of detained municipal police officers confronted the masked soldiers and many local officers refused to back down.

Here, several soldiers point their rifles at a speeding police vehicle. The confrontation seemed ready to erupt into a full-scale shooting war at any moment. An armed Mexican police officer runs behind several vehicles, a Mexican soldier aims an automatic weapon at him, he stops.

Another police officer points his handgun at the head of a federal soldier. Then two others point rifles at each other, only inches apart. Incredibly, no shots were fired. Seven suspects were arrested.

FELIPE CALDERON, PRESIDENT OF MEXICO (through translator): Every day honest policemen, soldiers and public servants risk their lives and their integrity to give to future generations of Mexicans a country free of violence. A secure Mexico, a Mexico that is not in the hands of criminals.

WIAN: After a 2 1/2-year war against drug cartels and nearly 11,000 deaths, that goal continues to be elusive.

GEORGE GRAYSON, AUTHOR, "MEXICO'S STRUGGLE WITH DRUGS & THUGS: While the police as a whole are just incurably corrupt, the Calderon government has developed a small cadre of effective, I hope, honest police.

WIAN: An assassination attempt against two police officers in the city of Uruapan Thursday left one of the officers dead, as well as the 15-year-old taco vendor who was serving them. The assailants fired bullet and threw a grenade causing two tanks of cooking gas to explode.

Ten mayors in the same state were arrested last month. Federal authorities accused them of working with drug traffickers. Those traffickers continue to seek new routes to deliver their product to the United States.

Border patrol agents in Nogales, Arizona, said they discovered this sophisticated tunnel running under the border. They were tipped off last week by a citizen who heard construction activity through a wall. Two individuals were arrested while trying to cut a hole through the building's floor.

Border agents say it's the 16th suspected drug tunnel uncovered in the area in less than nine months. (END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: Drug cartels continue to attack those who interrupt their illicit trade routes. A customs official in the Gulf port see of Veracruz was believed kidnapped earlier this month after launching a new effort to inspect shipping containers.

The Mexican government has offered a 10 million-peso reward or about $750,000 for information about his whereabouts -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Disturbing report, Casey. Thanks very much, Casey Wian.

New concerns about ethics and bias in our nation's courts: a Supreme Court ruling this week sheds light on a dangerous relationship between special interest groups and our nation's judicial system. Ines Ferre reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

INES FERRE, CORRESPONDENT, CNN EN ESPANOL: How does campaign money influence our judicial system? A West Virginia case that made it to the nation's highest court spotlights the relationship between special interests, political funding and the court system.

In a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court ruled this week that judges must recuse themselves from cases involving big campaign donors. The decision involved the Massey Energy Company which had lost a $50 million damage suit.

After the verdict, the company's CEO gave $3 million in campaign contributions to Brent Benjamin, a candidate for the state Supreme Court. Benjamin was elected in a close election. He voted to toss out the jury verdict against the company, and his vote proved pivotal.

Judicial watchdogs say the case raises concerns about the influence of special-interest money on the court system.

BERT BRANDENBURG, JUSTICE AT STAKE CAMPAIGN: In the end, we want judges to be accountable to the law and the Constitution, not to special interest groups, not to the partisan party bosses of the day.

FERRE: Brandenburg says that in the last decade more than $200 million has been poured into state campaigns for high judicial office, much of it from corporate America, unions, and other special interest groups.

ADAM SKAGGS, N.Y. UNIVERSITY BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE: The concern is that all of these groups feel like whether they really particularly favor a judge or not, if that judge has a chance of being elected, they almost have to pay. They almost have to make contributions to guarantee that if they end up in that room, they have to pay.

FERRE: A large portion of the money is used for TV spots, including political attack ads. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lloyd Karmeier, the wrong choice for Supreme Court.

FERRE: Last year 85 percent of states with judicial elections featured television ads compared to just 22 percent nine years ago.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FERRE: And while this case may seem cut and dried, the U.S. Supreme Court was clearly split on the issue. The majority led by Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded the case showed there was a serious risk of actual bias.

The dissenting opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts said the ruling, quote, will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased however groundless those charges may be -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Ines, what are states doing to remedy it?

FERRE: Well, some of the ideas that are being tossed around is modifying the recusal process for judges, also setting caps on donations and public financing for the elections.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much Ines Ferre.

We would like to know what you think. Here is tonight's poll question -- do you think that special interest groups have too much influence on our judicial system? Yes or no? Cast your vote at loudobbs.com and we'll bring you the results a little bit later in the broadcast.

Also ahead in the broadcast -- they're called Congressional watchdogs and we'll take a look inside the GAO, the branch of government that's working for us.

And the first President Bush takes the plunge.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: It's called the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and it's the investigative arm of Congress. But it's really working for us.

And tonight, Lisa Sylvester takes a look inside the agency sometimes called the Congressional watchdog.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As the GAO will document...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: GAO investigations have been commissioned.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And in this latest GAO report...

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's often cited as the independent source in Washington, in a town of spin and partisanship. Cathleen Berrick has worked at the Government Accountability Office for six years.

CATHLEEN BERRICK, GAO DIR. HOMELAND SECURITY & JUSTICE: Oftentimes, we'll make recommendations for them to strengthen programs or operations, so being able to see -- being in that position of being able to see the impact both within Congress and within the executive branch, it's really, really gratifying.

SYLVESTER: Morale is generally high and workers feel their jobs serve the public good and improve government agencies. The GAO was founded after World War I when the government's finances were in disarray.

The GAO is an independent nonpartisan federal agency that works for Congress uncovering waste, mismanagement and illegal activities.

Tom Bowling is the GAO's chief quality officer.

TOM BOWLING, CHIEF QUALITY OFFICER, GAO: We're not trying to please one side or the other on any issue, and that makes us credible.

SYLVESTER: Bowling says every year the GAO produces 1,200 reports on topics ranging from the war in Iraq to environmental issues. GAO analysts testify on Capitol Hill about 300 times a year. The topics they investigate are either requested by a member of Congress or are required by law, like oversight of the bank's TARP funds.

MAX STIER, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE: They're the eyes and ears of Congress, and so therefore they have huge impact on, you know, virtually any Congressional decision that's being made.

SYLVESTER: The Pentagon last year canceled the $35 billion award to Airbus to build its new fleet of refueling tankers, after the GAO found that the bidding process was flawed.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: It calls the shots, as it sees them, and gives us the facts. That's what Democrats and Republicans in Congress want. And I think that is a great service for the American people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: The GAO says they return about $114 on every dollar that's spent on them and if you tally it up over the years, that comes out to $58 billion.

But maintaining objectivity is key to their work, so all analysts working on a report must sign a report saying they have no conflicts of interest and once a year GAO employees have to disclose their personal investment, debt and other financial information -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: It's refreshing that something's working down there. Thanks very much Lisa Sylvester. Thanks Lisa.

Well, some other stories that we're following across the country.

Former president George H.W. Bush celebrated his 85th birthday today with a skydive. Bush performed a tandem jump with the army's Golden Knights in Kennebunkport, Maine. He landed safely. The entire Bush family was there to watch and this was the former president's seventh skydive. After today's jump he said he plans to do it again when he turns 90.

And here is quite a sight, a couple in Coral Springs, Florida, woke up in the middle of the night to find a car in their swimming pool and it turns out a teenager driving that car had swerved to avoid a cat. The driver escaped unhurt. The cat's ok. A towing company managed to remove the car.

Coming up, Iran could be at a historic turning point after today's presidential election. We'll assess the possible impact of the election on U.S. relations with Iran.

Also, Governor Sarah Palin tells CNN why she is furious with David Letterman, after he made a joke about her daughter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R), ALASKA: I think that that's, you know, pretty perverted. But it goes beyond that. Not just that joke, but this -- this insinuation that it's ok, it's acceptable to talk like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PILGRIM: We'll assess Governor Palin's increasing public profile, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Joining me now are three of the best political analysts in the country. We have Democratic strategist and columnist for salon.com, Joe Conason; we have professor of political science, professor of law at Vanderbilt University, Carol Swain, also a CNN contributor; and Ron Christie, former adviser to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and Ron is president of Christie Strategies.

Thank you all for being here this evening.

Let's start with Iran. Critical election, and it doesn't seem like it would be, but the results of this is absolutely critical to U.S. security. Ron, your thoughts on this?

RON CHRISTIE, PRESIDENT, CHRISTIE STRATEGIES: I think that's absolutely right. And I'm shocked. I mean, you would think that President Ahmadinejad would have run away with this election. He has a very firm grip on the country.

But I think it points to the fact that there are a lot of people -- younger people in Iran who want to have a little bit more freedom. They want to have a little bit more liberty, and I think of very strategic importance to the United States to make sure that we have a stable government there. This might be a crack that will allow new government to come in.

PILGRIM: Yes, the majority of the population under the age of 30, very young and very volatile, potential for change is enormous, if you could get the right government. What do you think?

JOE CONASON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I agree with that. I mean, I don't think it's really that surprising. I think the grip that Ahmadinejad has on the country is largely through illegitimate means and that there's been a long time wave of dissent against the Mullah's dictatorship there.

The most important thing for U.S. policy is that Mousavi wants -- has indicated that he's open to a broader negotiation over their nuclear program and that would be a great thing for the world.

PILGRIM: Carol?

CAROL SWAIN, PROFESSOR, VANDERBILT UNIVERSTIY: I think it's interesting what happens because I think if there's an upset or something that's perceived as an upset, the U.S. will be accused of interfering in some sort of way.

PILGRIM: Let's move on to some other things that are getting national press attention and that is the sort of war of words between Sarah Palin and David Letterman. It started about a joke. And then, of course, it didn't end as a joke. So, let's just listen to what was said first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PALIN: It goes beyond though David Letterman's crude, sexist, perverted joke about a 14-year-old girl being, quote-unquote, "knocked up by Alex Rodriguez". I think he's like 37-years old. I think that that's pretty perverted.

But it goes beyond that. Not just that joke but this insinuation that it's ok, it's acceptable to talk like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PILGRIM: Now, President Obama has requested the media leave his daughters out of the sort of jokes and debates, shouldn't the same be afforded to Governor Palin?

CHRISTIE: Of course, it should and I think it's a tragedy that we have a system right now where we have certain comedians, we have certain political opponents who not only go after the governor, but they go after her family. These children never asked to be put in the spotlight, they don't want to be thrust out into the national spotlight, it's wrong and I'm glad Governor Palin took such a strong against David Letterman.

CONASON: Her daughter is on the cover of "People" magazine, I think, currently, Bristol, and I don't think Governor Palin has ever hesitated to display or use her family for political gain.

SWAIN: I don't think that's the point.

CONASON: Now, wait, please. Letterman was wrong to say something like that about anybody's daughter, but I think -- I don't see how Governor Palin, by trying to reap more and more publicity from this is helping her 14-year-old daughter. To go on TV the way she just did and repeat what he said...

SWAIN: In all fairness, she...

CONASON: But, you know, she's looking for this. This is -- I think it's a sympathetic situation, but she's making herself unsympathetic.

PILGRIM: All right - Carol.

SWAIN: I find it very problematic. I don't know if you all remember when she -- the Halloween hanging of her in effigy, how it seems that it's OK for liberal commentators and comedians to say anything about conservatives, but if a conservative says any -- the slightest thing, then it's all over the news and there's a double standard and I don't believe that we should tolerate it. There's a clear double standard.

CONASON: I don't think anybody is tolerant.

SWAIN: Against what you can say about conservative conservatives.

CONASON: Oh, I don't think anybody is tolerating it. I think Letterman was forced to apologize because what he said was wrong.

SWAIN: It was not a sincere apology.

CHRISTIE: It was something that never should have been said. Children of politicians should be off limits and what he said was crude and above the pale and I think it should just be there and we should...

CONASON: Well, I'd take this more seriously if I'd heard more protest over the things that were said Chelsea Clinton when President Clinton was in the White House. John McCain said the worst things that was ever said about her and never really apologized, you know, on and on.

You know, Rush Limbaugh, the most admired man in the Republican Party, he used to say horrific things about this child who was in the White House and president Carter's children. So, it's not true it's a one-way street, it goes both ways, it's a deplorable in both directions.

PILGRIM: Well, there's no question that this touches a real nerve in debate, because everyone has children and everyone is quite quiet concerned about this. I'd to actually like to move on to another topic, and a Gallup poll recently asked Republicans who is the main person who speaks for the Republican Party, and almost half could not think of a single political leader. And we actually have a -- the results, we have Rush Limbaugh, 10 percent, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, John McCain, George Bush. But, you know, does this speak to a sort of lack of leadership vacuum, perhaps, in the Republican Party? Ron, I defer to your excellent opinion.

CHRISTIE: Thank you. With that caveat, though, I think, listen, if you had a chance to listen to Rush Limbaugh the other week, he said he had resigned as the self-anointed head of the Republican Party. I think if you'd taken a step back a couple years, people would have asked who is the head of the Democratic Party, they might have had a leader here and a leader there.

I think it's only natural when you have a new president and administration that we have important new voices that are emerging on the scene. This is no big deal. The Republicans are in very good shape right now. President Obama is putting forth a very interesting record for Republicans to run against, so this is much ado about nothing.

PILGRIM: All right, Carol, quick.

SWAIN: Oh, I would like to see, of the group, I believe that Newt Gingrich is the one that should be the spokesperson, because he clearly has a lot of intelligence and he would be my choice.

PILGRIM: All right, Joe, thoughts on this?

CONASON: Well, if they're in good shape now, I'd hate to see them in bad shape. You know, every poll shows that their popularity is declining. You know. there's -- it's hard to imagine what's going to happen to the Republican Party if it continues on the path of leadership of people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, whose own popularity numbers are pretty low.

Mike Murphy, who's a Republican strategist, one of the smartest guys around, wrote an essay in "Time" magazine this week that I think every Republican ought to read in which he explained that just from a demographic point of view, they're looking towards a decline future, kind of like the auto industry, I mean, it's -- the Republican Party and the auto industry, and unfortunately, newspapers, too, are on kind of on the down slope.

SWAIN: But the Democratic policies that are coming forth are losing popularity everyday and that's what new polling is showing.

CHRISTIE: And not only that, of course, if you look, the majority of the American people right now are disagreeing with the way the president's handling the economy. Republicans are in prime shape, we're in good shape.

PILGRIM: Yeah. It's great political debate. Joe Conason, Carol Swain, Ron Christie, thanks very much for being here. This week's shooting at the holocaust museum raises very serious questions about whether the U.S. should crack down on hate speech and that is the subject of tonight's "Face Off" debate.

Also, a historic election in Iran. What will it mean for the United States if Ahmadinejad loses?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: We have updated numbers now on Iran's historic presidential election. Now, according to Iran's semiofficial news agency, early results show hard-line President Ahmadinejad with a 67 percent vote and his chief opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi has a 30 percent.

Now, less than half of the votes have been counted and we all want to know tonight what it will mean for the United States and the world if Ahmadinejad loses or if he stays in power.

So, joining us now, two experts on Iran. We have Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Hooman Majd, an American-Iranian writer who is the author of "The Ayatollah Begs to Differ," he used to be Ahmadinejad's translator and he was just in Tehran last week.

Gentleman, with this kind of expertise, I'm sure we can get to some very serious analysis. I mean, the most important thing is what do we think this may mean for the united states? Your thoughts -- Majd.

HOOMAN MAJD, WRITER: Well, it depends on whether Ahmadinejad manages to win or if Mir-Hossein Mousavi wins. I think it means a lot to the United States, at a time when the United States' foreign policy focus is on the Middle East, whether it's the Palestinian-Israeli peace initiative or whether it's Afghanistan or Iraq, Iran, it plays into that equation and it's going to mean a lot in terms of how we deal with Iran.

Ahmadinejad has been very clear about how he would like to deal with the United States. Mousavi has been a lot more conciliatory, and in the age of Obama, I think one would hope that someone like Mousavi would be able to pull it off here. Right now the numbers don't look good, but that doesn't mean anything. We'll know better, much more tomorrow.

PILGRIM: What does it mean Mr. Sadjadpour? What do the numbers mean at this point?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT OF INT PEACE: Well, I think, Kitty, a lot of -- right now there's allegations of major impropriety. I think on one expected the numbers to be this lopsided.

What it means for the United States, I agree with Hooman, these elections have major implications for U.S./Iranian relations on one hand, but on the other hand, whoever wins, the most powerful leader in Iran is going to remain the Ayatollah Khomeini. And I think whether Ahmadinejad wins or it's Mousavi, U.S. Policy toward Iran won't really change, in the sense that I think the Obama administration will continue forward with engagement. It will be just that much more difficult to build confidence with Iran if Ahmadinejad is in power, if you have a president in Tehran who has denied the holocaust and is so belligerent to Israel.

PILGRIM: Right. Mr. Majd, you traveled to Iran several times in the spring, you just came back about 10 days ago, and you said you saw a major shift in mood there. I'd like to hear a little bit about that. And also, what are the dangers if this election is not decided? Will it cause instability?

MADJ: Well, I think, yes. I mean, there has been a major shift in the mood in Iran over the last four to five weeks. It was, Iran was pretty apathetic, the voters were pretty apathetic about four to five weeks ago, kind of feeling that it didn't matter who was president, ultimately as Karim says, the supreme leader made the calls. And there was general apathy were and people didn't really know Mousavi very well.

Just in the last two or three weeks the mood shifted dramatically. I think people came to a realization that things were better under Khomeini than they were under Ahmadinejad for a lot of people. The economy was better, social freedoms, there were more social freedoms, there was more freedom of the press. There were various things that, just in general people felt that, well, then it does make a difference.

And Khomeini came out and supported Mousavi in a very big way, held rallies for him. other clerics have supported Mousavi and other leading figures in the establishment have supported Mousavi. And people have come to realize there's a difference and I think that's one of the big changes in Iran over the last few weeks in terms of a mood swing towards Mousavi.

In terms of what would happen if not it's decided, well, the election will be decided. It will be decided either tomorrow or next week. If nobody gets 50 percent of the vote tomorrow, then it goes to a runoff between the top two contenders who are obviously at this point Ahmadinejad and Mousavi and there will be another runoff election next week. But, I think it will be decided. I just agree with Karim it's kind of shocking that the election commission in Iran has already announced that Ahmadinejad has essentially won the election.

And I don't think people are going to kind of put up with that. Right now Rafsanjani, who is very powerful ayatollah, is already talking about going and seeing the supreme leader about this. Mousavi has already talked about, as Karim pointed out, some irregularities, so it will be decided over the next 24 hours.

PILGRIM: You know, Mr. Sadjadpour, the last question, we're almost out of time. You know, of course, President Obama has to remain silent on this issue, because it's another country deciding their leader, but if there is some kind of disruption about this election, what kind of comment might be appropriate, or should he stay out of it for now?

SADJADPOUR: Well, I'm reminded of what Don Rumsfeld once said, we have to choose -- we have to deal with the Iranian leaders we have, not the Iranian leaders we wish we had. And as Hooman said, Iran plays a central role in so many different aspects of the Middle East and with the nuclear program and Iran's role in Afghanistan; we don't have the luxury of dealing with our Iranian counterpart, so even if Ahmadinejad pulls it off and it's a fraud election, I think the U.S. policy is going to continue forward with engagement. And I do think that with these overtures from the Obama administration, it's going to be difficult for these hard-liners in Tehran to continue to justify the gratuitously hostile anti-Americanism. And I think the Obama administration, as a result of Obama's overtures, we may start to see cleavages created within the Iranian regime.

PILGRIM: All right, gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much for your expert analysis. Karim Sadjadpour and Hooman Majd, thank you.

MAJD: Thank you.

PILGRIM: A reminder now to vote in tonight's poll. Do you think that special interest groups have too much influence in our judicial system? Yes or no? Cast your vote at loudobbs. com. We'll bring you the results in just a few minutes.

Coming up, the deadly shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, it's raising important questions about the line between free speech and hate speech and that's the topic of our "Face Off" debate, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington reopened to the public today, and hundreds of people lined up this morning to visit the museum for the first time since Wednesday's deadly shooting. A security officer was shot and killed when a man entered the museum and allegedly opened fire. Now, the suspected gunman was well known to civil rights groups for his racist and anti- Semitic writings. The tragedy is raising important questions about hate speech, and just how far our First Amendment protections should go, and that is the topic of our "Face Off" debate, tonight.

Joining me now is Michael Gross, he's a constitutional lawyer, and he believes that limiting free speech is dangerous to our society. And Mark Smith, also a constitutional lawyer, he believes the First Amendment should not tie our hands when dealing with hatemongers,

And gentlemen, what an important discussion to have tonight. You know, I have to say that this raises such an important issue. A few weeks ago, I was talking to the FBI and they said we monitor hate groups, we do have them in our sights, but we do nothing until they actually cross the line and break the law. Now, when you have a situation like this, the debate arises, why weren't they monitored more carefully? How could they -- I don't know, what are your thoughts about where the line can be drawn between the allowing of hate speech and free speech? MARK SMITH, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTY: Well sure, there's very little doubt, of course, that, for example, in Pearl Harbor are you want to stop the Japanese before they start dropping the bombs, not after they drop the bombs. Here the role of law enforcement is to serve and to protect. If they're drawing the chalk lines around a person's body, it means they've acted too late. So, obviously, we have free speech in America, but with that said, once you begin to hear, by surveillance or otherwise, that people have stopped just talking about things and started actually plan or plot to do something, to go down the street and kill Bob or to go attack something or to commit a fraud or anything that's illegal, once they start talking specifics about planning and plotting, then, of course, it's appropriate for the law enforcement to step in and to stop that, but the only way to do that, first and foremost, is if law enforcement is permitted to actually surveil and to watch and to observe.

But, of course, many people on the left don't like that. They view that as a violation of civil liberties, and I say if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the big deal if people are listening in?

PILGRIM: Yeah, well you know, I didn't mean to imply they were listening in on conversations at all. Go ahead, your response to this?

MICHAEL GROSS, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTY: Well, it's not about the quality of law enforcement, it's about the quality of life. Listening in would improve the quality of law enforcement, put microphones everywhere, put them in everybody's house, put them in every room, put them in every school, put them in every workplace, with cameras, and we'll have great law enforcement, and we may as well just tear up the Constitution, we don't understand what it's about.

The more this is open and breathes freely, the marketplace of free ideas, exchanging, that is where truth is found, not in driving them into covens and hideaways. No. No more surveillance. There is problem, the problem is a serious one, racism. We and us and them, dividing us stereotypes, but open it up. You know, Hyde Park has speakers corner, everybody can get up and say whatever they want. That's what we need to do, give these people microphones, not muzzles.

PILGRIM: Well, you know, we've seen so many hate crimes in recent months, it does appear that there are quite a few vicious things being said and hate crimes appear to be on the rise.

SMITH: Right, and of course, for example, you know Michael cease suggestion that everybody should be listened to all the time is of course absurd. There are groups, there are groups among us who obviously have historically been prone to violence, for example, the Islamic fascist are among us and obviously somebody that we have to be monitoring.

Earlier this week, I know we're talking about the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, but why aren't we talking about the Muslim convert in Little Rock, Arkansas, earlier this week who, in the name of Allah, went out and shot and killed an American soldier and admitted to doing it. Why aren't we talking about that hate crime? Because once again, we pick and choose, you know, things of that nature, in terms of the hate and crimes we cover here in the media. But the fact is there are bad people who do bad things to good people all the time. And you know, what the real lesson of this is, frankly, is that at the end of the day, although the job of police is to serve and protect, we all better be able to protect ourselves with firearms because you never know when you're going to have to confront evil. And as we saw here, the use of a firearm stopped a bad man from doing more things to good people. Guns save lives.

PILGRIM: Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead.

GROSS: Well, because the people of Washington, D.C. who are suffering most because everybody's walking around with a firearm, because the Second Amendment is read that way, although federal judges don't think it should be, that's not the way to stop violence. That's why a man with a rifle was able to walk into a museum, because in D.C., it's insane to believe, but no, it didn't occur to anybody that he ought to be stopped.

More guns, more violence, more innocent people are killed. Let's educate, let's integrate, let's understand each other, not divide each other. Cut out the sneaky surveillance, not in this country, that's Kim Jong-Il government.

PILGRIM: You know, but we have to bring it back to the First Amendment. I mean, the ability to say what you believe is a very important right in this country, is it not?

GROSS: It's not just important right in this country, Kitty, please, excuse me. It was understood, as a right of humanity and natural right, and what the First Amendment says is it doesn't create freedom of speech, it says "the freedom of speech shall not be abridged." It had to go to the Second Amendment, carrying guns is not a natural right, to create the right to carry guns, if you interpret the Second Amendment that way. Very different.

SMITH: Well, free speech, of course, is not absolute. you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

GROSS: Yes, you can.

SMITH: I can't say to you and lie to you and commit fraud to steal your money. Right? There's all sorts of things I'm not allowed to do even in a world where you have a robust First Amendment. And at the end of the day, sure you can talk and use hate-filled words all you want, but once you begin to talk about planning and plotting to commit a crime, to kill someone, to engage in violence, you've crossed the line and law enforcement should be there to serve and protect. But the only way that can realistically do that is if they're able to know about it before you show up at the museum with a gun, which you aren't allowed to own because, of course, he was a felon from the 1980s when he tried to attack the Reagan Federal Reserve Board.

PILGRIM: Gentlemen...

GROSS: It's not a law enforcement problem. I'm sorry.

PILGRIM: All right, no. You know, it is just a fascinating topic and I hope that everyone out there is discussing it as this program ends. But thank you very much, Mark Smith and Michael Gross, thank you.

GROSS: Campbell.

Coming up at the top of the hour, Campbell Brown -- Campbell.

CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: Hey there, Kitty, thanks very much.

Just ahead, we'll talk about the historic election in Iran. At this hour, it's hard-line president and his challenger both claiming victory. We're going to have the very latest. And we'll ask, does today's huge turnout signal a revolution of sorts in the making or is it business as usual no matter who wins?

Also tonight's newsmaker is the co-pilot of the plane that went down in the Hudson and he says there are way too many rookies in airliner cockpits.

And tonight's great debate: is President Obama selling out the gay community? Plus, sex, drugs, and murder. A young American college student on trial in Italy accused of killing her roommate. Did she do it? All at the top of the hour -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much -- Campbell.

In "Heroes," tonight, Sergeant First Class Ronald Strickland, he braved enemy fire trying to rescue the crew of an Army helicopter, shot down by the Taliban.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Time now for our "Heroes." it's our weekly tribute to the men and women who serve this country in uniform. And tonight, the story of Sergeant First Class Ronald Strickland honored with a Silver Star for his brave and heroic actions in Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM (voice-over): Sergeant First Class Ronald Strickland, Fourth Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division.

SERGEANT 1ST CLASS RONALD STRICKLAND, U.S. ARMY: I handle all of the jumps.

I usually coordinate a jump at least every two weeks.

It's a very important job keeping all your soldiers as current as possible.

PILGRIM: Strickland was also responsible for keeping his troops safe in southern Afghanistan in 2007. Convoy missions were routine, but the mission on may 29, he will never forget.

STRICKLAND: On the way to Kajaki, it was just one nightmare after the other: flat tires, tires falling off the hub. We finally got there, finally got close, and I looked north, there was vehicles coming down south towards us and we'd picked up their com (ph), that they were ready to fight. As soon as I look up, I could see the outline of a Chinook, and I saw what looked -- just a streak of smoke and an explosion.

PILGRIM: Strickland and his men immediately pushed forward to the helicopter crash site, despite multiple warnings of an ambush.

STRICKLAND: Half of the birds in a compound and half of its out, so I sent three individuals, three of my guys around to help secure that compound and then the medic went up in the aircraft to check for survivors. We were in the aircraft and rounds are cooking off, flares are popping.

PILGRIM: There were no survivors.

STRICKLAND: We were in a bad situation with six guys, you know, seven guys trying to defend a crash site. The Apache overhead -- when he opened up, his rate of fire was so intense, I thought the whole time it was two apaches, but it was just one overhead, that guy saved us and without a doubt, when that Specter gun ship got on station, he definitely, he definitely, both of those together, they saved the seven of us.

PILGRIM: A year later, President Bush attended a ceremony honoring Strickland's bravery during Ft. Bragg's annual all American Week celebration.

STRICKLAND: It was definitely the highlight of my life, so far.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: A wonderful American. We wish him well.

Tonight's poll results, 98 percent of you think special interest groups have too much influence in our judicial system. Thanks for being with us tonight. Campbell Brown starts right now.